BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
SB 1082 (Corbett)
As Amended April 9, 2012
Hearing Date: April 17, 2012
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Protection of Victims: Address Confidentiality
DESCRIPTION
Existing law creates the "Safe at Home" address confidentiality
program for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and
stalking, as well as reproductive health care providers,
employees, volunteers and patients. The program is administered
by the Secretary of State (SOS).
This bill, sponsored by the SOS, would amend existing law to
require that applicants seeking enrollment in these programs be
domiciled in California, and would provide the SOS the authority
to not renew the certification of a program participant who has
abandoned his or her domicile in California. The bill would
also authorize a minor program participant to renew his or her
participation upon reaching 18 years of age, following the
renewal procedure established by the SOS under the office's
existing statutory authority. Additionally, this bill would
modify the permissible grounds for early termination of a
participant's certification in the program by the SOS, while
providing for an extended period of time to appeal an intended
termination from five days to 30 days. Lastly, the bill would
permit the SOS to handle or forward packages for program
participants in the SOS's discretion and make other
non-substantive changes.
BACKGROUND
With the passage of SB 489 (Alpert, Ch. 1005, Stats. 1998), the
California State Legislature established the Safe at Home
(more)
SB 1082 (Corbett)
Page 2 of ?
program within the Office of the Secretary of State to allow
victims of domestic violence to apply for a substitute address
to be used in public records in order to prevent their
assailants, or potential assailants, from finding their work or
home address. Through subsequent legislation, the program has
been expanded to include victims of sexual assault, stalking,
and reproductive health care service providers, employees,
volunteers and patients. (See SB 1318 (Alpert, Ch. 562, Stats.
2000) and AB 797 (Shelley, Ch. 380, Stats. 2002).)
Upon successful application, a program participant is certified
to remain in the program for four years, subject to early
termination or withdrawal, and must re-certify pursuant to the
SOS's renewal process if he or she wishes to continue in the
program beyond the four-year enrollment period. For victims not
yet of the age of majority or incapacitated persons, a parent or
guardian may apply to enroll the victim into the program.
This bill seeks to provide further clarity with respect to
certain requirements of the program to better ensure the success
of the program into the future. This includes clarifying that
eligibility for the program requires being domiciled in
California, as specified; that minors need not newly apply to
the program upon turning 18 years of age, and may instead renew
their enrollment pursuant to the Secretary of State's renewal
process; and providing the Secretary of State the authority to
use its discretion in handling or forwarding non-first class or
government mail to victims so that essential documents and items
are not delayed in reaching program participants. The bill also
allows for an extended timeframe in which a person may appeal an
intended termination, and would extend the right to appeal
termination where there is an allegation that false information
was used in an application.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law establishes an address confidentiality (or
"Safe at Home") program within the Office of the Secretary of
State in order to enable state and local agencies to both
accept and respond to requests for public records without
disclosing the changed name or address of a victim of domestic
violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Existing law permits
any such adult victim, or parent or guardian acting on behalf
of a minor or incapacitated person, to apply through a
community-based victims' assistance program to have an address
designated by the Secretary of State as his or her substitute
mailing address. (Gov. Code Sec. 6205 et seq.) Existing law
SB 1082 (Corbett)
Page 3 of ?
similarly allows reproductive health care providers,
employees, volunteers, and patients to apply to the address
confidentiality program through a community-based victims'
assistance program, as specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6215 et
seq.)
Existing law defines "domicile" to mean domicile of a person
is that place in which his or her habitation is fixed, wherein
the person has the intention of remaining, and to which,
whenever he or she is absent, the person has the intention of
returning. At a given time, a person may have only one
domicile. (Elec. Code Sec. 349.)
This bill would require that an applicant be domiciled in
California and would define "domicile" to have the same
meaning as given under Section 349 of the Elections Code.
This bill would allow the Secretary of State to refuse to
renew a program participant's certification if the adult
program participant or the parent or guardian acting on behalf
of the minor or incapacitated person has abandoned his or her
domicile in this state.
2. Existing law requires that the Secretary of State certify a
successful applicant as a program participant for four years
following the date of filing, unless the certification is
withdrawn or invalidated before that date, except reproductive
health care services facilities volunteers shall be certified
until six months from the last date of volunteering with the
facility. Existing law also provides that the Secretary of
State shall establish for a renewal procedure. (Gov. Code
Secs. 6206(c), 6215.2(e).)
This bill would permit a minor program participant who reaches
18 years of during his or her enrollment to renew as an adult
following the renewal procedures established by the Secretary
of State.
3. Existing law allows a participant to withdraw from the Safe
at Home program, and authorizes the address confidentiality
program manager to terminate a participant's certification for
specified reasons, including the use of false information or
using the program as subterfuge. (Gov. Code Secs. 6206.7,
6215.4.)
This bill , with respect to victims of domestic violence,
sexual assault, or stalking, would permit the Secretary of
SB 1082 (Corbett)
Page 4 of ?
State to also terminate a certification if the program
participant has reached 18 years of age during his or her
certification term and has not renewed his or her
certification within 60 days of reaching 18 years of age.
4. Existing law provides the Secretary of State with the
authority to cancel a program participant's certification for
specified reasons, and requires that the Secretary retain
records in a specified manner. (Gov. Code Secs.
6206.5(a)-(d), 6206.5(f), 6215.3(a)-(e).) Existing law
provides that any records or documents pertaining to a program
participant shall be held confidential for a period of three
years after termination of certification, except as specified.
(Gov. Code Secs. 6206.5(e), 6215.3(f).)
Existing law provides that, following a termination of program
participant certification for using false information in an
application to qualify as a program participant or for using
the program as a subterfuge, as specified, the address
confidentiality manager may disclose information contained in
the participant's application. (Gov. Code Secs. 6206.7(f),
6215.4(f).)
Existing law provides that the address confidentiality manager
shall send written notification of an intended termination
with respect to specified grounds for termination and that the
program participant shall have five business days in which to
appeal the termination under procedures developed by the
Secretary of State. (Gov. Code Secs. 6206.7(c), 6215.4(c).)
This bill , with respect to victims of domestic violence,
sexual assault, or stalking, would require that the Secretary
of State provide notice of any intended termination, for any
grounds, and provide that a program participant shall have 30
days in which to appeal the intended termination under
procedures established by the Secretary of State.
This bill would remove any other references to "address
confidentiality program manager" and replace them with
"Secretary of State."
5. Existing law provides that the Secretary of State shall
forward all first class mail and all mail sent by a
governmental agency to the appropriate program participant.
Existing law also provides that the Secretary of State shall
not handle or forward packages regardless of size or type of
mailing. (Gov. Code Secs. 6207(d); 6215.5(d).)
SB 1082 (Corbett)
Page 5 of ?
This bill would instead provide that the Secretary of State
may, in its discretion, refuse to handle or forward packages
regardless of size or type of mailing.
This bill would delete outdated language with respect to
reporting, and make other non-substantive changes.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
Senate Bill 1082 clarifies inconsistencies in the law and
makes Safe at Home (SAH) services more efficient and more
effective. . . . While the SAH program services thousands of
survivors, several clarifications are needed to allow the
program to be run effectively. For example, existing law
requires adults to apply to the SAH program through a
community-based enrollment agency, and it does not
specifically provide for the case of a minor turning 18 years
old and wishing to continue in the program. Existing law also
prevents SAH staff from forwarding packages, regardless of
size or type of mailing. The lack of definition for a package
is frustrating for staff and burdensome for program
participants who may wish to have large mail-service legal
documents or bank checks forwarded.
The sponsor, the Office of the Secretary of State, explains that
"�s]ince its inception in 1999, the Safe at Home Program has
helped protect the identities of nearly 6,260 survivors of
domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault, as well as
reproductive health care doctors, nurses, volunteers, and
patients. SB 1082 provides important clarifications in the law
to help to ensure the further success of this essential
program."
2. Domicile requirement
This bill would require that an applicant for the Safe at Home
program be domiciled in California in order to be eligible for
the program. In the event that a program participant was
domiciled in California at the time of application, but
subsequently left the state at some point during an active
four-year certification period, the bill would also provide the
SB 1082 (Corbett)
Page 6 of ?
SOS the ability to refuse to renew a program participant's
certification if the adult program participant or the parent or
guardian acting on behalf of the minor or incapacitated person
has abandoned his or her domicile in this state.
Committee staff notes that this bill, as introduced, would have
authorized the SOS to terminate a participant's certification in
the program after he or she moved out of the state. Under that
language, it was plausible that such a rule could result in
potential danger to a program participant who abandoned his or
her domicile in California temporarily (e.g. to take care of an
elderly parent). To address such concerns, while recognizing
that a domicile requirement is reasonable in order to save
resources for Californians, the current version of this bill
removes the authority for the SOS to terminate a participant's
certification before the end of his or her four-year
certification period, for having abandoned his or her domicile.
This bill would instead allow the program participant's
certification to run through its four-year course, even if they
are no longer domiciled in California; at the end of those four
years, the SOS could refuse to renew the participant's
certification if he or she does not meet the domicile
requirement. The intention here was to provide these victims
the ability to find and enroll in a program in their new state,
or to return to California and reestablish domicile.
(California is one of 31 states with such a program
< http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=894 > (as of April 8,
2012).)
As a result, this bill appears to strike a stronger balance
between the policy concerns of prohibiting harm to victims and
preserving California's resources for this program for this
state's victims.
3. Minors who reach adulthood while enrolled in the program
This bill would specify that a minor who is registered in the
Safe at Home program may continue to be in the Safe at Home
program upon reaching the age of majority (age 18) by renewing
his or her certification following the renewal process created
by the SOS under the office's existing statutory authority.
Existing law currently provides for the enrollment of adults, or
minors through their adult parent or guardian, into the Safe at
Home program for a period of four years, through a
SB 1082 (Corbett)
Page 7 of ?
community-based enrollment agency. Existing law also currently
provides that the SOS has the authority to create a renewal
process. However, existing law is silent as to the process
required for an enrolled minor upon reaching the age of
majority.
According to proponents of the bill, in the absence of specific
language allowing for minors to continue in the program as
specified in SB 1082, existing law has resulted in a situation
where a minor is forced to apply to the program through a
community-based enrollment agency upon turning 18 years of age.
This bill would arguably eliminate any vagueness about the
process for minors in the program upon becoming of majority age
during the time that their current certification is still in
place.
4. Handling of program participants' mail
This bill would retain existing law's requirement that the SOS
forward first class and any governmental mail, but would
otherwise also allow the SOS to "refuse to handle or forward any
other mail" in his or her discretion, regardless of the size or
type of mailing. In other words, the bill would provide the SOS
the authority to handle or forward mail to a victim, whereas he
or she is currently prohibited from doing so altogether under
existing law.
Currently, because the SOS is prohibited from handling or
forwarding any non-first class or non-government agency packages
to the victim, important documents or items such as checks or
prescriptions may not ever reach the program participant. As
commented by several supporters of this bill, including the
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, "this
legislation �would allow] participants to have large
mail-service legal documents or bank checks forwarded to them."
While there could be questions as to the safety in handling and
forwarding packages that are not government mail, any concerns
that would arise in forwarding or handling packages from banks,
law offices, pharmacies, or the like, would arguably already
exist in handling and forwarding first-class mail to victims,
which the SOS is already permitted to do. This arguably reduces
concerns about permitting the handling or forwarding of packages
in the SOS's discretion, as this bill would allow.
SB 1082 (Corbett)
Page 8 of ?
5. Termination of a program participant's certification
This bill would replace references to an "address
confidentiality program manager" with "Secretary of State"
throughout various sections of the Safe at Home program, and
eliminate redundant provisions with respect to termination of a
program participant's certification by the SOS. (See Gov. Code
Secs. 6206.7(b), 6215.4(b).) The bill would also add a new
statutory ground upon which a SOS may terminate a program
participant's certification. Specifically, this bill would
allow the SOS to also terminate a certification of those
specifics program participants where the participant has reached
18 years of age during his or her certification term and has not
renewed that certification within 60 days of reaching 18 years
of age. This change applies only to victims of domestic
violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
Committee staff notes that four out of the five existing
statutory grounds for terminating a program participant's
certification are identical and given that the bill would add a
domicile requirement for all applicants, and not just victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. As such, in
order to promote consistency in the program with respect to all
program participants, the author accepts the following amendment
to add similar language to apply this provision to those program
participants who are reproductive health care service providers,
employees, volunteers or patients:
On page 14, after line 25, insert "(6) The program participant,
who reaches 18 years of age during his or her certification
term, has not renewed his or her certification within 60 days of
him or her reaching 18 years of age."
6. Appeal of intended terminations
Existing law requires that the SOS provide a program participant
with notice of an intended termination and permits the
participant to appeal the intended termination within five
business days unless the underlying reason for the early
termination was that the participant provided false information
in the application process in order to qualify for the program
or used the program for subterfuge to avoid detection of illegal
or criminal activity or apprehension by law enforcement. (Gov.
Code Secs. 6206.7(b), 6215.4(b).) This bill would extend the
time in which a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or
stalking can appeal the intended termination of their
SB 1082 (Corbett)
Page 9 of ?
certification in the program from five business days to 30 days.
Moreover, this bill would require that the SOS provide prior
notice and opportunity to appeal an intended termination to a
victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking,
regardless of the grounds upon which the termination is based.
As a matter of public policy, providing additional time for
appeal of intended terminations, including for those who are
alleged to have used false information in their application or
using the program for subterfuge, appears reasonable given the
potential risk that could come to a person who would be shown to
have had their certification wrongly terminated absent an
appeal. Committee staff notes, however, that similar changes
were not made with respect to program participants who are
reproductive health care service providers, employees,
volunteers or patients. To increase consistency in these
programs and to enhance the program's effectiveness, the author
accepts the following amendments:
On page 14, line 31, strike "result of paragraph (1), (3), (4),
or (5) of" and insert "based on any of the reasons under"
On page 14, line 35, strike "five" and insert "30"
The author has also agreed to the following technical amendment:
On page 7, line 20, strike "and" and insert "or"
Support : American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees; California Communities United Institute; California
Partnership to End Domestic Violence; California State Sheriffs'
Association
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Secretary of State, Debra Bowen
Related Pending Legislation : AB 2483 (Blumenfield) would amend
an existing law requirement that an application alleging
stalking as the basis for enrollment in the Safe at Home Program
provide specific attached evidence, to make the production of
such evidence permissive, not mandatory.
SB 1082 (Corbett)
Page 10 of ?
Prior Legislation :
SB 636 (Corbett, Ch. 200, Stats. 2011), among other things,
specified that a participant's personal address may be revealed
after termination of certification if the participant's
termination resulted from the program manager determining that
false information was used in the application process or the
program was used as subterfuge.
AB 2251 (Evans, Ch. 486, Stats. 2006) prohibited the public
posting or display of the home address or telephone number of
specified individuals who are associated with a reproductive
health care service provider on the Internet.
AB 797 (Shelley, Ch. 380, Stats. 2002) expanded eligibility in
the state's address confidentiality program to reproductive
health care service providers, their employees and patients.
SB 1318 (Alpert, Ch. 562, Stats. 2000) expanded the Safe at Home
Program to victims of stalking.
SB 489 (Alpert, Ch. 1005, Stats. 1998), See Background.
**************