WRDA reply

Here is the reply from the Wisconsin Register of Deeds Association from Feb 12, 2025.  Worth noting this was not shared with me for whatever reason till late November.  Meanwhile I sat assuming this bill just had to wait its turn for the committee to proceed with it.

So they don't like the after 100 years proposal because some people live past 100.  Fine, so why can someone not related even go to see it, or purchase a reference copy of it?  Don't tell me there are issues with being able to copy a reference copy that is clearly marked "not for identity purposes." Address the underlying issue!

The potential for identity theft is generally targeted at the years before you have an established photo ID.  That birth record is all there is to rely on.  If a criminal can produce a birth record that passes as valid to a bank, the DMV.. that is how it occurs.  A 100 year old will be relying on a photo ID for similar identity verification situations, not their birth record.

As the law stands in Wisconsin and has for decades, its possible for a non related person to look at and purchase a non-certified copy of a living persons birth record!

If someone buys a record, in my mind it should be cleared that they can legally have access to that information, and thus after its issued it should be considered a public record (as it was issued to a member of the public).  If you bought it, you should be able to do what you please with it, including copying. If it cannot be public, again in my opinion it should not be issued in the first place.  Is there any reason it should not be that straight forward?

 

At least they do acknowledge misunderstandings regarding 69.20-69.21. The only difference between the two are in the issuing of the records, the problem still stands with the penalty part, 69-24, with a and g being the most problematic. 

In my opinion there is a history of the abuse of law, you'll notice there is an overreaching attempt to control a perceived asset under the guise of privacy.  The law doesn't allow that.  The purpose of the law is "to control direct access for the purposes of fraudulence use".  It's inconceivable how an uncertified record on normal paper clearly marked "Not For Identity Purposes," (that was issued to a non related member of the public, from a register of deeds office) could be used fraudulently.  Again if that was deemed somehow possible, the record should not have been issued in the first place.  The 1997 revision is yet more evidence of this abuse.  

Furthermore with online newspaper archive access, and the world's obituaries just a click away, there are far more privacy concerns than who the parents are of a 100 year old person from a birth record.  And those concerns are out of the scope of what we are dealing with in this law.

 

Their cited elder fraud abuse statistics are vague. How about statistics actually related to fraud linked to birth records in states that have only a 100 year moratorium. That kind of information would be valid, this is not.

 

The question is, if I get the Senator Andre Jacque to introduce a revised bill with maybe a 110 year cutoff, what will then be their argument?   In my opinion, Senator Tomczyk, the committee chair needs to make a decision that their argument is weak, and either advance the bill, or force them to work with someone for a more comprehensive overhaul of the regulations. 

 

The WRDA closing states "The proposed amendments to not appear to support the stated purpose." In the Co-Sponsor ship memo issued Jan 27, 2025, Set Jacque & Kitchens summarized "at the request of a constituent who is "unable to make uncertified copies of certain vital records" with the "core problem is the antiquated law does not differentiate between certified and uncertified copies." While true, it still doesn't clear up that issue, that would require a more complex overhaul of the law, which apparently the WRDA is not interested in perusing. It's a simplistic compromise amendment that does allow greater access by moving toward a rolling cut off date.

 

Note: To clear up any confusion, the Wisconsin State Vital Records Office is typically not permitted to propose legislative changes.  Thus, the WRDA is really the organization that should be spearheading this in my opinion and is also the organization responsible for the embarrassing law we have now.  I honestly don't have a lot of faith in successive modifications between the same old parties trying to work out new language.  There is about a 40 track record of not addressing, if its necessary to have restrictions, and enforce-ability of those restrictions, on non-certified records.  Additionally they could have, and likely should have- closed the grey areas that let people look at birth records of living people.  Yet they preach the confidentiality of the records?  Bottom line: I see poor stewards of the law, both between them and the law makers they "work" with.  Perhaps they should seek outside advice.  Hopefully some of the stuff I have wrote here will sink in.