BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Joseph L. Dunn, Chair
2005-2006 Regular Session
SB 1364 S
Senator Battin B
As Amended April 18, 2006
Hearing Date: April 25, 2006 1
Family Code 3
BCP:cjt 6
4
SUBJECT
Marriage Licenses
DESCRIPTION
This bill would allow an applicant or witnesses to a
marriage license or certificate of registry to use their
mailing address instead of a residential address for
verification.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments as to be
proposed in committee.)
BACKGROUND
In California, many documents are public records by their
very nature. These documents include birth, death, and
marriage certificates and divorce, property and court
records. Many of these documents, including marriage
licenses, contain personally identifying information such
as names and addresses. Policy-wise, the public has a
right to know whose is born, married, divorced, subject to
a court judgment or owns a piece of property.
As an example, marriage licenses must contain the identity,
real name, residential address and age of both parties.
Prior to solemnizing the marriage, parties receive a
marriage license and a certificate of registry. The
certificate of registry must be filled out by the
individual solemnizing the marriage, along with the
signature and address of one witness. Upon completion and
(more)
SB 1364 (Battin)
Page 2
filing of the certificate of registry, the county clerk may
issue a marriage certificate to the parties. The license
and certificate of registry are public documents and stay
on file with the county clerk. The public nature of that
information helps prevent simultaneous and other invalid
marriages.
Individuals are increasingly concerned about the privacy of
their information, especially residential addresses. This
bill would allow applicants and witnesses to use their
mailing address instead of residential address on marriage
licenses and certificates of registry. Similar provisions
are included in AB 1102 (Hancock), sponsored by the
California Association of Clerks and Election Officials,
which is currently in this committee after having passed
the Assembly on an a 42 - 32 vote. An earlier version of
this bill would have removed the address requirement
completely for public safety officials as very broadly
defined. Instead, this bill as proposed to be amended,
provides all individuals with the opportunity to protect
their residential address by using a mailing address as
suggested by the county clerks in AB 1102.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law requires parties to receive a marriage license
prior to entering into a marriage [Fam. Code Section 350.]
Existing law requires applicants for a marriage license to
obtain a certificate of registry of marriage from the
county clerk. The person solemnizing the marriage shall
complete the certificate along with one witness to the
marriage ceremony. The witness must place their signature
and address on the certificate. The certificate is then
returned to the county recorder. [Fam. Code 359(d)]
Existing law requires a marriage license to show the
identity of the parties to the marriage, the parties' real
and full names, places of residence, and the parties' ages.
The county clerk transmits copies of issued licenses to the
county recorder. [Fam. Code Sections 351, 357.]
Existing law prevents disclosure of information concerning
a confidential marriage to the public, aside from verifying
the existence of a marriage, absent a court order issued
SB 1364 (Battin)
Page 3
upon a showing of good cause. [Fam. Code Section 511.]
This bill would allow both the marriage license applicants
and witnesses to a marriage to provide their mailing
address in lieu of residential address on the marriage
license and certificate of registry.
COMMENT
1. Author's amendments to be offered in committee
The author proposes to amend SB 1364 by striking the
entire bill and instead adding Family Code Section 351.5,
which would allow any applicant or witness to a marriage,
upon request, to use a mailing address in lieu of
residential address on the marriage license or
certificate of registry.
Concerns were expressed that the prior contents were
overly broad by eliminating any address requirement for
"public safety officials" and by inclusion of a very
broad range of public safety personnel, including their
sons and daughters, which could compromise the database
of marriage licenses and certificates of registry.
2. Stated need for the bill
Under current law, marriage licenses and certificates of
registry require the residential address of the
applicants and witnesses. The California Judges
Association, sponsor of SB 1364, contends that providing
a residential address on these documents is an
unnecessary public disclosure. In a compromise between
the requirement to validate parties or witnesses to a
marriage and privacy concerns, this bill as proposed to
be amended would allow all individuals to use their
mailing address instead of residential address on
marriage licenses and certificates of registry. Thus,
rather than listing their home addresses, judges could
use their court address instead or perhaps even the
mailing address for the California Judges Association.
RATHER THAN REQUIRING ANY MAILING ADDRESS, SHOULD THIS
BILL REQUIRE ETIHER A RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, EMPLOYMENT
SB 1364 (Battin)
Page 4
ADDRESS OR U.S. PO BOX?
3. Necessity of address
Current law requires marriage licenses to include the
parties' residential addresses. The purpose of this
provision is to provide some way to identify and contact
the actual parties to the marriage. For example, if a
marriage license were to contain only the names John
Smith and Jane Smith, anyone attempting to verify the
parties to the marriage may have great difficulty
contacting them without an address. Considering the
increasing population of many cities within the state,
each city may contain hundreds of individuals with
similar names. In cases where an individual may seek
verification of a marriage, such as to check for possible
bigamy, a mere name on a marriage license would be
insufficient.
Similarly, addresses are required for witnesses to the
ceremony on the certificate of registry. These
individuals witness the ceremony and verify that the
marriage, in fact, occurred. In cases where the actual
marriage is disputed, parties must track down these
witnesses to the ceremony for verification. Requiring an
address for a witness, as for the applicants, provides a
starting point by which to track down the individual.
SB 1364 would allow these individuals to substitute a
mailing address for their residential address, upon
request. As with a residential address, a mailing
address provides a starting point for anyone seeking to
verify the existence of the marriage. Additionally, this
option allows parties who are concerned about the public
disclosure of their residential address to use an
alternate address.
For example, if a district attorney applies for a
marriage license, that individual may wish to prevent
individuals from discovering his or her residential
address. Under this bill, the district attorney could
instead place any valid mailing address on the marriage
license. Allowing this substitution prevents unnecessary
disclosure of the residential address and provides a
possible way to verify the marriage or to contact the
SB 1364 (Battin)
Page 5
party.
4. Protecting privacy interests and the ability to locate
individuals
Current law requires applicants for a marriage license
and witnesses to a marriage to place their residential
address on the marriage license and certificate of
registry. These documents are filed with the county
clerk and stored as public records. As these are public
records, any member of the public can inspect them during
reasonable business hours. As a result, individual
residential addresses are available for public discovery.
The purpose of including a parties' or witness's
residential address is not to provide the public with the
location of their residence, but to provide a way to
track down the individual to verify the marriage. The
California Judge's Association, sponsor, brought this
bill to address concerns about the public availability of
residential addresses for members of the judiciary within
California. This concern can be extended to the public
at large. For example, perhaps a woman was battered by
an ex-husband who will eventually be released from
prison. Upon application for a license for a second
marriage, that woman may wish to use an alternate address
from her residence to prevent the ex-husband from
locating her. SB 1364 would allow her to protect the
privacy of her residential address by substituting her
mailing address.
By allowing the use of mailing addresses in lieu of
residential addresses, SB 1364 does make it more
difficult to track down witnesses or parties to a
marriage for verification purposes, especially
considering that fact that a mailing address can be any
address an individual possibly could receive mail at. A
partial solution to this difficulty is to limit the types
of mailing addresses that may be used by the witness or
party, as suggested in an earlier comment.
For example, an investigator may wish to verify whether a
marriage was voluntary or under duress. In an attempt to
track down the witness to the marriage, the investigator
SB 1364 (Battin)
Page 6
finds the address of the witness on the filed certificate
of registry. SB 1364 would allow any mailing address to
be used on either the marriage license or certificate of
registry. While the address still provides a starting
point for locating the witness, it may not be as specific
as a residential address. A mailing address could simply
be the address of a friend who had previously agreed to
forward mail to that individual. Accordingly, the
investigator may have to go through various historical
records, which may or may not exist, to track down the
individual. In contrast, records for a residential
address, employment address or U.S. Post Office box
likely contain vital information about the individual
including a potential forwarding address.
SHOULD PERMISSIBLE SUBSTITUTE MAILING ADDRESSES BE
SPECIFIED?
Furthermore, if the usable address is limited to a
residential address, employment address, or U.S. Post
Office box, many of the problems relating to use of a
non-standard mailing address are avoided.
5. Confidential marriages
Under existing law, individuals can enter into a
confidential marriage if they "have been living together
as husband and wife." [Fam. Code Section 500].
Confidential marriages shield a couple's information from
public view absent a court order upon a showing of good
cause. Similar to those entering into a public marriage,
confidential marriages require receipt of a marriage
license, filling out of a certificate, and filing of the
certificate with the county clerk. Unlike public
marriages, the information contained within those
documents is private. Public disclosure of information
contained in the license and certificate, aside from the
existence of a marriage, can only be released pursuant to
a court order upon a showing of good cause.
This bill provides an alternative for individuals who
desire not to disclose their residential address by
allowing them to use any mailing address in a public
marriage.
SB 1364 (Battin)
Page 7
6. Identical provisions of AB 1102 (Hancock)
As mentioned above, the California Association of Clerks
and Election Officials are sponsors of AB 1102 (Hancock)
which contains several provisions that would allow all
individuals to use a mailing address on a marriage
license or certificate of registry. The fact that county
clerks are the sponsor of AB 1102 is telling. These
county clerks are responsible for transmitting marriage
licenses and certificates of registry to the county
recorder. If allowing these addresses would corrupt the
public records that they are responsible for, the clerks
presumably would not suggest this provision in AB 1102.
While AB 1102 revives and recasts numerous provisions
relating to marriage, SB 1364 would duplicate the effect
of several of those provisions. Duplicating the effect
of those AB 1102 provisions allows the author of this
bill to fulfill his intent to protect individuals from
the unnecessary public disclosure of their residential
addresses, while ensuring that these individuals may be
located when necessary.
Support: California District Attorneys Association (CDAA);
Peace Officers Research Association of California
(PORAC); California State Sheriffs' Association; Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department; Judicial
Council; California Judges Association (CJA); Chief
Probation Officers of California (CPOC)
Opposition: None Known
HISTORY
Source: California Judges Association
Related Pending Legislation: AB 1102 (Hancock), would
revise and recast various provisions
relating to marriage including
allowing mailing addresses on
marriage licenses and certificates of
registry. (This bill is awaiting a
hearing in this committee.)
Prior Legislation: None Known
SB 1364 (Battin)
Page 8
**************