Just a couple of thoughts on this... First, this isn't new wording. It’s just newly discussed in the newsletter, quoting the actual Civil Code, which hasn't changed on this issue for as long as I can remember. So nothing has been cleared up, imo. The only thing that's mentioned as "New Law" in the Newsletter is the reference to inmate IDs. The page about "Satisfactory Evidence" is a different topic, separate from the "New Law" paragraph.
We should all keep in mind that the legal code dealing with notary functions is always in the back of the Handbook. The "General Information" section that comes first is just there to make the jargon of the actual law a little easier to digest. (Unfortunately, it’s probably all that most notaries look at.) Whenever a legal question arises about what we can or can’t do, the ultimate source should be the Code as originally written into law, and not the "General Info" in front, some of which is slightly rewritten.
As for foreign passports as ID, I agree with your interpretation of how this issue is written under CA state law. It clearly falls under the list of items that require a physical description, and not in the list above that. I called the CA SOS office about this a while back and was given some convoluted justification of why we *should* be able to accept a foreign passport, even if it doesn't have a personal description. Go figure... I should have asked for a written explanation. [I guess that's one more example of how much we can rely on their interpretations...]
I find it very hard to believe that the legislators who originally drafted this law meant to exclude foreign passports as acceptable ID. But the SOS doesn't have the authority to change the law. I do believe, however, that this is an issue that should be corrected. Maybe we all need to bring this to the attention of our state legislators and whoever leads the appropriate legislative committee.
|
