State Senators Pearson and Picard introduced a bill into the Rhode Island General Assembly yesterday to restrict access to the state’s vital records for 100 years after the event. However, there appears to be an exception for “members of legally incorporated genealogical societies in the conduct of their official duties as defined in regulations shall have any access to, or be permitted to, examine the original or any copy of the birth certificate or birth record, of any person in the custody of any registrar of vital records or of the state department of health.”
The 84th Texas Legislature has increased the appropriation of the State Library and Archives Commission by $7.6M for the 2016-2017 biennium. The new funding includes resources to launch the Texas Digital Archive to preserve and make available electronic archives of state government as well as $6M to offer Texans greater access to online information via the popular TexShare and TexQuest programs. The Texas State Library and Archives Commission also gained funds in the new state budget to address salary needs and to implement a new automated accounting and payroll system.
Fred Moss, with input from Peter E. Broadbent, Jr., has written an excellent article about Virginia’s recent release of 16 million Virginia vital records. Fred writes, “This important new access to Virginia vital records occurred directly as a result of the Virginia Genealogical Society’s efforts in 2011 – 2012. VGS members wrote key legislators, and former VGS President Peter Broadbent lead the effort in meetings with legislators.”
The full article is available at http://www.fgs.org/rpac/2015/06/14/virginia-vital-records-online.
Spain’s lower house of parliament has approved a law that eases the path to citizenship for descendants of Jews who were forced to flee the country five centuries ago during the Inquisition.
The measure aims to correct what Spain’s conservative government calls the “historic mistake” of sending Jews into exile in 1492, forcing them to convert to Catholicism or burning them at the stake.
The following was written by Jan Meisels Allen, Chairperson, IAJGS Public Records Access Monitoring Committee, and also a member of the Records Preservation and Access Committee, a joint committee of the Federation of Genealogical Societies, the National Genealogical Society, and the International Association of Jewish Genealogical Societies (IAJGS):
The EU Observer has written an interesting update on the European Union’s (EU) proposed data privacy legislation-which was first introduced in 2012. This is the legislation that espouses the “right to be forgotten” now called the “right to be erased” a concept causing genealogists concern as to what records may be available after the legislation is enacted. You may recall the EU Parliament passed its version in March of last year—and then the May 2014 elections occurred before the EU Council voted. Both the EU legislative chambers must vote on the same piece of legislation before it can be enacted. (See below for a brief description of the EU legislative structure.) The legislation has a number of “chapters” and some are more contentious than others. Thus far, agreements have been reached on rules for public authorities; data transfer rules to countries outside the EU, rules on processors, controllers, and data protection officers, as well as rules on archiving and statistics for history and research purposes. Also agreed upon was designating the lead data protection authority, charged to resolve disputes, as the one based in the country of the company’s main establishment.
A newly-proposed piece of legislation in Alabama might have a minor impact on genealogy record-keeping. The state’s constitution declares marriage to be between a man and a woman. However, federal courts are attempting to force the state to issue marriage licenses for same-sex marriages. Alabama Senate Bill 377 proposes to end marriage licensing and replace them with a contract process.
According to the text of the bill, it would abolish the requirement to obtain a marriage license from the judge of probate.
The Alabama Pioneers web site contains an email message from Ted Urquhart, President of the Alabama Cemetery Preservation Alliance. He states:
“You may already be aware that a bill has been introduced to the Alabama House of Representatives to abolish the Alabama Historic Commission (AHC) and transfer most – but not all – of its responsibilities and holdings to the Alabama Department of Archives and History (ADAH) and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR).
The following announcement was written by the Maine State Archives and is available to all at http://www.maine.gov/sos/arc/research/vitalrecordschanges.docx.
Per state law, all vital records – such as notices of birth, death and marriage – dating from 1892 to the present day, are no longer available at the Maine State Archives.* The records dating from 1892 – 1922 were previously held at the Archives, but have now been digitally scanned, allowing the Vital Records office to issue these documents. As of May 1, 2015, Data, Research and Vital Statistics at the Vital Records office will issue ALL vital records from 1892 to present.
The Maine Department of the Secretary of State, Maine State Archives will continue to issue non-certified copies of documents prior to 1892.
The Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation (SMGF) was an early collector of DNA information to be used for genealogy purposes. It was founded by inventor and philanthropist James LeVoy Sorenson and Brigham Young University professor Dr. Scott Woodward. Mr. Sorenson envisioned the development of a genetic-genealogical blueprint of all humankind. Some years later, the database and supporting infrastructure was acquired by Ancestry.com and became the basis for what is now Ancestry DNA. It has since served the interests of thousands of genealgists as well as several other communities.
Sadly, Ancestry has now announced the closure of this valuable service. The announcement at http://www.smgf.org states:
We regret to inform you the site you have accessed is no longer available.
I thought this was settled but apparently not. I read a lot of online news reports about genealogy and also about DNA. Reports surfaced several days ago claiming that Ancestry.com shared customer DNA data with police officials. Some of those reports stated that this was done without a search warrant while others stated that a search warrant was obtained first before the police contacted Ancestry DNA. The articles were confusing, at least to me, and it apparently confused a lot of other people as well. I have now read a number of later articles and have talked with the folks at Ancestry DNA.
As is often the case, it seems the original articles were mostly correct but one report contained a major error concerning the warrant. I don’t know who published the first report but the first one I saw was in the New Orleans Advocate at http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/11707192-123/new-orleans-filmmaker-cleared-in. It clearly stated that a search warrant was obtained. Next, the Electronic Frontier Foundation picked up the story but claimed there was no search warrant. I have a high opinion of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and their fight for the rights of consumers in an online world but I think they blew it this time. Their article at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/how-private-dna-data-led-idaho-cops-wild-goose-chase-and-linked-innocent-man-20 states, “Without a warrant or court order, investigators asked the lab to run the crime scene DNA against …” That statement has now been proven to be false. As I write these words, I cannot see where the Electronic Frontier Foundation has since changed their article or issued a correction.
For a rather long and very detailed report on the entire manner, I strongly suggest you read Judy Russell’s explanation of the entire affair in her Legal Genealogist Blog at http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/05/03/facts-matter/. I know Judy well enough to know that she is a stickler for facts and I believe her version is correct.
Is this a privacy issue? An article by Jay Syrmopoulos for the Free Thought Project at http://goo.gl/JYML8u says: “Would you find it frightening— perhaps even downright Orwellian — to know that a DNA swab that you sent to a company for recreational purposes would surface years later in the hands of police? What if it caused your child to end up in a police interrogation room as the primary suspect in a murder investigation?”
A New York County Supreme Court judge ruled that 26-year-old nurse Ellanora Baidoo can serve divorce papers to her soon-to-be ex-husband, Victor Sena Blood-Dzraku, via Facebook. The ruling is one of the first of its kind, and it comes at a time when even standard e-mail is still not “statutorily authorized” as a primary means of service, the judge wrote.
Beginning in 2017, an adult adopted child whose adoption took place in New Jersey can request to obtain a non-certified copy of their original birth record. They will not be able to use the original birth record as proof of identification or for any other legal purposes.
The genealogy community relies on our public libraries, especially those with terrific genealogy divisions and clubs. The new Connecticut proposed budget would eliminate the funding for interlibrary loan, consortia, grants for special programs and collections (like genealogy and local history), etc. Several years have seen proposals like this, but this battle is seen as the most dire.
The following is a “call for action” issued by the Connecticut Library Association:
As you know, Connecticut libraries are reeling from the news that the governor’s recent budget proposes to eliminate all state funding for Cooperating Library Service Units (CLC) as well as funding for Connecticard, Grants to Public Libraries, and more. In addition, there is a proposal to eliminate the state statutes that authorize and support these programs.
We need your help now to make sure the budget that is recommended in April by the Appropriations Committee includes full funding for CLC, Connecticard and Grants to Public Libraries.
What can you do to help?
Sad news. A person who once was a well known person in the genealogy community had criminal charges filed Monday against him. However, I believe Dan Taggart has not been associated with Ancestry.com in any way for several years.
Details may be found in an article in the Deseret News at http://goo.gl/pilqaT.
The California Supreme Court has posthumously awarded a law license to a Chinese immigrant who was barred from becoming a lawyer 125 years ago.
Hong Yen Chang was barred from practicing law in 1890 by the same court because “persons of the Mongolian race” were not granted citizenship.
The Kansas Supreme Court is considering proposed changes to Supreme Court Rule 106 to clarify treatment of personally identifiable information in marriage licensing documents maintained by the district courts. The new proposal restricts marriage records to attorneys, court officers, and to:
Ohio birth certificates and court decrees, some sealed as long as 51 years, will soon become available to adoptees or to their direct descendants for the first time without a court order. As many as 400,000 documents will now become available. The new law goes into effect Friday, March 20, 2015.
The state doesn’t plan to make the request form available on line until just before it begins accepting requests Friday. The forms may be submitted only via postal mail or in person at the vital statistics office because of the notarized documentation required. It could take six weeks for requests to be processed. A video spelling out the process is available at odh.ohio.gov/vs.
The Rhode Island House of representatives is considering a bill to allow wider access to death certificates than what is allowed by present legislation. In short, bill H 5863 proposes to allow title examiners, attorneys, and members of genealogical societies to examine death certificates. No fees would be charged for searching or viewing said records.
The proposal does contain exceptions for such items as out-of-wedlock births. However, it specifically does allow “members of legally incorporated genealogical societies in the conduct of their official duties as defined in regulations shall have any access to, or be permitted to, examine the original or any copy of the birth certificate or birth record, of any person in the custody of any registrar of vital records or of the state department of health.”
A bill introduced into the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts proposes establishment of a Pioneer Valley Polish heritage institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
NOTE: The Pioneer Valley is another name for the Connecticut River Valley in the western part of the state. It was the final destination for many nineteenth and twentieth century European immigrants, especially those from Poland.
The bill has been referred to the committee on Higher Education. The legislative bill states, (in part):
An Act relative to preserving Polish heritage in the Pioneer Valley.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: