Assembly Members Sharp-Collins and Flora seek to narrow public access to the home contact details of elected officials and candidates by adding a new confidentiality provision for residence addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses on the voter registration affidavit. The core change would designate those pieces of information as confidential for federal, state, and local officials and candidates, with disclosure limited to journalistic or governmental purposes under defined conditions. The Secretary of State would provide each county with a list of officials and candidates residing there, and counties would add local officials or candidates to that list; within five business days, the confidential status would be applied and the information would be excluded from lists, rosters, or indexes produced by the county. Officials and candidates would be required to contact their county elections official to confirm confidentiality, and every official or candidate could opt out of confidentiality, with a five-business‑day window to remove the designation; confidentiality would persist until the official leaves office or the winning candidate takes office, unless opted out.
Implementation would also constrain how confidential information is handled in lists and disclosures. The bill requires county officials to exclude confidential information when producing lists or rosters, and it provides a transfer protocol for officials moving between counties: the new county would notify the official and maintain confidentiality for a 60-day period, during which the old county would continue to exclude the confidential data from lists; the move triggers specific steps to ensure the status remains consistent, and the official must verify or reestablish confidentiality in the new county within the period. Disclosure would be restricted to bona fide journalistic or governmental purposes, with access governed by Secretary of State regulations, and the bill acknowledges potential liability limitations for counties or officials when relying on information supplied by the Secretary of State.
In parallel, the measure tightens protections around voter registration data and expands candidacy disclosures. It preserves limits on releasing personal identifiers such as driver’s license numbers and signatures, while clarifying allowable uses consistent with defined purposes, including journalistic or governmental needs as determined by the Secretary of State. The bill also requires several declarations of candidacy to include more comprehensive information: for certain offices, candidates would certify their complete voter registration and party affiliation history for the preceding ten years (or for the entire period of eligibility if shorter), and write-in and municipal declarations would incorporate similar requirements. Additional forms would continue to require the candidate’s residence and contact details, with noted options for withholding certain information at the elections official’s discretion and corresponding verification processes.
The proposal also authorizes counties to contract with consumer credit reporting agencies to obtain change-of-address data in lieu of traditional residency confirmation postcards. Under this mechanism, each registered voter’s name and residence address in the county could be submitted to the agency, which would report any address changes back to the county. The county would send a forwardable notice to the voter to verify or correct the address, and, if the voter confirms a move, the registration would be updated; if there is no response, the voter would not be set to inactive or canceled. The bill would prohibit disclosure of confidential information to the reporting agency and would require the agency to limit its use to the defined purpose and not retain the data. It would also require the forwardable notice to include specific wording and would impose safeguards around how disclosures are handled, with the county continuing to ensure confidentiality where applicable. The measure contemplates a state-mandated local program and, if state-mandated costs exist, reimbursement provisions for local agencies; its operative provisions regarding the change-of-address data would depend on the enactment of related legislation and certain sequencing conditions.
In its findings, the bill’s authors explain that limiting access to elected officials’ and candidates’ home contact details serves the interest of safety and privacy in the electoral process. The broader policy context centers on balancing access to public information with protections for individuals who hold or seek public office and on updating candidacy and registration practices to reflect evolving privacy considerations. The implementation would involve local and state agencies, with potential fiscal implications for counties and school districts if costs are mandated, and conditions tying certain provisions to other related measures.
![]() Heath FloraR Assemblymember | Bill Author | Not Contacted | |
![]() Marc BermanD Assemblymember | Committee Member | Not Contacted | |
![]() Steve BennettD Assemblymember | Committee Member | Not Contacted | |
![]() Bill EssayliR Assemblymember | Committee Member | Not Contacted | |
![]() Gail PellerinD Assemblymember | Committee Member | Not Contacted |
Email the authors or create an email template to send to all relevant legislators.
Assembly Members Sharp-Collins and Flora seek to narrow public access to the home contact details of elected officials and candidates by adding a new confidentiality provision for residence addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses on the voter registration affidavit. The core change would designate those pieces of information as confidential for federal, state, and local officials and candidates, with disclosure limited to journalistic or governmental purposes under defined conditions. The Secretary of State would provide each county with a list of officials and candidates residing there, and counties would add local officials or candidates to that list; within five business days, the confidential status would be applied and the information would be excluded from lists, rosters, or indexes produced by the county. Officials and candidates would be required to contact their county elections official to confirm confidentiality, and every official or candidate could opt out of confidentiality, with a five-business‑day window to remove the designation; confidentiality would persist until the official leaves office or the winning candidate takes office, unless opted out.
Implementation would also constrain how confidential information is handled in lists and disclosures. The bill requires county officials to exclude confidential information when producing lists or rosters, and it provides a transfer protocol for officials moving between counties: the new county would notify the official and maintain confidentiality for a 60-day period, during which the old county would continue to exclude the confidential data from lists; the move triggers specific steps to ensure the status remains consistent, and the official must verify or reestablish confidentiality in the new county within the period. Disclosure would be restricted to bona fide journalistic or governmental purposes, with access governed by Secretary of State regulations, and the bill acknowledges potential liability limitations for counties or officials when relying on information supplied by the Secretary of State.
In parallel, the measure tightens protections around voter registration data and expands candidacy disclosures. It preserves limits on releasing personal identifiers such as driver’s license numbers and signatures, while clarifying allowable uses consistent with defined purposes, including journalistic or governmental needs as determined by the Secretary of State. The bill also requires several declarations of candidacy to include more comprehensive information: for certain offices, candidates would certify their complete voter registration and party affiliation history for the preceding ten years (or for the entire period of eligibility if shorter), and write-in and municipal declarations would incorporate similar requirements. Additional forms would continue to require the candidate’s residence and contact details, with noted options for withholding certain information at the elections official’s discretion and corresponding verification processes.
The proposal also authorizes counties to contract with consumer credit reporting agencies to obtain change-of-address data in lieu of traditional residency confirmation postcards. Under this mechanism, each registered voter’s name and residence address in the county could be submitted to the agency, which would report any address changes back to the county. The county would send a forwardable notice to the voter to verify or correct the address, and, if the voter confirms a move, the registration would be updated; if there is no response, the voter would not be set to inactive or canceled. The bill would prohibit disclosure of confidential information to the reporting agency and would require the agency to limit its use to the defined purpose and not retain the data. It would also require the forwardable notice to include specific wording and would impose safeguards around how disclosures are handled, with the county continuing to ensure confidentiality where applicable. The measure contemplates a state-mandated local program and, if state-mandated costs exist, reimbursement provisions for local agencies; its operative provisions regarding the change-of-address data would depend on the enactment of related legislation and certain sequencing conditions.
In its findings, the bill’s authors explain that limiting access to elected officials’ and candidates’ home contact details serves the interest of safety and privacy in the electoral process. The broader policy context centers on balancing access to public information with protections for individuals who hold or seek public office and on updating candidacy and registration practices to reflect evolving privacy considerations. The implementation would involve local and state agencies, with potential fiscal implications for counties and school districts if costs are mandated, and conditions tying certain provisions to other related measures.
Ayes | Noes | NVR | Total | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
77 | 0 | 3 | 80 | PASS |
![]() Heath FloraR Assemblymember | Bill Author | Not Contacted | |
![]() Marc BermanD Assemblymember | Committee Member | Not Contacted | |
![]() Steve BennettD Assemblymember | Committee Member | Not Contacted | |
![]() Bill EssayliR Assemblymember | Committee Member | Not Contacted | |
![]() Gail PellerinD Assemblymember | Committee Member | Not Contacted |