BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2007-2008 Regular Session
AB 1168 A
Assemblymember Jones B
As Amended July 2, 2007
Hearing Date: July 10, 2007 1
Civil Code; Commercial Code; 1
Education Code; Government Code 6
SIK/ADM 8
SUBJECT
Social Security numbers
DESCRIPTION
This bill would impose a number of restrictions on the use
of Social Security numbers in public records. With the
proposed author's amendments, this bill would require all
local agencies, except county recorders, to redact a social
security number from any record filed with the agency on or
after July 1, 2008
before disclosing it to the public. This bill would also
require these local agencies to redact a social security
number from a document presented for filing or recording on
or after July 1, 2008. This bill would require county
recorders to create a dual records system made up of
"official records" which contain a social security number
but are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act
(except pursuant to a subpoena or court order) and "public
records" which are an exact copy of the official record,
but the social security number is truncated so that only
the last four digits are displayed. The bill would allow a
recorder, if approved by its county board of supervisors,
to charge up to $1 for recording a document to pay for the
system.
This bill would require the Secretary of State to truncate
a social security number before disclosing a record to the
public. The bill would also allow the Secretary of State to
reject a filing pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code
(more)
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 2 of ?
(UCC) that contains a social security number, and it would
amend UCC forms to delete the line for a social security
number. This bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to
truncate Social Security numbers on lien abstracts and
other records before disclosing them to the public.
This bill would also require the Office of Privacy
Protection to create a task force to review the use of
Social Security numbers by colleges and universities and
report back to the Legislature by July 1, 2009, on
recommendations to minimize the collection, use, and
retention of Social Security numbers.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered
in committee)
BACKGROUND
Social Security numbers were originally created to track
workers' earnings and eligibility for social security
programs, but in recent years the numbers have been used
for purposes entirely unrelated to the social security
system. In fact, the number is used widely as a unique
identifier by both the public and the private sector and
has been called the "most frequently used recordkeeping
number in the United States."
Social Security numbers are often used to verify identity,
and, in the wrong hands, can be used by an identity thief
to fraudulently open credit card or utility accounts,
access financial accounts, or obtain loans, among other
things. In addition to a name and date of birth, a social
security number is one of the three pieces of information
most sought by identity thieves, making its easy
availability, particularly in public records, of special
concern. This bill would reduce the use of Social Security
numbers in public records.
Recent security breaches at colleges and universities have
highlighted the vulnerability of the personal information
collected and maintained by these entities. A chronology of
data breaches maintained by the Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse indicates that many breaches occur at
institutions of higher learning. For example, in 2006,
hackers gained access to a University of California, Los
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 3 of ?
Angeles database which contained the personal information
of current and former students, faculty, staff, and student
applicants. It was reported that 800,000 records, which
contained names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, and
home addresses, were breached. This bill would require the
Office of Privacy Protection to convene a task force to
review colleges and universities' use of Social Security
numbers and develop recommendations.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1.Existing law places various restrictions on the use of
Social Security numbers including prohibiting the public
posting or display of an individual's social security
number. These restrictions do not apply to documents
required to be open to the public. (Civil Code Section
1798.85.)
Existing law , the California Public Records Act, provides
that public records of state and local agencies are open
to inspection, unless exempt. (Government Code Section
6250 et seq.)
Existing law , the Information Practices Act, imposes
limitations on the collection and disclosure of personal
information, including Social Security numbers, by state
agencies; local agencies are specifically exempted.
(Civil Code Section 1798.3.)
Existing law expressly requires the collection of a
Social Security number in certain instances, including in
an abstract of judgment requiring the payment of money
(Code of Civil Procedure Section 674); an abstract of
judgment ordering a party to pay spousal or child support
(Family Code Section 4506); and a tax lien. (Revenue and
Taxation Code Section 2191.3.)
Existing law prohibits employers, beginning January 1,
2008, from using more than the last four digits of an
employee's Social Security number when providing
employees with an itemized statement of earnings. (Labor
Code Section 226(a).)
Existing federal law , the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
requires a credit reporting agency to truncate a
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 4 of ?
consumer's Social Security number in his or her credit
report, upon the consumer's request. (Fair Credit
Reporting Act, Section 609(a)(1)(A), 15 U.S.C. 1681g.)
This bill , with the proposed author's amendments, would
require a local agency, before disclosing a record to the
public, to redact a Social Security number from any
record filed with the agency on or after July 1, 2008,
that is required to be open to the public. This bill
would also require a local agency, beginning July 1,
2008, to redact a Social Security number from a document
presented for filing or recording on or after July 1,
2008. This bill would further specify that these
provisions do not apply to county recorders (they are
required to instead establish a dual records system as
described below). The redaction requirements also do not
apply to the disclosure of death records.
This bill would provide that no person, entity, or
government agency may present for recording or filing
with a local agency a document containing more than the
last four digits of a Social Security number if the
document is required by law to be open to the public.
This bill would require county recorders to establish a
Social Security number truncation program creating a dual
records system made up of: (1) "official records" which
contain a Social Security number but are exempt from the
Public Records Act and so not available to the public
(except pursuant to a subpoena or court order); and (2)
"public records" which are an exact copy of the official
record, but the Social Security number is truncated so
that only the last four digits are displayed. This bill
would provide that a public record shall have the same
legal force and effect as the official record.
This bill would specify a procedure for county recorders
to follow to implement the Social Security number
truncation program, providing that all official records
recorded between January 1, 1962 (the date when the
Social Security number began to be used for a purpose
unrelated to the social security system) and December 31,
2008, must be truncated in descending chronological order
with any records currently existing in electronic format
truncated first. This bill would further require a
county recorder to create an electronic copy of any
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 5 of ?
official record recorded after January 1, 2009, and
truncate any Social Security number contained in that
electronic copy.
This bill would provide that, when a public record
version of an official record exists, a county recorder
may only make available the public record version in
response to any request for inspection, copying, or other
disclosure; an official record may be disclosed only in
response to a subpoena or court order. This bill would
exempt an official record from disclosure under the
Public Records Act if a public record version of that
record is available.
This bill would provide that a county recorder shall be
deemed to be in compliance if he or she uses due
diligence to locate and truncate Social Security numbers
in official records while applying industry best
practices. This bill would further specify that a county
recorder shall not be liable for failure to truncate a
Social Security number.
This bill would permit a county recorder, if approved by
the county board of supervisors, to charge an additional
fee of up to $1 for recording a document. The funds
generated may only be used for implementation of the
Social Security number truncation program required by the
bill.
This bill would require the County Recorders Association
of California to report to the Senate and Assembly
Judiciary Committees and the Office of Privacy Protection
by January 1, 2009, and annually thereafter, on
implementation of the bill's requirements concerning
Social Security number truncation. This bill would
provide that the annual report is no longer required once
the Office of Privacy Protection determines that all
counties have complied with these requirements.
1.Existing law establishes the Franchise Tax Board to
administer the Personal Income Tax Law and the
Corporation Tax Law. (Government Code Section 15700 et
seq.)
This bill would require the Franchise Tax Board, unless
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 6 of ?
prohibited by federal law, to truncate Social Security
numbers on lien abstracts and other public records before
disclosing these documents to the public.
3. Existing law contains requirements concerning the
perfection of a security interest under the UCC and
specifies that the office in which to file a financing
statement to perfect the interest is either the Secretary
of State's office or another office, as specified.
(Commercial Code Section 9501.)
This bill would permit the Secretary of State to reject
UCC filings that contain a Social Security number.
4. Existing law requires the University of California, the
California State University system, and the California
community college districts to comply with restrictions
that prohibit the public posting or display of Social
Security numbers. These requirements also prohibit: (a)
printing an individual's Social Security number on a card
that he or she must use to access products or services;
(b) requiring an individual to transmit his or her Social
Security number over the Internet unless the connection
is secure or the Social Security number is encrypted; (c)
requiring an individual to use his or her Social Security
number to access a Web site unless a password is also
required; and (d) printing an individual's Social
Security number on any materials mailed to him or her
unless required by state or federal law. (Civil Code
Section 1798.85(a).)
Existing law permits the use of a Social Security number
for internal verification or administrative purposes.
(Civil Code Section 1798.85(b).)
This bill would require the Office of Privacy Protection
to create a task force to review the use of Social
Security numbers by colleges and universities and report
back to the Legislature by July 1, 2009, on
recommendations to minimize the collection, use, storage,
and retention of Social Security numbers by colleges and
universities.
COMMENT
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 7 of ?
1.Stated need for the bill
The author writes in support of the bill's restrictions
on the use of Social Security numbers in public records:
California privacy laws require businesses to
safeguard sensitive consumer information that can be
used to commit identity theft, including Social
Security numbers. But government agencies routinely
release Social Security numbers to the general public
with virtually no limitation on who can purchase the
numbers or how the numbers can be used. . . .
Truncated Social Security numbers displaying only the
last four digits cannot be used by fraudsters to open
new credit card accounts, which studies show is the
most common form of identity theft in California.
How does the release of Social Security numbers in
public records lead to ID theft? A major concern of
privacy advocates is the mass collection and storage
of public records from local government offices by
private data base companies that sell access to the
records over the Internet. These data brokers
purchase compact disks full of public records from
county recorders' offices, for example. . . . When a
data broker's own security standards are inadequate
(e.g., they fail to adequately screen their customers
to ensure they have legitimate business purposes for
the records), fraudsters and ID thieves gain access to
millions of public records.
This bill would also create a task force addressing the
use of Social Security numbers by colleges and
universities. The author writes:
[California] law has shined a light on numerous data
breaches at colleges and universities, including a
breach at UCLA announced December 2006 in which
hackers gained access to the sensitive personal data,
including the Social Security numbers, of 800,000
students, alumni, applicants, employees, and parents.
These breaches at institutions of higher education
raise a fundamental question: for what purposes do
universities collect Social Security numbers, and why
do they store them in Internet-accessible format for
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 8 of ?
as long as they do?
2.Existing California law does not sufficiently restrict
the use of Social Security numbers in public records
maintained by local agencies
While California's Information Practices Act imposes
limitations on the collection and disclosure of personal
information, including Social Security numbers, the law
applies only to state agencies; local agencies are
specifically exempted. Also, existing prohibitions on
the public posting or display of Social Security numbers
do not apply to documents required to be open to the
public. Under the California Public Records Act, state
and local agencies must make public records available for
inspection unless they are expressly exempt from
disclosure.
3.Trend is toward truncation of Social Security numbers,
but different truncation methods may still permit the
reconstruction of full Social Security numbers
In recent years, both state and federal agencies have
taken steps to truncate the Social Security numbers
contained in their public records, displaying only the
last four digits. For example, the General Accounting
Office (GAO) reported in a June 2007 report that both the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of
Justice (DOJ)-which provide property lien notices
containing Social Security numbers to state and local
record keepers-have taken steps to truncate or remove
Social Security numbers in those records. According to
the author, the Franchise Tax Board recently began
truncating Social Security numbers on tax liens and the
Secretary of State has begun eliminating or truncating
Social Security numbers on public filings it receives
from banks.
There is no standard truncation method, however, and the
GAO reported that its studies have shown that some
entities in the private sector use a different method of
truncation. For example, information resellers, or data
brokers, sometimes use truncated Social Security numbers
which display the first five digits and mask the last
four. As a result, the GAO notes, it is possible to
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 9 of ?
combine an individual's truncated social security number
from an IRS or DOJ-generated lien notice with a truncated
social security number from an information reseller in
order to reconstruct an individual's full social security
number. In its report, the GAO indicated that it tested
this method and "found that it can potentially be used by
identity thieves to reconstruct full SSNs."
While the GAO's report noted that truncation does not
provide complete protection against identity theft, it
concluded that its analysis still suggests that
truncation provides better protection than records that
display full Social Security numbers. Although
truncation may not be foolproof, it would appear to at
least make it more difficult for thieves to commit
identity theft by reducing the availability of full
nine-digit Social Security numbers in public records.
This bill would require county recorders and the
Franchise Tax Board to truncate Social Security numbers
in public records, concealing all but the last four
digits. It would also go a step further and require
local agencies to redact full Social Security numbers
from public records filed on or after July 1, 2008 (the
bill's requirements concerning redaction or truncation of
Social Security numbers would not apply to court
records).
4.Truncation of Social Security numbers in county
recorders' records will reduce the amount of information
that may be the source of identity theft
The public records of county recorders often contain
Social Security numbers, including deeds, deeds of trust,
judgments, and liens. Many public records are
increasingly becoming available electronically and even
online. Because many records are now kept electronically,
in some cases they are available for sale in bulk,
according to the author. And, the information contained
in them has become part of the databases maintained and
mined by data brokers- companies which compile
significant amounts of personal information about
individual consumers, often from public records.
At the same time, information obtained from public
records is often used for legitimate business and
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 10 of ?
government uses. For example, Social Security numbers in
public records can be used to detect crime and fraud or
locate missing children. Title companies use public
records to perform a title search on a piece of property
and determine whether it is subject to a tax lien.
This bill attempts to balance these legitimate needs for
information to verify an individual's identity with the
need to provide additional protection against identity
theft by reducing the amount of sensitive personal
information-namely Social Security numbers-in county
recorders' records. The bill would still permit the
inclusion of the last four digits of a social security
number in county recorders' public records thus allowing
the verification of an individual's identity.
5.Committee suggested amendments
a) Protection for county recorders
This bill would deem a county recorder to be in
compliance with its truncation requirements if the
recorder uses due diligence in locating and truncating
Social Security numbers and applies "industry best
practices." The bill does not define industry best
practices, however. Furthermore, the bill would
provide that a county recorder is not liable for
failure to truncate a Social Security number, but does
not require the recorder to comply with any particular
standard. In order to address these concerns, the
bill should be amended as follows:
On page 20, line 31, revise Section 27302 to read:
A county recorder shall be deemed to be in compliance
with the requirements of Section 27301 and shall not
be liable for failure to truncate a Social Security
number if he or she uses due diligence to locate and
truncate Social Security numbers in official records
while applying industry best practices and truncate
Social Security numbers in the public record version
of those official records. A county recorder shall not
be liable for failure to truncate a social security
number. The use of an automated program with a high
rate of accuracy shall be deemed to be due diligence.
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 11 of ?
b) Clarifying amendment needed to help reduce the
amount of Social Security numbers in records of local
agencies and county recorders
This bill would prohibit any person, entity, or
government agency from presenting a document for
recording or filing that contains more than the last
four digits of the Social Security number. Because
local agencies will be required to redact entire
Social Security numbers from records filed on or after
July 1, 2008, this section should be revised to
prohibit a document that contains the entire Social
Security number from being presented for recording or
filing. This will help reduce the instances when a
Social Security number is included in documents filed
with a local agency, thereby helping them to meet the
redaction requirement. This change should be made on
page 5, beginning on line 7:
1798.89. (a) Unless otherwise required to do so by
state or federal law, no person, entity, or government
agency shall present for recording and filing with a
local agency, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section
6252 of the Government Code, a document that is
required by any provision of law to be open to the
public if that record displays a social security
number that includes more than the last four digits of
that number . This subdivision shall not apply to a
county recorder.
(b) Unless otherwise required to do so by state or
federal law, no person, entity, or government agency
shall present for recording and filing with a county
recorder a document that is required by any provision
of law to be open to the public if that record
displays a social security number that includes more
than the last four digits of that number.
SHOULD THE BILL BE AMENDED TO HELP TO REDUCE THE
AMOUNT OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS APPEARING IN PUBLIC
RECORDS?
1.Opposition arguments and responses thereto
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 12 of ?
Opponents argue that the bill does not ensure that county
recorder records will be available before the truncation
process is completed. They worry that county recorders
will cut off access to all records in the meantime. The
author responds that he has been working closely with the
County Recorders Association of California, which
supports the measure, to ensure that the bill is workable
and does not result in logistical problems which would
delay transactions for customers such as title insurers
or realtors.
Furthermore, under the bill, an official record of a
county recorder is only exempt from disclosure under the
Public Records Act if a public version of that record is
available. As a result, if a public version of an
official record had not yet been created at the time of
the request, the county recorder could release the
official record.
Opponents also raise concerns about the legal effect of
the public version of an official record, stating that
the lender, homebuyer, or title company should be
protected. The most recent amendments to the bill should
address this concern as they expressly provide that the
public record "shall have the same legal force and effect
as the official record."
Opponent Experian, a consumer credit reporting agency,
raises concerns that a truncated Social Security number
will not sufficiently match a public record about an
individual, such as a lien or judgment, to the correct
credit file, potentially resulting in a lender extending
a loan to an individual who is more likely to default.
The author responds that "credit reporting agencies are
already operating in a world where truncation and
redaction of SSNs on public records is happening" as
several federal and state agencies already truncate the
numbers. In addition, Florida counties have begun
redacting Social Security numbers in many public records,
including tax liens and abstracts of judgment, according
to the author. The author also notes that Nevada
recently passed a law requiring the removal of Social
Security numbers from public records.
Other opponents object to the bill's provision allowing a
county recorder, if approved by its board of supervisors,
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 13 of ?
to impose a $1 fee to help cover the costs of the Social
Security number truncation program, arguing that it is a
tax, not a fee, and therefore requires a two-thirds vote
of the Legislature. The author responds first that
Legislative Counsel does not consider the bill to raise a
state tax and therefore has identified it as requiring a
majority vote, not a two-thirds vote. The author also
points out that filers paying the fee benefit from the
conversion of documents to electronic format.
The California Association of Realtors has an oppose
unless amended position on this bill, arguing that there
should be a sunset on the fee, not to exceed 10 years,
and the bill should include codified legislative intent
language requiring the masking of other information such
as unconstitutional restrictive covenants.
2.Author's amendments
a) Amendment to address concern that bill's redaction
requirement is overly burdensome
The California State Association of Counties and the
Regional Council of Rural Counties have an oppose
unless amended position on this bill. These
organizations assert that the bill's requirement that
local agencies redact Social Security numbers from
records disclosed to the public is overly burdensome
because "there could be millions-if not tens of
millions-of documents that exist in county offices
pertaining to contracts, applications, and other
identifying documents that contain Social Security
numbers." In order to address this concern, author's
amendments would amend the redaction requirement to
apply it only to documents recorded or filed with a
local agency on or after July 1, 2008. The amendments
would also require a local agency to begin the process
of redaction when they receive documents for filing or
recording on or after July 1, 2008. The amendments
would amend the bill on page 4, line 3 to read:
SECTION 1. Section 1798.88 is added to the Civil
Code, to read:
1798.88. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of
Section 1798.85 or any other provision of law, unless
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 14 of ?
required by federal law, a local agency, as defined in
subdivision (a) of Section 6252 of the Government
Code, before disclosing to the public any record that
is required to be open to the public by any provision
of law, shall redact all the digits of any social
security number on the record. This subdivision shall
apply only to documents recorded or filed with a local
agency on or after July 1, 2008.
(b) Beginning July 1, 2008, a local agency, as defined
in subdivision (a) of Section 6252 of the Government
Code, shall redact any social security number
contained in a document presented for filing or
recording on or after July 1, 2008, unless the social
security number is required by state or federal law.
(b) (c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), the
provisions of this section shall not apply to either
of the following:
(1) A county recorder.
(2) The disclosure of death records pursuant to
Section 103525 of the Health and Safety Code.
b) Amendments to address concerns raised by the
University of California regarding study by the Office
of Privacy Protection
The University of California has raised concerns about
the bill's provisions requiring that the study by the
Office of Privacy Protection include a list of "all
existing uses of Social Security numbers at colleges
and universities." They worry that, in order to come
up with such a list, they will have to audit every
instance when a social security number is used,
raising cost concerns. In response, the author
proposes to amend the bill on page 19, line 9 to read:
(2) The final report shall also include a list of all
existing use of Social Security numbers at colleges
and universities. the existing uses of Social Security
numbers common among colleges and universities for
routine operations and compliance with state and
federal laws.
1.Technical and clarifying amendments needed
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 15 of ?
The author has agreed to the following technical and
clarifying amendments:
1) On page 18, line 30, after "students," insert
"applicants,"
2) On page 20, line 21, after "the" insert "copied"
3) On page 20, line 21, delete "The" and insert "In
order to create a public record copy, the"
4) On page 20, beginning on line 37, revise Section
27302(b) to read: (b) In the event that a county
recorder fails to truncate a social security number
contained in a public record, any Any person may
request that a the county recorder truncate his or her
the Social Security number contained in a public the
record.
5) On page 21, delete line 9 and on line 10 delete
"otherwise publicly disclose" and insert "Upon a
request for inspection, copying, or any other public
disclosure of"
6) Add Legislative findings justifying the need for
the bill's limitations on the right of public access
to government records pursuant to Proposition 59:
The Legislature finds and declares that Section 8 of
this act, which adds Section 6254.27 to the
Government Code, imposes a limitation on the
public's right of access to the meetings of public
bodies or the writings of public officials and
agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article
I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that
constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the
following findings to demonstrate the interest
protected by this limitation and the need for
protecting that interest:
In order to protect against the risk of identity
theft when government documents maintained by county
recorders contain Social Security numbers, it is
necessary to enact provisions which ensure the
confidentiality of Social Security numbers while
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 16 of ?
upholding the public's right of access to
information concerning the conduct of the people's
business.
Support: AARP; American Civil Liberties Union; American
Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); California
Teachers Association; Community College League of
California; Consumer Federation of California;
County Recorders Association of California;
Consumers Union; Crime Victims United; Golden State
Manufactured-Home Owners League (GSMOL); Gray
Panthers; Los Angeles County District Attorney's
Office; Los Rios Community College District;
Secretary of State Debra Bowen; University of
California Student Association
Opposition: California Association of Realtors (unless
amended); California
Land Title Association; California State
Association of Counties (unless amended); Howard
Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Experian (unless
amended); Regional Council of Rural Counties
(unless amended); Stop Hidden Taxes Coalition
HISTORY
Source: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
Related Pending Legislation: SB 904 (Battin) would
require a county recorder to
alter the noncertified copy of a
military service record to mask the
service member's address, date of
birth, Social Security number, and
service identification number. (This
bill was approved by the Assembly
Judiciary Committee and has been
referred to the Assembly Veterans
Affairs Committee.)
SB 741 (Ackerman) would encourage
school districts, from January 1,
2008 to June 30, 2008 to omit a
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 17 of ?
pupil's Social Security number and
birthdate from any materials mailed
to the pupil's residence. Beginning
July 1, 2008, the bill would prohibit
school districts from including this
information in materials mailed to
the pupil. (This bill has been
double-referred to the Assembly
Education and Judiciary Committees.)
SB 644 (Correa) would delete the
requirement that abstracts of
judgment requiring the payment of
money contain the judgment debtor's
full Social Security number and would
instead require only the last four
digits of the number. The bill would
also provide that tax lien filings
may only contain the last four digits
of the assessee's Social Security
number. (This bill has been referred
to the Assembly Judiciary Committee.)
SB 216 (Cox) would delete the
requirement that abstracts of
judgment requiring the payment of
money or ordering a party to pay
spousal, child, or family support
include a full Social Security number
and instead would require only the
last four digits of the Social
Security number. (This bill has been
referred to this committee; the
hearing was canceled at the request
of the author.)
SB 182 (Dutton) would make technical,
nonsubstantive changes to existing
law's requirement that a driver's
license application contain the
applicant's Social Security number.
(This bill was referred to the Rules
Committee.)
AB 703 (Ruskin) would prohibit a
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 18 of ?
person or entity from using a Social
Security number as an identifier,
except as required by federal or
state law. The bill would also
require that records containing
Social Security numbers be discarded
or destroyed in a specified manner,
and would require the encryption or
locked storage of records containing
Social Security numbers. (This bill
has been double-referred to the
Assembly Judiciary and Banking and
Finance Committees.)
Prior Legislation: None Known
Prior Vote: Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes
0)
Assembly Higher Education Committee (Ayes 6, Noes
0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes
0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 75, Noes 0)
**************