BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1660
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 1660 (Alejo) - As Amended: April 24, 2014
SUBJECT : DRIVER'S LICENSES: PRIVACY AND NONDISCRIMINATION
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD EXISTING PROTECTIONS REGARDING PRIVACY AND
DISCRIMINATION WITH RESPECT TO DRIVER'S LICENSES BE CLARIFIED?
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill is a technical clean-up to last
year's historic AB 60 (Alejo) which gave immigrants the
opportunity to obtain a driver's license. This bill clarifies
the privacy provisions of AB 60 and makes clear that the
anti-discrimination provisions of that measure apply to
individuals in both the public and private sectors. In addition
the bill clarifies that state law is not meant to usurp federal
law requirements. There is no known opposition.
SUMMARY : Clarifies privacy and non-discrimination rules under
existing law. Specifically, this bill :
1)Clarifies existing law that specified information provided to
obtain a driver's license is private and confidential, and
adds findings and declarations of the Legislature relative to
the privacy of this information pursuant to Prop. 59.
2)Clarifies existing law prohibiting discrimination under the
Unruh Civil Rights Act against persons who hold or present a
driver's license, as specified.
3)Clarifies existing law prohibiting discrimination against
persons who hold or present a driver's license, as specified,
under the Fair Housing and Employment Act.
4)Specifies that an action taken by an employer to comply with
any requirement under the federal Immigration and Nationality
Act is not a violation of law.
5)Clarifies the existing prohibition regarding governmental
discrimination against an individual because he or she holds
or presents a license, as specified.
AB 1660
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue an original
driver's license to a person who is unable to submit
satisfactory proof that the applicant's presence in the United
States is authorized under federal law if he or she meets all
other qualifications for licensure and provides satisfactory
proof to the department of his or her identity and California
residency, and provides that records related to the
application are not public records. (Sections 12801, 12801.9
of the Vehicle Code.)
2)Provides that it is a violation of law, including, but not
limited to, a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, to
discriminate against an individual because he or she holds or
presents a driver's license issued under these provisions.
(Section 12801.9 of the Vehicle Code.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : The author explains the purpose of the bill as
follows:
Last year, California made history by adopting AB 60 - The
Safe and Responsible Drivers Act, giving immigrants the
opportunity to obtain a driver's license. The DMV is
currently in the process of implementing the bill and
holding public hearings to draft regulations. This year I
am introducing AB 1660 to make technical fixes to AB 60 and
to ensure that all of those who are affected by this
legislation are protected under the law.
AB 1660 clarifies that the anti-discrimination provisions
of AB 60 apply to individuals in both the public and
private sectors, and makes clear that state law is not
meant to usurp federal law requirements.
A coalition of agricultural employer groups writes in support of
the bill:
AB 60 will allow a person who cannot document lawful
presence in the United States to apply for a California
driver's license. To be compliant with the federal Real ID
Act of 2005, AB 60 included a provision that will require a
AB 1660
Page 3
driver's license issued under it to have a distinguishing
feature. But AB 60 also contains a clause making it a
violation of state law to discriminate against a person for
presenting an AB 60 license. This anti-discrimination
provision may put employers in conflict with requirements
under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. AB 1660
fixes this potential conflict by clarifying that an
employer does not violate California law by taking action
required by that federal law. Because it offers employers
certainty with regards to the anti-discrimination provision
in AB 60, we urge your support of AB 1660.
Immigrants' rights organizations also support the privacy and
nondiscrimination provisions of the bill, stating, "AB 60 also
contains a clause making it a violation of state law for any
person to discriminate based on this differentiation. While
this anti-discrimination language serves many meritorious
purposes, some employers raised questions about how it affects
their obligations under the federal Immigration and Nationality
Act. AB 1660 answers these questions by clarifying that an
employer does not violate California law by taking actions that
are required by federal law. We understand that this provision
will apply whenever federal law mandates that a particular
action be taken."
One Outstanding Question Regarding Content of Affidavit
Requirement Not Addressed In This Bill. Two immigrants' right
advocacy groups have proposed an additional amendment to respond
to a concern regarding an issue that is not currently addressed
in the bill. These groups argue, "AB 60 requires applicants to
declare that they are both ineligible for a SSN and that they
are unable to submit proof of authorized presence in the U.S.
The affidavit requirement in AB 60 is inaccurate because some
undocumented individuals actually have a valid SSN. We are also
concerned that the affidavit, as currently written, could lead
to attempts to use AB 60 licenses against individuals in their
immigration proceedings." Specifically, these groups request
the following proposed amendment:
Vehicle Code s 12801(c)(1): An applicant who is unable to
provide satisfactory proof that his or her presence in the
United States is authorized under federal law may sign an
affidavit attesting that he or she is both ineligible fo r
has not been issued a social security account number and or
AB 1660
Page 4
is unable to submit satisfactory proof that his or her
presence is authorized under federal law.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Agricultural Council of California
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Chamber of Commerce
California Cotton Ginners Association
California Cotton Growers Association
California Grain and Feed Association
California Grape and Tree Fruit League
California Landscape Contractors Association
Pacific Egg and Poultry Association
California Seed Association
California State Floral Association
California Dry Bean Association
California Pear Growers Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Ventura County Agricultural Association
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers Association
Support if Amended
ACLU
California Immigrant Policy Center
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334