BILL ANALYSIS AB 54 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 54 (Murray) As Amended May 1, 1997 Majority vote JUDICIARY 10-4 APPROPRIATIONS 11-6 Ayes: Escutia, Aroner, Caldera, Ayes: Migden, Baca, Cardenas, Kuehl, Figueroa, Floyd, Keeley, Kuehl Martinez, Papan, Perata, Ortiz, Shelley, Villaraigosa Shelley, Sweeney, Thomson, Villaraigosa Nays: Morrow, Baugh, McClintock, Nays: Poochigian, Ackerman, Aguiar, Pacheco Bordonaro, Olberg, Thompson SUMMARY : Authorizes state recognition of domestic partners. Among other things, it requires that domestic partners share a common residence, agree to be jointly responsible for each other's basic living expenses, be at least 18 years of age, and file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership (DDP) with the Secretary of State. It also requires health facilities to allow a patient's domestic partner and relatives of a domestic partner to visit with the patient. Specifically, this bill : 1) Defines domestic partners and provides that a domestic partnership shall be established when all of the following occur: a) both persons have a common residence; b) both persons agree to be jointly responsible for each other's basic living expenses during the domestic partnership; c) neither person is married or a member of another domestic partnership; d) the two persons are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married to each other in this state; e) both persons are at least 18 years of age; and f) both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership (DDP) with the Secretary of State (SOS). 2) Provides for the registration of domestic partners with the SOS by: a) requiring the SOS to provide forms for establishing and terminating domestic partnerships; and b) allowing the SOS to establish, regulate and charge fees for the actual costs of processing the above forms. 3) Prohibits a person from filing a new DDP until at least six months after the date that a Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership (NTDP) has been filed with the SOS (unless the previous domestic partnership ended as the result of the death of one of the partners). 4) Requires health facilities to allow a patient's domestic partner, the children of the patient's domestic partner, and AB 54 Page 2 the domestic partner of a patient's parent or child to visit with the patient. 5) Adds references to domestic partners to the numerous references to a spouse, other relatives or the spouses of other relatives throughout the Probate Code provisions regarding conservatorship and statutory wills. 6) Clarifies that the proposed new statewide registration scheme pre-empts local ordinances except insofar as the local ordinances offer greater protections than the statewide registration scheme. EXISTING LAW : 1) Does not provide for state recognition of unmarried individuals living in the same household. 2) Provides a statutory scheme within the Probate Code for the appointment, description of rights and responsibilities, and termination of appointment of conservators and guardians. 3) Provides for a statutory will with appropriate forms. 4) Does not require health facilities to allow non-family members to visit with a patient. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : This bill essentially mirrors AB 2810 (Katz) of 1994, which was vetoed, and AB 627 (Katz) of 1995, which was held in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, to provide for the statutory recognition of domestic partners in California. According to the 1990 U.S. Census report, there were a total of 10,399,700 households in California. Of these, 495,223 (approximately 5%) consist of unmarried couples. Of the households consisting of unmarried couples: a) 93% are opposite-sex couples; and b) 7% are same-sex couples. There are approximately 35,000 senior citizen couples in California, which constitute approximately 7% of the total number of unmarried partners. According to the author, the growing numbers of non-traditional families make the recognition of domestic partnerships increasingly imperative. The author states, "While there is much talk today about the need for strong families and family values, most of this talk fails to recognize that there are currently hundreds of thousands of families in California that do not consist of a married couple. We simply cannot afford to ignore these families." AB 54 Page 3 Analysis prepared by : Drew Liebert / ajud / (916) 445-4560 FN 030726