SB 1071 — Death certificates.
Last action — May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
-
1Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 13, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.
Odds of enactment
Low chanceBased on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a low chance of becoming law.
Upgrade to see the exact probability and what's driving it.
A statistical estimate from our own model of past outcomes — an insight, not a guarantee. Policymaking is volatile.
Prognosis
-
Introduced
Current position in the legislative process.
-
20 sponsors
1 primary, 19 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Bipartisan support
Sponsored across 2 parties (8 R · 6 D) — cross-party backing.
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 3 recorded votes so far.
Based on stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes, and cross-state momentum — a description of the observable signals, not a prediction.
Summary
Existing law requires that each death be registered with the local registrar of births and deaths in the district in which the death was officially pronounced or the body was found. Existing law establishes the required contents of the death certificate, including, but not limited to, the decedent's name, sex, race, and the disease or conditions leading directly to death and antecedent causes, among other relevant identifying and medical information. When the facts are incorrectly stated in a certificate of death, including a typographical error, existing law authorizes a person to make an affidavit under oath stating the changes necessary to make the record correct. Existing law requires that specified information be filed with the state or local registrar, and if the amendments are accepted, the State Registrar is required to transmit copies of the amendment to the county recorder in whose offices the copies of the original record and information are on file. Existing law requires the amendment to be filed with and become a part of the record to which it pertains. This bill would authorize a family member of the deceased, when a judicial determination is made on the manner of a deceased person's death, to submit a written request to the State Registrar for a new death certificate reflecting the newly determined manner of death. This bill would require the request to be supported by a certified copy of the plea, verdict, statement of decision, or a judgment showing that the manner of death was determined by a finder of fact to be different than stated on the existing certificate. The bill would require the State Registrar to review the request and issue a new death certificate if specified conditions are met, including, but not limited to, that the request identifies the determination of manner of death in the certified court record. The bill would require the State Registrar to transmit copies of the new death certificate and the new certificate will supplant any previously issued certificate for the deceased person. The bill would require the local registrar to transmit any copies of the previously issued death certificate to the State Registrar if it is practical to do so and if it is not practical to do so, seal a cover over the copy, as specified. The bill would specify that a plea, verdict, statement of decision, or judgment reflects a judicial determination that the manner of death was homicide if it shows criminal responsibility or civil liability for the death of the deceased person. The bill would authorize a family member of the deceased to include additional certified court records with their request to permit the State Registrar to determine the manner of death. The bill would require a determination by the State Registrar to be based solely on the request and the submitted certified court documents. By imposing new duties on local registrars, this bill would impose a state-mandated 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Bill Text
- Amended 04/23/26 - Amended Senate Current pdf April 23, 2026
- Introduced 02/13/26 - Introduced pdf February 13, 2026
- SB1071 View text html
Action History
-
May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
-
Set for hearing May 14.
-
May 4 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
-
Set for hearing May 4.
-
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 3978.) (April 21).
-
Set for hearing April 21.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 3793.) (April 8). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
-
Set for hearing April 8.
-
Referred to Coms. on HEALTH and JUD.
-
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 16.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Ochoa Bogh · Primary
- Petrie-Norris · Cosponsor
- Hadwick · Cosponsor
- Krell · Cosponsor
- Macedo · Cosponsor
- Wallis · Cosponsor
- Lena A. Gonzalez · Cosponsor
- Aisha Wahab · Cosponsor
- Suzette Martinez Valladares · Cosponsor
- Kelly Seyarto · Cosponsor
- Stephen C. Padilla · Cosponsor
- Roger W. Niello · Cosponsor
- Brian W. Jones · Cosponsor
- Shannon Grove · Cosponsor
- Steven S. Choi · Cosponsor
- Bob Archuleta · Cosponsor
- Marie Alvarado-Gil · Cosponsor
- Benjamin Allen · Cosponsor
- Jerry McNerney · Cosponsor
- Tony Strickland · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 19 co-sponsors · 102 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Ochoa Bogh
Co-sponsors (19)
- Petrie-Norris
- Hadwick
- Krell
- Macedo
- Wallis
- Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic
- Wahab, Aisha Democratic
- Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican
- Seyarto, Kelly Republican
- Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic
- Niello, Roger W. Republican
- Jones, Brian W. Republican
- Grove, Shannon Republican
- Choi, Steven S. Republican
- Archuleta, Bob Democratic
- Alvarado-Gil, Marie Republican
- Allen, Benjamin Democratic
- McNerney, Jerry Democratic
- Strickland, Tony Republican
Not signed on (102)
102 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 102 →"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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Cabaldon, Christopher | Democratic | Yea |
| Cervantes, Sabrina | Democratic | Yea |
| Grayson, Timothy S. | Democratic | Yea |
| Richardson, Laura | Democratic | Yea |
| Wahab, Aisha | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Seyarto, Kelly | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 85% | 0% | 0% | 15% |
How each member voted (13)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Allen, Benjamin | Democratic | Yea |
| Ashby, Angelique V. | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Durazo, Maria Elena | Democratic | Yea |
| Laird, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Reyes, Eloise Gómez | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Stern, Henry I. | Democratic | Yea |
| Umberg, Thomas J. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wahab, Aisha | Democratic | Yea |
| Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Niello, Roger W. | Republican | Yea |
| Valladares, Suzette Martinez | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 7 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 82% | 0% | 0% | 18% |
How each member voted (11)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Durazo, Maria Elena | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Gonzalez, Lena A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Menjivar, Caroline | Democratic | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Pérez, Sasha Renée | Democratic | Yea |
| Rubio, Susan | Democratic | Yea |
| Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah | Democratic | Yea |
| Grove, Shannon | Republican | Yea |
| Valladares, Suzette Martinez | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 1071 do?
- Existing law requires that each death be registered with the local registrar of births and deaths in the district in which the death was officially pronounced or the body was found. Existing law establishes the required contents of the death certificate, including, but not limited to, the decedent's name, sex, race, and the disease or conditions leading directly to death and antecedent causes, among other relevant identifying and medical information. When the facts are incorrectly stated in a certificate of death, including a typographical error, existing law authorizes a person to make an affidavit under oath stating the changes necessary to make the record correct. Existing law requires that specified information be filed with the state or local registrar, and if the amendments are accepted, the State Registrar is required to transmit copies of the amendment to the county recorder in whose offices the copies of the original record and information are on file. Existing law requires the amendment to be filed with and become a part of the record to which it pertains. This bill would authorize a family member of the deceased, when a judicial determination is made on the manner of a deceased person's death, to submit a written request to the State Registrar for a new death certificate reflecting the newly determined manner of death. This bill would require the request to be supported by a certified copy of the plea, verdict, statement of decision, or a judgment showing that the manner of death was determined by a finder of fact to be different than stated on the existing certificate. The bill would require the State Registrar to review the request and issue a new death certificate if specified conditions are met, including, but not limited to, that the request identifies the determination of manner of death in the certified court record. The bill would require the State Registrar to transmit copies of the new death certificate and the new certificate will supplant any previously issued certificate for the deceased person. The bill would require the local registrar to transmit any copies of the previously issued death certificate to the State Registrar if it is practical to do so and if it is not practical to do so, seal a cover over the copy, as specified. The bill would specify that a plea, verdict, statement of decision, or judgment reflects a judicial determination that the manner of death was homicide if it shows criminal responsibility or civil liability for the death of the deceased person. The bill would authorize a family member of the deceased to include additional certified court records with their request to permit the State Registrar to determine the manner of death. The bill would require a determination by the State Registrar to be based solely on the request and the submitted certified court documents. By imposing new duties on local registrars, this bill would impose a state-mandated 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
- Who sponsors SB 1071?
- SB 1071 is sponsored by Ochoa Bogh, Petrie-Norris, Hadwick, Krell, Macedo, Wallis, Gonzalez, Lena A. (Democratic), Wahab, Aisha (Democratic), Valladares, Suzette Martinez (Republican), Seyarto, Kelly (Republican), Padilla, Stephen C. (Democratic), Niello, Roger W. (Republican), Jones, Brian W. (Republican), Grove, Shannon (Republican), Choi, Steven S. (Republican), Archuleta, Bob (Democratic), Alvarado-Gil, Marie (Republican), Allen, Benjamin (Democratic), McNerney, Jerry (Democratic), and Strickland, Tony (Republican).
- What is the current status of SB 1071?
- This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 13, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
- Where can I track SB 1071?
- Track SB 1071 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 1071
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.
Stay ahead of SB 1071
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →