SB 40 - An Act to Repeal and Add Section 1798.89 of the Civil Code, and to Amend Section 4506 of the Family Code, Relating to Social Security Numbers.

Personal information: social security numbers. 2009-2010 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
Existing law requires any person, entity, or government agency that is presenting a document for recording or filing with a county recorder to only list the last 4 digits of a social security number. Existing law also requires a county recorder to use due diligence to truncate social security numbers in the public record version of official records.

This bill would provide that a… More
Existing law requires any person, entity, or government agency that is presenting a document for recording or filing with a county recorder to only list the last 4 digits of a social security number. Existing law also requires a county recorder to use due diligence to truncate social security numbers in the public record version of official records.

This bill would provide that a document containing more than the last 4 digits of a social security number is not entitled for recording. This bill would also provide that a recorder shall be deemed to be in compliance if he or she uses due diligence to truncate social security numbers in documents recorded, as provided.

Existing law requires an abstract of judgment ordering a party to pay spousal, child, or family support to contain the social security number of the party who is ordered to pay.

This bill would instead require an abstract of judgment to contain only the last 4 digits of the social security number of the party who is ordered to pay.

The provisions of this bill would not apply to documents created prior to January 1, 2010. Hide
 
Status:
The bill has become law (chaptered). 
Senate Committee on Judiciary Vote: Do pass as amended.

PASSED on March 24, 2009.

voted YES: 5 voted NO: 0
0 voted present/not voting

An Act to Repeal and Add Section 1798.89 of the Civil Code, and to Amend Section 4506 of the Family Code, Relating to Social Security Numbers.

SB 40 — 2009-2010 Legislature

Summary
Existing law requires any person, entity, or government agency that is presenting a document for recording or filing with a county recorder to only list the last 4 digits of a social security number. Existing law also requires a county recorder to use due diligence to truncate social security numbers in the public record version of official records.

This bill would provide that a document containing more than the last 4 digits of a social security number is not entitled for recording. This bill would also provide that a recorder shall be deemed to be in compliance if he or she uses due diligence to truncate social security numbers in documents recorded, as provided.

Existing law requires an abstract of judgment ordering a party to pay spousal, child, or family support to contain the social security number of the party who is ordered to pay.

This bill would instead require an abstract of judgment to contain only the last 4 digits of the social security number of the party who is ordered to pay.

The provisions of this bill would not apply to documents created prior to January 1, 2010.
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Repeal and Add Section 1798.89 of the Civil Code, and to Amend Section 4506 of the Family Code, Relating to Social Security Numbers.
Author(s)
Lou Correa
Co-Authors
    Subjects
    • Personal information: social security numbers
    Major Actions
    Introduced1/06/2009
    Referred to Committee
    Passed Senate Committee on Judiciary3/24/2009
    Passed Senate4/20/2009
    Passed Assembly Committee on Judiciary6/23/2009
    Passed Assembly8/20/2009
    Passed Senate8/31/2009
    Presented to the governor (enrolled)9/04/2009
    Became law (chaptered).10/11/2009
    Bill History
    Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
    currently selectedSenate Committee on JudiciaryDo pass as amended.3/24/2009This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Judiciary
    5 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenateSenate 3rd Reading SB40 Correa4/20/2009This bill PASSED the Senate
    33 voted YES 0 voted NO 6 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssembly Committee on JudiciaryDo pass, to Consent Calendar.6/23/2009This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Judiciary
    10 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssemblySB 40 Correa Senate Third Reading By DUVALL8/20/2009This bill PASSED the Assembly
    78 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenateSpecial Consent #17 SB40 Correa8/31/2009This bill PASSED the Senate
    36 voted YES 0 voted NO 4 voted present/not voting
    ActionDateDescription
    Introduced1/06/2009
    1/06/2009Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
    1/07/2009From print. May be acted upon on or after February 6.
    1/29/2009To Com. on JUD.
    3/09/2009From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
    3/16/2009Set for hearing March 24.
    currently selectedVote3/24/2009Do pass as amended.
    3/26/2009From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 340.)
    3/31/2009Read second time. Amended. To third reading.
    4/20/2009Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 33. Noes 0. Page 541.) To Assembly.
    4/20/2009In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
    select this voteSenate Vote on Passage4/20/2009Senate 3rd Reading SB40 Correa
    5/11/2009To Com. on JUD.
    6/23/2009From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (Heard in committee on June 23.)
    select this voteVote6/23/2009Do pass, to Consent Calendar.
    6/24/2009Read second time. To Consent Calendar.
    6/25/2009From Consent Calendar to third reading.
    8/17/2009Read third time. Amended. (Page 2608.) To third reading.
    8/20/2009Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 2663.) To Senate.
    select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage8/20/2009SB 40 Correa Senate Third Reading By DUVALL
    8/24/2009In Senate. To unfinished business.
    8/26/2009To Special Consent Calendar.
    8/31/2009Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 36. Noes 0. Page 2022.) To enrollment.
    select this voteSenate Vote on Passage8/31/2009Special Consent #17 SB40 Correa
    9/04/2009Enrolled. To Governor at 3:30 p.m.
    10/11/2009Approved by Governor.
    10/11/2009Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 552, Statutes of 2009.

    Average contributions given to Senators from interest groups that…

    supported this motion

    3 Organizations Supported and 0 Opposed; See Which Ones

    Organizations that took a position on
    An Act to Repeal and Add Section 1798.89 of the Civil Code, and to Amend Section 4506 of the Family Code, Relating to Social Security Numbers.: Do pass as amended.

    3 organizations supported this motion

    American Civil Liberties Union
    Senate Judiciary Committee (2009, March 25). Bill Analysis SB 40 3-25-2009. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from Leg Info.
    American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
    Senate Judiciary Committee (2009, March 25). Bill Analysis SB 40 3-25-2009. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from Leg Info.
    Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
    Senate Judiciary Committee (2009, March 25). Bill Analysis SB 40 3-25-2009. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from Leg Info.

    0 organizations opposed this motion

    Need proof?

    View citations of support and opposition

    Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Senators in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2010.
    Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

    Contributions by Legislator

    Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Ellen CorbettDCA-10$35,250$0Yes
    Dean FlorezDCA-16$0$0Yes
    Tom HarmanRCA-35$8,400$0Yes
    Mark LenoDCA-3$64,903$0Yes
    Mimi WaltersRCA-33$3,600$0Yes

    Add Data Filters:

    Legislator Filters
    Legislator Filters
    Show All
    NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Ellen CorbettDCA-10$35,250$0Yes
    Dean FlorezDCA-16$0$0Yes
    Tom HarmanRCA-35$8,400$0Yes
    Mark LenoDCA-3$64,903$0Yes
    Mimi WaltersRCA-33$3,600$0Yes

    Interest Groups that supported this motion

    $ Donated
    State & local government employee unions$110,200
    Democratic-based groups (but not official party committees) and generic liberal/progressive ones$1,953
    Consumer groups$0

    Interest Groups that opposed this motion

    $ Donated
    Loading…
    Date Range of Contributions
    Enter a custom date range