California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: In Committee Bipartisan · 15 D · 4 R cosponsors

AB 77 — Vital records: diacritical marks.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law prescribes the duties of the State Registrar of Vital Statistics (State Registrar) and local registrars of births and deaths with respect to the registration of certificates of live birth, fetal death, or death, and marriage licenses. Existing law requires the State Registrar to prescribe and furnish all record forms for use in carrying out the provisions governing vital records and prohibits the use of any record form or format other than those prescribed by the State Registrar. Existing law requires every live birth, fetal death, death, and marriage that occurs in the state to be registered with the local registrar. Existing law requires certificates of live birth, fetal death, or death, and a marriage license to include specified information, such as the full name of the child on a certificate of live birth and the full names of the parties to be married on a marriage license. Existing law also requires the county clerk to issue a confidential marriage license, as specified, on a form prescribed by the State Registrar. This bill would require the State Registrar to require the use of a diacritical mark on an English letter to be properly recorded, when applicable, on a certificate of live birth, fetal death, death, marriage license and certificate, or confidential marriage license and certificate, and would require the use of a diacritical mark to be deemed an acceptable entry by the State Registrar. The bill would provide that the absence of a diacritical mark on a certificate of live birth, fetal death, or death, or a marriage license does not render the document invalid nor affect any constructive notice imparted by proper recordation of the document. The bill would authorize, if a name is not accurately recorded because of the absence of a diacritical mark on an English letter in any certificate of live birth, fetal death, death, or marriage already registered, the person asserting the omission, or the person's conservator, or if a minor, the person's parent or guardian, to submit a written request to the State Registrar for the issuance of a new certificate of birth, fetal death, death, or marriage stating the changes necessary to make the name correct. The bill would require the State Registrar to review the request and, if the request is accompanied with the payment of a specified fee, to issue a new certificate of live birth, fetal death, death, or marriage with the accurate name identified in the request. The bill would also authorize, if a name is not accurately recorded because of the absence of a diacritical mark on an English letter on any confidential license and certificate of marriage already registered, the party asserting the omission to make an affidavit, under oath, stating the changes necessary to make the record correct and file it with the county clerk. The bill would require the county clerk to review the amendment for acceptance for filing, and if accepted, file the amendment and note the fact of the amendment, with its date, on the otherwise unaltered original confidential license and certificate of marriage. By requiring the affidavit to be under oath, the bill would expand the crime of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. By increasing duties on county clerks, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Held under submission.

  4. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  5. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  6. Read second time and amended.

  7. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (March 28).

  8. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  9. Read first time.

  10. From printer. May be heard in committee January 14.

  11. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 20 co-sponsors · 101 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (20)

Not signed on (101)

101 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 101 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 14 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9001
Republican 2000
Democratic 3000
Total 14001
% of votes cast 93%0%0%7%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
McCarty — Yea
Wood — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Boerner Horvath — Yea
Vince Fong — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Not Voting
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

civil-rights healthcare
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 77 do?
Existing law prescribes the duties of the State Registrar of Vital Statistics (State Registrar) and local registrars of births and deaths with respect to the registration of certificates of live birth, fetal death, or death, and marriage licenses. Existing law requires the State Registrar to prescribe and furnish all record forms for use in carrying out the provisions governing vital records and prohibits the use of any record form or format other than those prescribed by the State Registrar. Existing law requires every live birth, fetal death, death, and marriage that occurs in the state to be registered with the local registrar. Existing law requires certificates of live birth, fetal death, or death, and a marriage license to include specified information, such as the full name of the child on a certificate of live birth and the full names of the parties to be married on a marriage license. Existing law also requires the county clerk to issue a confidential marriage license, as specified, on a form prescribed by the State Registrar. This bill would require the State Registrar to require the use of a diacritical mark on an English letter to be properly recorded, when applicable, on a certificate of live birth, fetal death, death, marriage license and certificate, or confidential marriage license and certificate, and would require the use of a diacritical mark to be deemed an acceptable entry by the State Registrar. The bill would provide that the absence of a diacritical mark on a certificate of live birth, fetal death, or death, or a marriage license does not render the document invalid nor affect any constructive notice imparted by proper recordation of the document. The bill would authorize, if a name is not accurately recorded because of the absence of a diacritical mark on an English letter in any certificate of live birth, fetal death, death, or marriage already registered, the person asserting the omission, or the person's conservator, or if a minor, the person's parent or guardian, to submit a written request to the State Registrar for the issuance of a new certificate of birth, fetal death, death, or marriage stating the changes necessary to make the name correct. The bill would require the State Registrar to review the request and, if the request is accompanied with the payment of a specified fee, to issue a new certificate of live birth, fetal death, death, or marriage with the accurate name identified in the request. The bill would also authorize, if a name is not accurately recorded because of the absence of a diacritical mark on an English letter on any confidential license and certificate of marriage already registered, the party asserting the omission to make an affidavit, under oath, stating the changes necessary to make the record correct and file it with the county clerk. The bill would require the county clerk to review the amendment for acceptance for filing, and if accepted, file the amendment and note the fact of the amendment, with its date, on the otherwise unaltered original confidential license and certificate of marriage. By requiring the affidavit to be under oath, the bill would expand the crime of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. By increasing duties on county clerks, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors AB 77?
AB 77 is sponsored by Nguyen, Stephanie (Democratic), Quirk-Silva, Sharon (Democratic), Ramos, James C. (Democratic), Rubio, Blanca E. (Democratic), Schiavo, Pilar (Democratic), Soria, Esmeralda (Democratic), Villapudua, Wilson, Lori D. (Democratic), Wood, Zbur, Rick Chavez (Democratic), Pacheco, Blanca (Democratic), Addis, Dawn (Democratic), Alanis, Juan (Republican), Alvarez, David (Democratic), Carrillo, Juan (Democratic), Dixon, Diane (Republican), Hoover, Josh (Republican), Kalra, Ash (Democratic), McKinnor, Tina (Democratic), and Patterson, Joe (Republican).
What is the current status of AB 77?
This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 77?
Track AB 77 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 77

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 77

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →