Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vital Records Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves interstate compact to share putative father registry data; privacy questions remain
Summary
Senate Bill 63 would create a compact allowing states with putative-father registries to share information. Senators raised privacy and implementation questions; the Senate approved the bill with a delayed effective date to allow follow-up legislation and outreach.
The Utah Senate approved Senate Bill 63 on Feb. 20, a bill creating a compact to share putative-father registry information with other states that adopt compatible compacts.
Sponsor Senator Robles told the Senate the compact would let states with registries share information when a putative father registers in one state and that information should then be visible to other member states. "This bill, what it does, it will create a compact where we will be sharing information with other states that currently have... a putative father registry in place," Robles said.
Senators pressed on operational and privacy details. Senator Hilliard asked how many states were members; the sponsor said Utah would be creating the compact and that, while about 33 states have similar registries, no other state had yet joined a sharing compact. Senators expressed concern about privacy, how data would be shared, and whether GRAMA and implementing legislation would be required. Senator Valentine recommended working with legislative counsel and acknowledged the need for statutory and GRAMA frameworks to govern how requests are initiated and how information is protected.
Sponsor Robles explained the bill’s delayed effective date (2015) was deliberate: companion resolutions and outreach (for example, through the National Conference of State Legislatures) are intended to recruit participating states and provide time for implementing statutes in Utah. "We're just putting a time frame of an extra year to make sure we have enough time to put our compact in place and be able to talk about this issue with other states," he said.
The Senate asked for technical clarifications about who would be a party to the compact and how information-sharing would operate (direct uploads vs. queries to vital records); the sponsor said those technical details would be worked out with legislative counsel and legislative research and that additional implementing legislation would be required.
SB 63 passed the Senate on third reading by roll call, 25 yeas, 3 nays, 1 absent. The bill will be sent on for enrolment and to subsequent steps for implementation if enacted.
Next steps: sponsor and legislative counsel to draft clarifying statutory language about parties to the compact, GRAMA and privacy protections, and to coordinate outreach to other states.
