BILL ANALYSIS
AB 102
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 102 (Ma)
As Amended February 28, 2007
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 8-2 APPROPRIATIONS 11-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Jones, Adams, Evans, |Ayes:|Leno, Caballero, Davis, |
| |Feuer, Krekorian, Laird, | |DeSaulnier, Huffman, |
| |Levine, Lieber | |Karnette, Krekorian, |
| | | |Lieu, Ma, Nava, Solorio |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Tran, Keene | | |
| | |Nays:|Walters, Emmerson, La |
| | | |Malfa, Nakanishi, Sharon |
| | | |Runner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Enacts the Name Equality Act of 2007 (Act), which
among other things allows one party or both parties to a
marriage or registered domestic partnership to change their
surname by entering the new surname on either a marriage license
application or certificate of registered domestic partnership.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that parties to a marriage or registered domestic
partnership, shall not be required either to have the same
name or change his/her surname.
2)Allows a person to adopt any surname including, but not
limited to, the surname of the other spouse or domestic
partner, any former surname of either spouse or domestic
partner, a name combining into a single surname all or a
segment of the surname or any former surname of either spouse
or domestic partner, or a hyphenated combination of surnames.
3)Provides that an election by a person to change his or her
name by entering the new surname on the marriage license
application, or certificate of registered domestic
partnership, shall serve as a record of the surname change.
4)Provides that a copy of a marriage license or certificate of
registered domestic partnership shall be accepted as
AB 102
Page 2
identification establishing a surname.
5)Provides that the adoption of a new surname, or the choice not
to adopt a new surname shall not abrogate the right of either
party to adopt a different surname through usage at a future
date, or to petition the superior court for a change of name.
6)Adds information about the Act to the list of items that are
to be included in the brochure to be distributed by the State
Department of Public Health Services (DPH) to marriage license
applicants.
7)Makes technical changes incorporating the provisions of the
Act.
8)Makes findings and declarations relating to the Act.
EXISTING LAW requires :
1)Before entering into or declaring a marriage, that the parties
first obtain a marriage license from a county clerk.
2)DPH to prescribe the forms for the marriage license.
3)DPH to prepare and publish a brochure containing information
concerning the possibilities of genetic defects and diseases
and a listing of centers available for the testing and
treatment of genetic defects and diseases. The brochures must
also contain information concerning AIDS and AIDS testing.
The brochures are required to be distributed to each applicant
for a marriage license.
4)Effective January 1, 2008, that a marriage license contain
certain information, including the maiden name of the female,
if previously married.
5)That each marriage performed be registered by the person
performing the ceremony. Provides for an exemption from this
requirement for members of a religious society or denomination
not having clergy.
AB 102
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis:
1)DPH would incur minor absorbable costs to change its marriage
license form and to incorporate the required changes into its
brochure, which is reprinted each year.
2)The Secretary of State would incur minor absorbable costs to
incorporate the DPH brochure on its website.
3)Counties would incur reprogramming costs of up to several
thousand dollars each to accommodate the marriage license
changes. These costs are nonreimbursable because the counties
can recoup any additional costs through marriage license fees.
COMMENTS : This bill, co-sponsored by the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) and Equality California, enacts the Name
Equality Act of 2007, which among other things allows one party
or both parties to a marriage or registered domestic partnership
to change their surname by entering the new surname on either a
marriage license application or certificate of registered
domestic partnership. According to the author, state law
currently requires that a marriage license form contain certain
minimum information, including the maiden name of the female.
It is up to the discretion of each county to create its marriage
license form. Therefore, variations of the marriage license
form exist, with different requirements for a name change. The
author explains that this ambiguity in the law, coupled with
antiquated custom, has created a situation where men are not as
easily able as women to take on their partner's last name in
marriage.
While state law does not prohibit a man from changing his last
name to his spouse's last name, current marriage licensing forms
and domestic partnership certificates are not required to
provide a space for this type of name change, leaving only the
expensive and time consuming court process. In addition,
married men have reported difficulty obtaining a drivers license
or identification card with their new name when using their
marriage license or domestic partnership certificates as proof
of their new name.
The ACLU has filed a suit in federal court arguing that current
law, governing name change procedures, violates the equal
AB 102
Page 4
protection clause provided by the 14th Amendment of the
Constitution. [( Buday v. California Department of Health and
Services, et al , No. CV06-08008 FMC (JWJx), (C.D. Cal. filed
December 15, 2006).] This suit resulted from the experience of
a couple who attempted to get the husband's last name changed to
his wife's last name. The Los Angeles Times and the Sacramento
Bee reported on the case of Michael Buday, who wished to change
his last name to his wife's last name when they married. Unlike
his wife, who could use the license document to effectuate her
name change if she chose to accept her husband's surname, Mr.
Buday found the process to change his last name both exhaustive
and expensive. Mr. Buday had to go through the courts, pay a
court filing fee, pay a $32 application fee in addition to the
$70 marriage license fee, and publish the change in a local
newspaper for four weeks. ("Take Your Wife's Name? That'll
Cost You-So ACLU Steps In," Los Angeles Times, December 15,
2006; "Name Games; Gender Discrimination Cuts Two Ways,"
Sacramento Bee, December 29, 2006.) This bill seeks to prevent
such future hardship by, among other things, allowing a husband
to also change his surname to his wife's surname via the
marriage license.
Currently, the following seven states recognize a statutory
right for men to take their wives' last name: Georgia, Hawaii,
Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, and North Dakota.
[(Georgia Code Annotated 19-3-33.1 (1999); Hawaii Revised
Statutes Annotated 574-1 (Michie 1993); Iowa Code Annotated
595.5 (West Supp. 2001); Louisiana Civil Code Annotated Article
100 (West 2002); Massachusetts Annotated Laws Chapter 46, 1D
(Law. Co-op. 1991); New York Domestic Relations Laws 15
(McKinney 1999); and, North Dakota Century Code 14-03-20.1
(1996).]
Analysis Prepared by : Manuel Valencia / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0000296