BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Joseph L. Dunn, Chair
2005-2006 Regular Session
AB 2169 A
Assembly Member Montanez B
As Introduced
Hearing Date: June 20, 2006 2
Government Code 1
BCP:cjt 6
9
SUBJECT
Public Records: Confidentiality
-Extension of the Safe At Home Project-
DESCRIPTION
This would delete the January 1, 2008 sunset provision for
the Address Confidentiality for Victims of Domestic
Violence and Stalking program, thus making it a permanent
program administered by the Secretary of State. That
program, part of the Safe at Home project, allows victims
of domestic violence or stalking to use an alternative
address on public records to retain their anonymity.
BACKGROUND
The Safe at Home project, created by SB 489 [Alpert, (Ch.
1005, Stats. of 1998, effective July 1, 1999] allows
victims of domestic violence or stalking to apply to the
Secretary of State to request an alternate address to be
used in public records. The purpose of that program is to
"enable state and local agencies to respond to requests for
public records without disclosing the changed name or
location of a victim of domestic violence or stalking . .
." [Gov Code 6205.] Participating individuals are given a
Safe at Home post office box in Sacramento; and mail is
forwarded from the post office box to their confidential
home address. The 2005 Special Report on Safe at Home
reported more than 2,200 active members of the program. Of
those participants, 41 percent are children.
(more)
AB 2169 (Montanez)
Page 2
In 2000, SB 1318 (Alpert) included victims of stalking with
the program. The original sunset date of 2005 was
extended, in 2002, by AB 797 (Shelley) to January 1, 2008.
Accordingly, AB 2169 would delete the sunset provision,
permanently extending the Safe at Home program as it
applies to victims of stalking and domestic violence.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law , the California Public Records Act,
requires state and local agencies to make their public
records available for public inspection, unless
disclosure is otherwise exempted. [Gov. Code 6250 et.
seq.] Existing law defines public records as "any
writing containing information relating to the conduct of
the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained
by any state or local agency . . ." [Gov. Code 6252
(f).]
Existing law , the Safe at Home project, allows victims of
domestic violence or stalking to request an alternative
address, designated by the Secretary of State, to serve
as their address in public records. Subject to certain
exemptions, state and local agencies must use a program
participant's alternative address, upon request of that
participant, when creating, modifying or maintaining
public records. [Gov. Code 6205 et. seq.]
Existing law sunsets Safe at Home Project provisions
regarding victims of domestic violence or stalking on
January 1, 2008. [Gov. Code 6211.]
This bill would delete the sunset provision, permanently
extending the Safe at Home project as it applies to
victims of domestic violence or stalking.
2. Existing law extends the Safe at Home project to
reproductive health care service providers, employees,
volunteers, or patients, until January 1, 2008. [Gov.
Code 6215 et. seq.]
This bill would not modify that sunset provision.
COMMENT
AB 2169 (Montanez)
Page 3
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author,
[t]he Safe at Home Project has helped thousands
of victims of domestic violence and stalking as
well as reproductive health providers live a new
life without fear of being discovered by their
assailant. This legislation is needed so that
the program may become permanent and continue to
provide mail and confidentiality service to its
participants.
Accordingly, AB 2169 would delete the January 1, 2008
sunset provision for the Safe at Home project for victims
of stalking and domestic violence. The author maintains
that this permanent extension would help alleviate the
burden of stalking and domestic violence on its victims.
2. No opposition to the removal of the sunset provision
The bill creating the Safe at Home project, SB 489
(Alpert), included the sunset provision to apparently
address concerns raised about the cost and
appropriateness of the Secretary of State to administer
the program. In the September 11, 1998 Senate Floor
Analysis for SB 489, the Department of Finance, in
opposition, is quoted as stating:
While we appreciate the need to enhance the
protection of domestic violence victims, we note
that it is questionable as to whether or not it
is appropriate for a state agency to administer a
program such as the one this bill would create.
We further question whether the Secretary of
State is the appropriate agency to implement and
manage such a program since it is not at all
typical of the programs and workload the
Secretary of State currently manages. To the
extent this bill requires the Secretary of State
to create new operating systems, and requires
additional training and security systems, we
believe it could hamper the effectiveness of
current Secretary of State programs.
AB 2169 (Montanez)
Page 4
The previous extension of the sunset date by SB 797
(Alpert) also received opposition from the Secretary of
State due to concerns about cost. Those concerns
appeared to be centered on the addition of reproductive
health care service providers, employees, volunteers or
patients to the project.
In contrast, AB 2169 has received no opposition. The
lengthy list of supporters include the California
Secretary of State, Office of the Attorney General, and
State of California Commission on the Status of Women.
Thus, previous concerns about the cost of administering
the program do not appear to be present, or are
outweighed by the demonstrated benefits of the program.
3. Benefits as a result of the removal of the sunset
provision
As stated by the Bruce McPherson, Secretary of State, in
the Safe at Home pamphlet, the project provides a "new
beginning to a brighter future and anonymity from harmful
people." AB 2169 would provide project participants who
are at risk of domestic violence or stalking with the
security that their personal contact information will
remain protected in the future. This protection includes
DMV record suppression and confidential voter
registration and name change.
4. Application only to domestic violence and stalking
participants, subject to the enactment of SB 1062 (Bowen)
As stated above, AB 2169 would only remove the Safe at
Home sunset date for the Address Confidentiality for
Victims of Domestic Violence and Stalking program. That
removal would be appropriate due to the five to seven
years of demonstrated success for those program
participants. In comparison, the extension of Safe at
Home to reproductive health care service individuals has
been in place for four years. Especially in light of SB
1062 (Bowen), the sponsor should consider extending or
repealing the sunset provision for those individuals, as
well. (See Comment 5).
AB 2169 (Montanez)
Page 5
5. Impact of SB 1062's proposed addition of victims of
sexual assault to the Address Confidentiality for Victims
of Domestic Violence and Stalking program
SB 1062 (Bowen), currently in the Assembly Judiciary
Committee, would add victims of sexual assault to the
Safe at Home Project. That expansion would occur by
placing victims of sexual assault within the same program
as victims of domestic violence and stalking. Thus, if
both AB 2169 and SB 1062 are enacted, a new category
would be added to the then-permanent Safe at Home
project. That result would leave only reproductive
health care service providers, employees, volunteers, or
patients with a sunset provision, even though victims of
sexual assault have no proven track record within the
Safe at Home project.
Accordingly, it seems somewhat unfair to justify adding a
new category within a potentially permanent program,
while reproductive health care service individuals have
participated in the program for four years and still
remain subject to a January 1, 2008 sunset provision.
SHOULD THE SUNSET PROVISIONS FOR THE ENTIRE SAFE AT HOME
PROJECT BE REPEALED?
Support: American Association of University Women; Asian
Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence;
California Association of Marriage and Family
Therapists (CAMFT); California District Attorneys
Association; California Judges Association;
California Law Enforcement Association of Records
Supervisors; California Nurses Association;
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence;
California Peace Officers' Association; California
Police Chiefs' Association; California Secretary of
State; California State Bar, Family Law Section;
Consumer Action; County of Yuba, Program and Victims
Services; El Dorado Women's Center; Family Violence
Prevention Fund; Haven Hills Inc.; Lambda Letters
Project; Los Angeles City Attorney's Office; Los
Angeles County District Attorney's Office; Marin
Abused Women's Services; The Marjaree Mason Center;
National Organization for Women; Office of the
Attorney General, Department of Justice; Planned
AB 2169 (Montanez)
Page 6
Parenthood - CA; Privacy Rights Clearinghouse; San
Diego Councilmember Donna Frye; San Diego Family
Justice Center; San Diego Police Department; Sexual
Assault and Domestic Violence Center, Woodland;
State of California, Commission on the Status of
Women; State Public Affairs Committee, Junior
Leagues of CA; Women Escaping a Violent Environment
- WEAVE Inc.; three individuals.
Opposition: None Known
HISTORY
Source: Calegislation
Related Pending Legislation: SB 1062 (Bowen), would expand
the Safe at Home project to victims of sexual
assault. This bill is currently in the Assembly
Judiciary Committee.)
Prior Legislation: SB 489 (Alpert), Chapter 1005, Statutes
of 1998, established the Safe at Home project.
SB 1318 (Alpert), Chapter 562, Statutes of
2000, extended the Safe at Home project to
victims of stalking, and revised procedures
relating to termination of certification of
participants.
AB 205 (Leach), Chapter 33, Statutes of 2000,
extended Safe at Home protections to an
individuals' change of name.
AB 797 (Shelley), Chapter 380, Statutes of
2002, extended the sunset date from January 1,
2005 to January 1, 2008
Prior Vote: Asm. Jud (Ayes 9, Noes 0)
Asm. Appr. (Ayes 18, Noes 0)
Asm. Floor (Ayes 80, Noes 0)
**************