Download Zipped File WP 6.1 0617JUDM.ZIP 6,158 Bytes
Judiciary Interim Committee
REVISED - MINUTES OF
THE
JUDICIARY INTERIM COMMITTEE
June 17, 1998 - 10:00 a.m. - Room 405 State Capitol
Members Present:
Sen. Craig L. Taylor, Chair
Rep. A. Lamont Tyler, Chair
Sen. David L. Buhler
Sen. Lyle W. Hillyard
Sen. Robert C. Steiner
Rep. Patrice M. Arent
Rep. John B. Arrington
Rep. Loretta Baca
Rep. Afton B. Bradshaw
Rep. Katherine M. Bryson
Rep. Keele Johnson
Rep. Swen C. Nielsen
Rep. Tammy J. Rowan
Rep. Glenn L. Way
Members Absent:
Sen. Lane Beattie
Rep. J. W. "Bill" Hickman
Rep. Martin R. Stephens
Staff Present:
Mr. Jerry D. Howe,
Research Analyst
Ms. Esther Chelsea-McCarty,
Associate General Counsel
Ms. Glenda S. Whitney,
Secretary
Note: A list of others present and a copy of materials distributed in the meeting are on file in the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel.
1. Call to Order and Committee Business - Chair Tyler called the meeting to order at 10:14 a.m.
MOTION: Sen. Buhler moved to approve the minutes of the May 20, 1998 meeting. The motion passed unanimously with Sen. Steiner and Rep. Johnson absent for the vote.
2. Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Ms. Chelsea-McCarty distributed handouts "U.S. Constitution First Amendment" and "Religious Freedom Restoration Acts" and presented a legal analysis of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution. She said that in 1990 the
United States Supreme Court relaxed the standard for states to burden a person's religious
freedoms. In response to the court's adoption of a more relaxed standard, Congress passed the
Religious Freedoms Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. The new law was intended to establish
that state's must show a compelling state interest to justify violating a person's free exercise of
religion. Ms. Chelsea-McCarty explained that in 1997 the Supreme Court found parts of RFRA
to be unconstitutional. Since then, a few states have enacted state laws
establishing that the state must demonstrate a compelling state interest to burden a person's religious freedoms.
Sen. Hillyard said that his interest in establishing a state RFRA law came after attending
an NCSL Convention where he learned of state laws protecting religious freedoms in areas that
the federal RFRA law had been struck down.
Sen. Taylor explained that the establishment clause has two prongs. He said that
Whitehead, decided by the Utah Supreme Court, dealt with prayer in a public setting. The issue not discussed by the case is religion in the educational context. The Bachman case, he said, concerns the education setting and that case applies because the Utah Constitution is more
restrictive than the federal constitution. He suggested that the Utah Constitution be consistent
with the federal constitution so the extensive body of case law under the federal system would
more directly apply to Utah.
Sen. Buhler said Utah's Sen. Hatch may be sponsoring another RFRA on the federal
level. Sen. Hillyard said the state could do no harm by taking state action. He said Utah ought to
be aware of what other states are doing and that a religious freedom law could adequately be
done on the state level.
MOTION:
Sen. Hillyard moved that staff continue to examine what other states are doing, including Florida, Rhode Island, and Connecticut with respect to religious freedoms; and
that any action on this issue be postponed until more research has been completed. The motion
passed unanimously.
Chair Tyler allowed Sen. Taylor to conduct the meeting while he presented the next agenda item.
3. Privatization of Social Security Number
Chair Tyler acknowledged receiving a letter from the Credit Bureau of Ogden which, he
said, objectively discussed social security numbers being used as identifiers. The letter was
distributed to the committee.
Chair Tyler
told of a constituent who had an insurance company insist on using his social security number to render services. The constituent, believing this infringed on his right to
privacy went without insurance coverage. Chair Tyler distributed a copy of draft legislation
"Privacy of Social Security Numbers"
which allows a person to have an identifier other than the person's social security number.
Chair Tyler said social security numbers have been widely used by schools, insurance
companies, and other agencies to identify people because of convenience. He reported that the
University of Utah and other state schools have used social security numbers as student
identifiers in the past but many schools have discontinued the practice. The University of Utah
will discontinue the practice on July 1, 1998, he said. He noted that large institutions have
allowed people, on request, to have an identification number different from the social security
number. He also affirmed that people are becoming increasingly sensitive to using social
security numbers for means other than social security benefits. He reviewed an
article in the Salt
Lake Tribune, June 9, 1998 where a hacker downloaded the files of 23,000 individuals, including
social security numbers.
Rep. Baca expressed concerns with an agency getting her social security number and then
giving the number to another agency without permission. She asked to include that protection in
the bill.
Rep. Bryson elaborated on Chair Tyler's comments by stating that employers are being
told by insurance companies that individuals will not be covered unless their social security
number is provided. She encouraged the committee to consider an alternative to forcing people
to supply their social security number to private companies.
Rep. Rowan also told of a constituent who reported being denied medical care for his
children because he refused to give the insurance company his social security number.
Rep. Tyler referred to the handout "Social Security Numbers" and identified what Rhode
Island and Virginia had adopted.
Sen. Buhler questioned why the bill does not contain an enforcement provision. Rep.
Tyler responded that an enforcement mechanism would be wise.
Rep. Tyler said that state law required a social security number to be collected by the Drivers Licence Bureau but explained that the number does not appear on the drivers license if
the person so requests.
Ms. Sonya Ray, Eagle Forum, explained how simple one's identity may be stolen with
the use of a social security number. She spoke in favor of the legislation.
Ms. Emma Chacon, Director, Office of Recovery Services (ORS), reminded the
committee that as a part of state and federal welfare reform, a bill was passed that required social
security numbers to be compiled to ensure compliance. Some of those were already in current
state statutes, such as capturing the social security number in driver license records, addendum
records to birth certificates, and marriage licenses. It is also required that people provide social
security numbers on applications for professional and occupational licenses, recreational
licenses, and on court records in any proceeding that involves divorce, child support, and
paternity, she said.
Chair Tyler explained that the legislation only allows people to have a different identifier
if the social security number is not required by state or federal law. None of those issues will be
affected by the bill, he said.
Sen. Hillyard said a state data base traces prescription medications to prevent people from
obtaining controlled substances at different pharmacies. This legislation, he said, should not
impact that data base either.
Rep. Baca suggested making tougher laws to protect the social security number.
MOTION:
Rep. Tyler moved that this issue be discussed at a future meeting for committee approval. The motion passed with Sen. Steiner and Rep. Arrington voting in
opposition. Rep. Bradshaw and Rep. Johnson were absent for the vote.
4. Adjournment
MOTION: Sen. Hillyard moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:42 a.m. The motion passed unanimously.
[Back to the Interim Directory][Back to the Monthly Schedule][Back to the Committee Listing] Utah State Legislature