BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
SB 1233 (Oropeza)
As Amended March 22, 2010
Hearing Date: April 13, 2010
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
KB:jd
SUBJECT
Confidential Address Programs
DESCRIPTION
This bill, sponsored by the Secretary of State, would remove the
sunset for California's Safe at Home program and require that
the Secretary of State permanently retain name change records
for program participants.
BACKGROUND
The Safe at Home project, created by SB 489 (Alpert, Chapter
1005, Statutes of 1998) 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 Sec. 6205.) The Secretary of State is tasked
with providing a substitute, publicly accessible address for
these victims while protecting their actual residences or
locations. The Secretary also acts as the program participants'
agent for service of process and forwards mail received at the
substitute address provided. A program participant, once
certified, may stay in the program for four years, after which
re-certification is required.
In 2002, the Safe at Home program was expanded to include
reproductive health care services providers, employees,
volunteers, and patients with the purpose of preventing
potential acts of violence from being committed against
(more)
SB 1233 (Oropeza)
Page 2 of ?
providers, employees, and volunteers who assist in the provision
of reproductive health care services and the patients seeking
those services. (AB 797 (Shelley, Chapter 380, Statutes of
2002).) According to the Safe at Home 2009 Legislative Report,
there are 2,437 active participants in the program, and 4,974
participants have been served since the program's inception in
1999. The original 2005 sunset date for the Safe at Home
Program has been extended twice. First, AB 797 extended the
sunset date to January 1, 2008. Assembly Bill 2169 (Montanez,
Chapter 475, Statutes of 2006) subsequently extended it until
January 1, 2013. This bill would remove the sunset for the Safe
at Home Program, thereby making it permanent. It would also
require that the Secretary of State permanently retain name
change records for program participants.
This bill was approved by the Senate Elections, Reapportionment,
and Constitutional Amendments Committee on April 6, 2010 by a
vote of 5-0.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1.Existing law establishes, until January 1, 2013, an address
confidentiality program to which victims of domestic violence,
sexual assault, or stalking may apply by completing an
application in person at a community-based victims' assistance
program. The application is approved by the Secretary of
State for the purpose of enabling state and local agencies to
respond to requests for public records without disclosing a
program participant's residence address contained in any
public record and otherwise provide for confidentiality of
identity for that person. (Gov. Code Sec. 6205 et seq.)
Existing law establishes, until January 1, 2013, a similar
address confidentiality program for reproductive health care
services providers, employees, volunteers, and patients.
(Gov. Code Sec. 6215 et seq.)
Existing law provides that the voter registration of a
participant in an address confidentiality program is
confidential, and requires the Secretary of State to act as
that person's agent for service of process, and to designate a
substitute mailing address for participants. (Gov. Code Sec.
6215.6.; Elec. Code Sec. 2166.5.)
Existing law , until January 1, 2013 provides that any person
filing with the county elections official a new affidavit of
SB 1233 (Oropeza)
Page 3 of ?
registration or reregistration who is a participant in the
address confidentiality programs may have the information
relating to his or her residence address, telephone number,
and email address appearing on the affidavit declared
confidential. (Elec. Code Sec. 2166.5.)
This bill would remove the sunset from the address
confidentiality programs, and extend the provisions of the
programs indefinitely.
This bill would remove the sunset on the voter confidentiality
provisions, and extend them indefinitely.
2.Existing law provides that any records or documents pertaining
to a program participant shall be retained and held
confidential for a period of three years after termination of
certification of participation in the program, and then
destroyed, as specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6206.5.)
This bill would provide an exemption to those provisions for
change of name records, which would be retained permanently.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author states:
Since its inception in 1999, the Safe at Home Program has
helped protect the identities of nearly 3,800 survivors of
stalking, and sexual assault, as well as reproductive health
care doctors, nurses, volunteers and patients.
Repealing the sunset and making Safe at Home a permanent
program will provide certainty to participants that their
anonymity will be permanently protected.
Safe at Home participants often legally change their name.
Existing law requires the old name to be removed from court
records and the new name to be filed with the Secretary of
State. As a result, the Secretary of State maintains the only
complete record of the participant's confidential name change.
However, current law also requires ? all closed or terminated
Safe at Home case files to be shredded after three years.
That means, Safe at Home participants who opt to legally file
and complete a confidential change of name risk losing all
SB 1233 (Oropeza)
Page 4 of ?
records pertaining to their past name, if they leave the
program.
2. No opposition to the removal of the sunset provision
SB 489, which created the Safe at Home project, 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.
A prior extension of the sunset date by SB 797 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 program. Assembly Bill 2169 of
the 2005-2006 Legislative Session would have removed the sunset
entirely, but instead extended the program to 2013 due to
concerns that a separate measure (SB 1062 (Bowen)) which
included victims of sexual assault in the programs would
significantly increase the program's population and cost.
In contrast, SB 1233 has received no opposition and the previous
concerns about the cost of administering the program do not
appear to present, or are arguably outweighed by the
demonstrated benefits of the program. Furthermore, as noted by
the Secretary of State's Safe at Home Legislative Report, the
economic crisis and a rise in domestic violence cases has
increased the demand for victim assistance and information. By
permanently establishing the address confidentiality programs,
the state can assure participants that their anonymity, and thus
SB 1233 (Oropeza)
Page 5 of ?
their safety, is not in jeopardy.
3.Bill would require permanent retention of name change records
Under current law, if a proceeding for a change of name is
commenced by the filing of a petition, the court is required to
issue an order directing all persons interested in the matter to
show cause as to why the application for change of name should
not be granted. (Code of Civ. Proc. Sec. 1277.) A copy of the
order to show cause must also be published in a newspaper of
general circulation published in the county. (Id.) However, if
the petitioner is a participant in the address confidentiality
(Safe at Home) program, the action is exempt from the
requirement for publication. (Id.) Additionally, the court is
required to keep confidential the current legal name of the
petitioner and prohibited from publishing that name by any means
or in any public forum. (Id.) In lieu of reciting the proposed
name, the court is required to indicate that the proposed name
is confidential and will be on file with the Secretary of State
pursuant to the provisions of the address confidentiality
program. (Id.)
Thus, the Secretary of State currently maintains the only
complete record of a program participant's confidential name
change. However, as noted in the author's statement, the
Secretary of State is also required to destroy closed or
terminated Safe at Home case files after three years. This can
result in the destruction of all records pertaining to a
participant's previous name if the participant chooses to opt
out of the program. Accordingly, this bill would require the
Secretary of State to permanently maintain records pertaining to
confidential name changes of program participants, thereby
ensuring that the sole complete records of a participant's prior
name are not lost forever. This is consistent with the
requirements currently imposed on trial court clerks with
respect to the maintenance of name change court records for
individuals who are not participants in the Safe at Home
program. (Gov. Code Sec. 68152(b).)
Support : Junior Leagues of California, State Public Affairs
Committee
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
SB 1233 (Oropeza)
Page 6 of ?
Source : Secretary of the State Debra Bowen
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
SB 489 (Alpert, Chapter 1005, Statutes of 1998) established the
Safe at Home program.
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 individual's name change.
AB 797 (Shelley, Chapter 380, Statutes of 2002) extended the
sunset date from January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2008.
AB 2169 (Montanez, Chapter 475, Statutes of 2006) extended the
sunset date from January 1, 2008 to January 1, 2013.
AB 2304 (Plescia, Chapter 586, Statutes of 2008) required courts
to keep confidential the current legal name of the petitioner
and prohibited the court from publishing that name by any means
or in any public forum when the petition for name change is by a
participant in the address confidentiality program
Prior Vote : Senate Elections, Reapportionment, and
Constitutional Amendments Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 0)
**************