BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1451
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 13, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Anna Marie Caballero, Chair
AB 1451 (Ammiano) - As Amended: January 4, 2010
SUBJECT : The Local Government Identification Act.
SUMMARY : Establishes the Local Government Identification Act,
which would authorize counties to issue local identification
cards (local ID cards) to persons who can provide proof of
identity and proof of residency within the county.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes a county to issue a local ID card to its residents
on a voluntary basis.
2)Prohibits the local ID card from displaying the cardholder's
gender.
3)States that a minor, 13 years of age and older, is allowed to
apply for a local ID card so long as the proofs of identity
and residency are met and the minor's parent or legal guardian
completes the application.
4)Requires the county clerk to keep confidential the names and
other identifying information or persons applying for and
receiving local ID cards. The county clerk is prohibited from
keeping a record of the applicant's residential address.
5)Limits the board of supervisors to imposing a fee of not more
than $15 per local ID card for persons over the age of 18 and
a fee of not more than $5 per local ID card for minors and
seniors who present proof of age.
6)Requires every city, redevelopment agency, school district,
special district, and any other local agency located in a
county that issues local ID cards to accept the local ID cards
as proof of identification or proof of residency except where
otherwise provided by law.
EXISTING LAW authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
to issue an identification card to any person attesting to the
true full name, correct age, and other identifying data as
certified by the applicant for the identification card, and
AB 1451
Page 2
authorizes DMV to refuse to issue an identification card under
certain circumstances.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)The author states that existing state and federal law
establishes provisions for state-issued identification cards
that require documentation of a person's gender and legal
immigration status. Many residents are ineligible to receive
an identification card or driver's license from DMV because of
their status as an undocumented immigrant. Some transgender
individuals, who publicly identify as a gender different than
that on their driver's license or DMV identification card, are
turned away or made uncomfortable when they try to use their
ID.
The author says that those individuals without legal,
recognized, government-issued ID cards are unable to open bank
accounts, prove age, prove residency, or otherwise demonstrate
proof of identity when necessary.
2)This bill exempts from the Public Records Act the names and
other identifying information of those applying for and
receiving local ID cards. This bill goes a step further and
also prohibits the county clerk from keeping a record of an
applicant's residential address. Under current law, any
residence address provided to DMV is confidential, but a
mailing address can be disclosed under certain circumstances,
such as the assessment of driver risk or ownership of
vehicles. Someone who is the subject of stalking also can
make a request to keep all of their DMV records confidential.
Specified officials, such as judges, can request to keep their
residential address confidential, too. The Legislature may
wish to consider whether requiring a county clerk to not even
keep a record of applicants' residential address in addition
to making the names and other identifying information of
applicants confidential is too broad. Under these proposed
restrictions, a county clerk might not be able to verify to a
third party, such as a financial institution, whether or not
the local ID card presented to the third party was not
counterfeit.
3)As part of the USA Patriot Act, federally regulated banks and
AB 1451
Page 3
saving associations, credit unions, and non-federally
regulated private banks, trust companies, and credit unions
(banks) are required to comply with Customer Identification
Program regulation (CIP), 31 CFR 103.121, for all accounts
established on or after October 1, 2003. Banks are required
to implement a written CIP that includes, among other things,
account-opening procedures that specify the identifying
information that will be obtained from each customer. These
procedures must enable the bank to form a reasonable belief
that it knows the true identity of each customer. At a
minimum, banks are required to obtain from each customer
opening an account their name, date of birth, address, and
taxpayer identification number. The banks are required to
then use documentary methods to verify a customer's identity.
Certain types of documents have long been considered primary
sources of identification, including a driver's license and
passport, and are preferred. Other forms of identification
may be used if they enable the bank to form a reasonable
belief that it knows the true identity of the customer.
However, banks are warned by the federal government that
counterfeit and fraudulently obtained documents are widely
available.
This bill would allow counties to issue local ID cards that
banks may or may not accept as a valid form of verifying a
customer's identity. The USA Patriot Act does not prohibit a
bank from accepting this form of identification, but it also
cautions banks on accepting identification that could be easy
to counterfeit and obtain fraudulently. Because it is unclear
under this bill's provisions whether a bank would be unable to
verify with the county issuing the local ID cards that a local
ID card was issued for that person, a bank may be unable to
form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of
the customer presenting the local ID card. Therefore, the
Legislature may wish to consider whether there is a
probability that banks would accept a local ID card as
authorized under this bill.
4)This bill will not be accepted as a valid form of passenger
identification at airports or for entering federal buildings.
The federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
accepts only a federal or state-issued identification that
contains the name, date of birth, gender, expiration date, and
tamper-resistant feature. Because the local ID cards would be
neither state-issued nor identify the gender of the passenger,
AB 1451
Page 4
the local ID cards would not be accepted by TSA. The
Legislature may want to consider whether the limitations of
the local ID card program are worth the potential costs to
local governments of administering it.
5)In an October 13, 2009, report, the City of Oakland
preliminarily estimated the costs for the technology to
provide local ID cards would range between $300,000 and over
$500,000 if there is an upfront investment or annual lease
payments of $75,000 to $133,000. The estimates for staff time
and replacement ID card costs were minimally estimated at
ranging from $88,000 in the first year and $69,000 thereafter
to higher costs depending on staffing levels. If local ID
card fees range from $15 to $35, annual revenue projections
were estimated at between $30,000 and $140,000. AB 1451 would
impose a local ID card cap of $15 for adults and $5 for
minors. The Committee may wish to consider whether forcing a
cap on what a county can charge for a local ID card will deter
county participation.
6)The San Francisco City ID Card (SFIDC) program was approved by
an ordinance passed November 20, 2007, by the board of
supervisors. The program officially started January 15, 2009.
So far SFIDC has reportedly cost the city $798,000 for
one-time, start-up costs and $220,000 in annual operating
costs for the staffing of two legal clerks, overhead, and
supplies. The Committee may wish to consider whether it would
be better to wait for this pilot program to complete two years
in existence as each card is valid for two years before
approving a statewide program. There might be certain
features of the SFIDC program that are found to be missing or
others that prove to be burdensome on either individuals or
the City and County of San Francisco.
7)AB 772 (Ammiano) was vetoed by the Governor on October 12,
2009. The Governor's veto message read: "As I have stated
before on similar bills, until the federal Real ID Act is
implemented and the federal government adopts comprehensive
immigration reform, it is inappropriate to move forward with
state law in this area."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 1451
Page 5
None on file
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer R. Klein / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958