California · 2025–26 Regular Session · Assembly Bill
AB 64: Vital records.
Enacted Official data
- Introduced
- In committee
- Passed one chamber
- Passed both chambers
- Enacted
Last official action: ·Record last updated:
Plain-language summary
AB 64 is a assembly bill introduced in the California Assembly on December 3, 2024. According to its official title, it concerns: Vital records. Primary sponsor: Blanca Pacheco (D). It lists 24 additional sponsors. Most recent recorded action (October 12, 2025): Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 662, Statutes of 2025.
Generated automatically from the official title, sponsor list, and status record only. It does not characterize the bill’s purpose or effects. How summaries are written
Official summary
Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.
(1)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, commencing no earlier than 2 years after an appropriation of funds by the Legislature, the State Registrar to require the use of a diacritical mark on an English letter within a name field 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 or presence of a diacritical mark on a certificate of live birth, fetal death, or death, or a marriage license and certificate or confidential marriage license and certificate does not render the document invalid nor affect any constructive notice imparted by proper recordation of the document. The bill would authorize the State Registrar to develop a list of acceptable diacritical marks for use on a certificate of live birth, fetal death, or death, or a marriage license and certificate or confidential marriage license and certificate through all-county letters or similar instructions from the State Registrar without taking further regulatory actions. The bill would authorize the State Registrar to remove any diacritical marks on the birth, fetal death, death, and marriage license and certificate data before furnishing the vital statistics to a federal, state, or local government agency.
The bill would authorize, beginning July 1, 2026, 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 make an affidavit under oath, as specified, stating the changes necessary to make the record correct. The bill would require the affidavit to be supported by the affidavit of one other person having knowledge of the facts and be filed with the State Registrar. 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 an amendment to any 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 field of either of the parties married or their parents 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 authorize the county clerk to charge a fee, not to exceed the amount of the fee for any other amended confidential marriage license and certificate issued by the county clerk and not to exceed the reasonable cost to provide the amended marriage license and certificate. 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.
(2)Existing law requires the collection of specified fees for certified copies of a fetal death record, death record, a birth certificate, marriage record, or marriage dissolution record. Existing law requires all applicants for certified copies of the above-described records to pay an additional fee of $3 to be collected by the State Registrar, the local registrar, county recorder, or county clerk, as appropriate.
This bill would increase the additional fee charged for certified copies of the above-described records to $5.
(3)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.
Sponsors
Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 24 · Republican 1
| Name | Role | Party | Chamber | District |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blanca Pacheco | Primary sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 64 |
| Patrick Ahrens | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 26 |
| Juan Alanis | Co-sponsor | Republican | Assembly | 22 |
| David Alvarez | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 80 |
| Tasha Boerner | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 77 |
| Isaac Bryan | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 55 |
| Juan Carrillo | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 39 |
| Mike Fong | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 49 |
| Mike Gipson | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 65 |
| Mark González | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 54 |
| Matt Haney | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 17 |
| John Harabedian | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 41 |
| Alex Lee | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 24 |
| Monique Limón | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Senate | 21 |
| Al Muratsuchi | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 66 |
| Darshana R. Patel | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 76 |
| Gail Pellerin | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 28 |
| James Ramos | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 45 |
| Michelle Rodriguez | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 53 |
| Pilar Schiavo | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 40 |
| Nick Schultz | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 44 |
| José Luis Solache | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 62 |
| Esmeralda Soria | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 27 |
| Catherine Stefani | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 19 |
| Avelino Valencia | Co-sponsor | Democratic | Assembly | 68 |
“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.
Recent official actions
- Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 662, Statutes of 2025.
- Approved by the Governor.
- Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.
- Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 3192.).
- In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
- Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2737.).
- Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
- Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
- Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
- Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
- Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
- From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 29).