25 January 2006–Indiana HB 1067

This bill is essentially the same as HB1551 from 2005. A death certificate must be made available for inspection and copying fifty (50) years after the creation of the record. A birth record must be made available seventy-five (75) years after the date of a person’s birth. The Indiana Genealogical Society is opposed to the bill. The IGS website reports that as the bill is currently written, “A person doing a genealogical study” will have access to these records only if in compliance with rules to be adopted by the state. These rules have not been written yet. More information on HB1067 can be obtained from the IGS website at http://www.indgensoc.org/

9 February 2005 - HB1551

House Bill 1551 requires Indiana vital records to be kept confidential except for death records 50 years and older, and birth records 75 years and older. The bill narrows the list of who can get a copy of a vital record to: the person listed on the record; the person's mother or father; the person's grandparent; the person's spouse, sibling or offspring, or "a person conducting a genealogical study in compliance with rules adopted by the state department." The state department of health develops its administrative rules and they are outside any legislative measure. Additionally, the bill says that the cause of death shall not be listed on a death record that is given out unless the person requesting it "proves a documented need for the death
certificate."

The bill is being opposed by the Indiana Genealogical Society and by the lobbying agent for the
Hoosier Press Association.

3 March 2003 - Indiana HB1540

Report of the Legislative Committee of Indiana Genealogical Society

With the help of IGS members and other genealogists from Indiana and around the country, the members of the Indiana House of Representatives heard the people's voice. House Bill 1540 failed this morning, March 3, 2003, by a vote of 43 to 50 on third reading. The communication with legislators about the concerns of the genealogical community raised enough questions that we were successful in defeating this bill.

I want to summarize for members for you the activities that occurred over the past four weeks.

Betty Warren, Curt Witcher, Darlene Anderson and I have spent considerable time preparing for hearings, monitoring the bill's progress, contacting other organizations and individuals in Indiana and in other states, formulating strategy for our activities, writing and reading emails and listening to testimony in the House of Representatives. I know there are other board members who were making contacts in their local areas as well. Mary Lou Bevers is to be commended for her conversations with her representatives in southern Indiana. I also thank those who were out there making those contacts that I did not here about specifically.

One of the basis for the bill voiced in the committee hearing by the author was that under the current law anyone can go to a county health department and obtain an uncertified copy of anyone else's birth certificate, inclusive of all information. She explained how this information could be used to make a fake birth certificate and, from there, identity theft. Without going into great detail and with all due respect to the author, from the collective knowledge of many Hoosier genealogists we know that this is not happening in our county health offices. As a backup to that suspicion, we surveyed 12 counties and found not one who would offer a copy of the birth certificate without showing a direct interest in the matter and identification. One county health department worker told me that I would not get an uncertified copy of a birth record anywhere in the state. The records that are open to anyone are the lists of births that you still only see after giving the person's name and date of birth. The information we gathered confirmed our opinions that our birth records are already safeguarded yet open to inspection by those with legitimate purposes.

Our other information gathering activities involved looking at other state's laws and requirements for accessing birth and death records, as well as contacting some of those states to ask for their advice based on their experience in dealing with similar vital records access threats. An example of one state's response is Massachusetts. The Program Director responded with a history of the 25 years of work that has gone on in their state with keeping vital records open. They have formed a coalition with other concerned organizations to continue to be aware of anything that may be developing and to provide information and cooperation with the agencies that deal with vital records. They advise us to work with the vital records registrars to identify problems and find alternative solutions to closing of vital records. Massachusetts's genealogists are among our out-of-state genealogist friends who communicated with legislators here to voice the concerns of those who would travel to this state to do research.

In our research on other state's laws we found that although there are some states who have "closed" their records, their restrictions on eligibility to access records varies considerably. The years before birth and death records are open to the public vary from 20 to 125. The states who still have open records are, of course, not a part of the reporting of the proponents of HB1540. In Wisconsin there is no restriction on the access to birth or death records for researchers. Their online information states, " An uncertified copy of a birth certificate is available to anyone who applies. An uncertified copy will contain the same information as a certified copy but will not be acceptable for legal purposes, such as obtaining identification. " The vital records access rules nationwide are not easy to summarize due to their variance, which points out the need for careful study of rationale behind the restrictions before making any changes. The more information that is gathered the more I believe in the uninformed nature of this legislation.

Curt Witcher wrote an eloquent and thorough letter to the author of HB1540 outlining very well many of the issues that she had failed to consider. Among his points were those referring to other states that have open records and I am including his comments on Ohio and Kentucky here because they go to the heart of the matter.
"It is interesting to note that you did not pick our neighbor to the east as an example knowing that Ohio has no restrictions on access to birth and death records. Nor did you pick our neighbor to the south, Kentucky, since their legislature defeated a bill similar to the one you are proposing, and then worked with *all* constituent groups to draft meaningful legislation that punished those who misused the records and protected legitimate access to the records."

Another aspect of working on this campaign was to seek out other organizations that may have similar concerns to join forces in opposition. We were fortunate to hear early from the Hoosier State Press Association representative, Steve Key. Steve was there with us to speak to the Public Health Committee. He continued to monitor the progress of the bill in order to maintain access by the media to information that can make all of us aware of facts that may affect us. The Daughters of the American Revolution were contacted and some of the local chapters are voicing their concerns to their legislators. We are still looking to gather a coalition of these organizations to address future issues concerning vital records.

We have heard from genealogists in all parts of the state and country about the concerns they have in continuing to do genealogical research in Indiana if this new legislation is passed. It was pointed out to our representatives that genealogists come from every walk of life and that many are spending their dollars in our state as they come here to make their family connections and write about their history in Indiana.

Your president and Legislative Committee worked to keep the dialogue open with legislators, including the author of the bill, to inform them of our opposition, regardless of the amendment made to the bill that inserted the language, "a person conducting a genealogical study in compliance with rules adopted by the state department under IC 4-22." As the bill progressed there was another amendment that reduced the number of years before a birth certificate and death certificate become available for public inspection without restriction from 100 and 75 years to 75 and 50 years. However, we continued to oppose the legislation due to the fact that this language does not nullify our position on the invalid basis for the proposed law and the fact that the rule governing who is qualified as a genealogist is not within the statute but to be written after enactment by the State Department of Health.

There was a great deal of communication from the author to the House members in answer to the emails they received and questions they raised themselves. The author distributed a memo as late as last Wednesday, February 26, attempting to answer these concerns. She assured the House members that genealogists are not intended to be excluded from accessing records and that her amendments to the legislation satisfied that concern.

Our message continued to be as set out in the IGS Board's resolution of February 1:
"to find a balanced solution to the matter of protecting the privacy and identity rights of the citizens of this great state while still providing sufficient access to vital records for the continued use by genealogists and family historians for the legitimate pursuit of tracing one's heritage and ancestry by defeating this proposed legislation, HB1540, and opening a dialog with all interested and affected parties."