Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. Existing law authorizes a person who faces violence, harassment, or threats of violence from the public because of their work for a public entity to apply to the Secretary of State for the purposes of enabling state and local agencies to respond to requests for public records without disclosing a program participants residence address contained in any public record and otherwise provide for confidentiality of identity for that person, subject to specified conditions. Under existing law, any person who makes a false statement in an application is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This bill would establish the Judicial Home Security Act, which would require the Attorney General to establish a program for the Judicial Home Security Program under which a judicial officer, including a current an imminent, current, or former superior court judge or district court judge, or an adult household member of a judicial officer who is domiciled in California to prevent disclosure of their home address by a state or local agency. In this regard, if the Attorney General approves a judicial officer to participate in the program, the bill would authorize the judicial officer to require, upon their request, that a state or local agency substitute a designated alternate address for their home address referenced in any records that are made public. may request their home address in public records to be shielded or substituted with an alternate mailing address, as specified. The bill would establish the Judicial Home Security Program Fund in the General Fund and would authorize moneys in the fund to be made available for the administration of the program upon appropriation by the Legislature.

The bill would require the Attorney General to approve an application to the program if it is filed in the manner and on the form prescribed by the Attorney General and contains prescribed information, including documentation showing the individual is or will be household contains an individual who is a judicial officer and a sworn signed statement that the applicant fears for their safety or the safety of their family due to their a household member of the applicant due to the employment as a of the judicial officer. The bill would require the application to be dated and signed under penalty of perjury, signed, and would make knowingly providing false or incorrect information in the application a misdemeanor. The bill would require the Attorney General to commence accepting applications under the program on April 1, 2027.

The bill would require the Attorney General to create, maintain, and update monthly a publicly available list that includes the name, county of residence, and designated alternate mailing address of each current program participant. The bill would also require the Attorney General to create, maintain, and update monthly a publicly available list that includes former participants who are no longer in the program, and make the list available to state and local agencies and third-party data brokers and aggregators, as specified. program.

The bill would require, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, a state or local agency to substitute the participants alternate mailing address for any reference to the participants home address. The bill bill would require, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, a county assessors office to substitute the program participants alternate mailing address for the situs of the home address on assessment rolls, maps, property ownership statements and records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant.

The bill would require, when disclosing or releasing releasing, in any format or medium, records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, who requests shielding, a county assessor assessors office and a county recorder recorders office to substitute the program participants alternate mailing address for the situs address on shield the participants public record, including real property deeds, real estate records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant. In this regard, the bill would require a program participant to submit a request containing a list of documents to be shielded, a sworn statement attesting to the accuracy of the information provided, and payment of a fee, as specified. The bill would authorize a program participant to submit a request to update the list of documents to be shielded, a specified. The bill would require the county assessors office and county recorders office to validate and shield any requested records within 5 business days of receipt of a request for shielding. The bill would authorize making any original documents available only to specified persons or in specified circumstances.

The bill would prohibit the disclosure of a participants home address by the Attorney General and state and local agencies, except in specified circumstances. The bill would prohibit a person or organization from publicly posting or displaying the home address of a program participant who has made a written demand of that person or organization, including on the internet, and would prohibit a third-party data broker or aggregator from selling, licensing, trading, purchasing, transferring, releasing, or otherwise sharing in any format or medium, the home address of a program participant, including on the internet. internet, except as specified.

The bill would authorize the Attorney General to adopt guidance to facilitate the administration of the act by state and local agencies. The bill would require the Attorney General, beginning January 10, 2028, and no later than January 10 of each year thereafter, to submit to the Legislature a report that includes the total number of applications received for the program. define terms for its purposes.

By imposing new duties on local agencies, expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, and creating a crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. Existing law authorizes a person who faces threats of violence or violence and harassment violence, harassment, or threats of violence from the public because of their work for a public entity to apply to the Secretary of State for the purposes of enabling state and local agencies to respond to requests for public records without disclosing a program participants residence address contained in any public record and otherwise provide for confidentiality of identity for that person, subject to specified conditions. Under existing law, any person who makes a false statement in an application is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This bill would establish the Judicial Home Security Act, which would require the Attorney General to establish a program for a current or former judicial officer officer, including a current or former superior court judge or district court judge, who is domiciled in California to apply to have a designated alternate mailing address substituted for any reference to the persons home address in records that are made public. to prevent disclosure of their home address by a state or local agency. In this regard, if the Attorney General approves a judicial officer to participate in the program, the bill would authorize the judicial officer to require, upon their request, that a state or local agency substitute a designated alternate address for their home address referenced in any records that are made public. The bill would establish the Judicial Home Security Program Fund in the General Fund and would authorize moneys in the fund to be made available for the administration of the program upon appropriation by the Legislature.

The bill would require the Attorney General to approve an application if it is filed in the manner and on the form prescribed by the Attorney General and contains all prescribed information, including, among other things, including documentation showing the individual is to commence employment or is currently or formerly employed as or will be a judicial officer, a sworn statement that officer and a sworn statement that the applicant fears for their safety or the safety of their family due to their employment as a judicial officer, and an alternate mailing address requested for substitution for any reference to the persons home address in public records. officer. The bill would require the application to be dated and signed under penalty of perjury. Under the bill, it would be a misdemeanor for a person to knowingly provide perjury, and would make knowingly providing false or incorrect information in the application, and the bill would require a notice to be printed in the application informing the applicant. application a misdemeanor. The bill would require the Attorney General to commence accepting applications under the program on April 1, 2027.

The bill would require the Attorney General to create, maintain, and update monthly a publicly available list that includes information for each current program participant, including their the name, county of residence, and designated alternate mailing address. address of each current program participant. The bill would also require the Attorney General to create, maintain, and update monthly a list that includes former participants who are no longer in the program, and make the list available to state and local agencies and third-party data brokers and aggregators. aggregators, as specified.

The bill would require, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, a state or local agency to substitute the participants alternate mailing address for any reference to the participants home address. The bill would require, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, County Assessor and Recorder offices a county assessor office and a county recorder office to substitute the program participants alternate mailing address for the situs address on real property deeds, real estate records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant.

The bill would prohibit the disclosure of a participants home address by the Attorney General and state and local agencies agencies, except in specified circumstances. The bill would prohibit a person or organization from publicly posting or displaying the home address of a program participant, participant who has made a written demand of that person or organization, including on the internet, and would prohibit a third-party data broker or aggregator from selling, licensing, trading, purchasing, transferring, releasing, or otherwise sharing in any format or medium, the home address of a program participant, including on the internet.

The bill would authorize the Attorney General to adopt guidance to facilitate the administration of the act by state and local agencies. The bill would require the Attorney General to submit to the Legislature, General, beginning January 10, 2028, and no later than January 10 of each year, year thereafter, to submit to the Legislature a report that includes the total number of applications received for the program.

By imposing new duties on local agencies and agencies, expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, and creating a crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law authorizes a person who faces threats of violence or violence and harassment from the public because of their work for a public entity to apply to the Secretary of State for the purposes of enabling state and local agencies to respond to requests for public records without disclosing a program participants residence address contained in any public record and otherwise provide for confidentiality of identity for that person, subject to specified conditions. Under existing law, any person who makes a false statement in an application is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This bill would establish the Judicial Home Security Act, which would require the Attorney General to establish a program for a current or former judicial officer who is domiciled in California to apply to have a designated alternate mailing address substituted for any reference to the persons home address in records that are made public. The bill would establish the Judicial Home Security Program Fund in the General Fund and authorize moneys in the fund to be made available for the administration of the program upon appropriation by the Legislature.

The bill would require the Attorney General to approve an application if it is filed in the manner and on the form prescribed by the Attorney General and contains all prescribed information, including, among other things, documentation showing the individual is to commence employment or is currently or formerly employed as a judicial officer, a sworn statement that the applicant fears for their safety or the safety of their family due to their employment as a judicial officer, and an alternate mailing address requested for substitution for any reference to the persons home address in public records. The bill would require the application to be dated and signed under penalty of perjury. Under the bill, it would be a misdemeanor for a person to knowingly provide false or incorrect information in the application, and the bill would require a notice to be printed in the application informing the applicant.

The bill would require the Attorney General to create, maintain, and update monthly a publicly available list that includes information for each current program participant, including their name, county of residence, and designated alternate mailing address. The bill would also require the Attorney General to create, maintain, and update monthly a list that includes former participants who are no longer in the program, and make the list available to state and local agencies and third-party data brokers and aggregators.

The bill would require, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, a state or local agency to substitute the participants alternate mailing address for any reference to the participants home address. The bill would require, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, County Assessor and Recorder offices to substitute the program participants alternate mailing address for the situs address on real property deeds, real estate records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant.

The bill would prohibit the disclosure of a participants home address by the Attorney General and state and local agencies except in specified circumstances. The bill would prohibit a person or organization from publicly posting or displaying the home address of a program participant, including on the internet, and would prohibit a third-party data broker or aggregator from selling, licensing, trading, purchasing, transferring, releasing, or otherwise sharing in any format or medium, the home address of a program participant, including on the internet.

The bill would authorize the Attorney General to adopt guidance to facilitate the administration of the act by state and local agencies. The bill would require the Attorney General to submit to the Legislature, no later than January 10 of each year, a report that includes the total number of applications received for the program.

By imposing new duties on local agencies and expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 2235 (Pacheco) - The Judicial Home Security Act

Bill Summary:

AB 2235 would establish the Judicial Home Security Act (JHSA), to be administered by the Attorney General, to allow judicial officers and their families to shield their home addresses from public disclosure.

Fiscal Impact:

Estimated $3.2 million in FY 2026-27 and $2 million in FY 2027-28 and $1.85 million annually to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to establish a program for judicial officers to shield their home address and request an alternate mailing address. (fees, General Fund)

The Attorney General may assess an annual fee to a program participant in an amount to defray the actual costs of maintaining this program and to reimburse the General Fund for any amounts expended from that fund for the purposes of the JHSA. If 2,000 judicial officers choose to participate in the program, fees could range between $1,600 and $925 depending on the year.

Background:

Safe at Home is an address confidentiality program. The program was created in 1998 to allow victims of domestic violence or stalking to obtain an alternate confidential address to be used in public records. Under the program, SOS is responsible for providing a substitute address to program participants while protecting their actual residential addresses and also acts as the participants’ agent for service of process, and forwards mail received at the substitute address. A participant must be certified by the enrolling office and may stay in the program for four years unless recertified. Their Safe at Home address is also accepted by California state, county, and city government agencies in lieu of a residential or other mailing address. The program has been repeatedly expanded over time to include additional groups, such as survivors of other crimes, including sexual assault, human trafficking, stalking, and elder or dependent adult abuse, as well as providers of certain health care services, including reproductive health care and gender-affirming care

Proposed Law:

This bill would require the Attorney General to establish the Judicial Home Security Program under which a judicial officer, including a current an imminent, current, or former superior court judge or district court judge, or an adult household member of a judicial officer who is domiciled in California may request their home address in public records to be shielded or substituted with an alternate mailing address.

The bill would require the Attorney General to approve an application to the program if it is filed in the manner and on the form prescribed by the Attorney General and contains prescribed information, including documentation showing the household contains an individual who is a judicial officer and a signed statement that the applicant fears for their safety or the safety of a household member of the applicant due to the employment as of the judicial officer. The bill would require the application to be dated and signed and would make knowingly providing false or incorrect information in the application a misdemeanor. The bill would require the Attorney General to commence accepting applications under the program on April 1, 2027.

The bill would require, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, a state or local agency to substitute the participant’s alternate mailing address for any reference to the participant’s home address. The bill would require, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, a county assessor’s office to substitute the program participant’s alternate mailing address for the situs of the home address on assessment rolls, maps, property ownership statements and records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant.

The bill would require, when disclosing or releasing, in any format or medium, records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant, who requests shielding, a county assessor’s office and a county recorder’s office to shield the participant’s public record, including real property deeds, real estate records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant. In this regard, the bill would require a program participant to submit a request containing a list of documents to be shielded, a sworn statement attesting to the accuracy of the information provided, and payment of a fee, as specified. The bill would authorize a program participant to submit a request to update the list of documents to be shielded, a specified. The bill would require the county assessor’s office and county recorder’s office to validate and shield any requested records within 5 business days of receipt of a request for shielding. The bill would authorize making any original documents available only to specified persons or in specified circumstances.

The bill would authorize the Attorney General to adopt guidance to facilitate the administration of the act by state and local agencies.

By imposing new duties on local agencies, expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, and creating a crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Related Legislation:

SB 489 (Alpert) Chapter 1005/1998 established the “Address Confidentiality for Victims of Domestic Violence” program, now referred to as the “Safe at Home” program after a 2000 administrative public facing name change. This was based on the Legislature’s finding that persons attempting to escape from actual or threatened violence frequently establish new names or addresses in order to prevent their assailants or probable assailants from finding them.

Over the years, the program has been expanded to include victims of other crimes as well as certain vulnerable groups. The Safe at Home program is now available to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, child abduction, and elder or dependent adult abuse as well as designated health care service providers, employees, volunteers, and patients and even public entity employees and contractors, as provided.

AB 2624 (Bonta) would expand the Safe at Home address confidentiality program by adding immigration support services providers, employees, volunteers, clients, and their family members as a new protected participant group. (The cost is an es

timated $290,000 in FY 2026-27 and $154,000 annually thereafter to fund staffing, outreach, training, policies, application processing, and partnerships with immigration support service organizations within the existing Safe at Home program infrastructure.) AB 2624 is pending in this committee.

Staff Comments:

While there may be a separation of powers consideration to be made to house judicial branch security with an executive branch law enforcement agency, rather than the SOS and Safe at Home, the cost is concerning. The JHSP does propose stronger protection around real property records as Safe at Home does not have a reliable shielding mechanism where the JHSP places direct obligations on county recorders and assessors with a defined compliance window for substitution the alternate address,

For eligibility, Safe at Home relies on authorized enrolling agents, for example, domestic violence shelters, district attorney victim advocates, etc. to certify victim status for a qualifying crime. Safe at Home has an enrolling-agent pathway for public entity employees that could potentially be extended to judicial officers but would need to be adjusted as that category requires the applicant to show they've experienced actual violence, threats of violence, or harassment. Judicial officers can qualify under that category, but only if they meet that threshold, professional position alone isn't sufficient. 

The JHSP provides a judicial officer or household member qualifies by virtue of the role and a sworn statement of fear, with no need to show a prior incident. That is a threshold to qualify for the program given the threats experienced by judicial officers. However, it may be possible to integrate the higher levels of security sought by the JHSP into Safe at Home and mitigate the cost of establishing an entirely new program.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 2235 Hearing Date: June 30, 2026

Subject: The Judicial Home Security Act

HISTORY

Source: California Judges Association

Prior Legislation: AB 343 (Pacheco) Ch. 142, Stats. of 2025

AB 1785 (Pacheco) Ch. 551, Stats. of 2024

Support: Judicial Council of California

Opposition: California Assessors’ Association; County Recorders Association of California

Assembly Floor Vote: 72 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to create the Judicial Home Security Act, to be administered by the Attorney General, to allow judicial officers and their families to shield their home addresses from public disclosure, as provided.

Existing law provides that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies are required to be open to public scrutiny. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3(b)(1).)

Existing law requires a statute to be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3(b)(1).)

Existing law requires a statute that limits the public’s right of access to be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3(b)(1).)

Existing law governs the disclosure of information collected and maintained by public agencies pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA). (Gov. Code, §§ 792.000 et seq.)

Existing law states that, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Gov. Code, § 7921.000.)

Existing law defines “public records” as any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Gov. Code, § 7920.530.)

Existing law defines “public agency” as any state or local agency. (Gov. Code, § 7920.525, subd. (a).)

Existing law provides that all public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of a state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, unless the record is exempt from public disclosure. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. (Gov. Code, § 7922.525.)

Existing law prohibits some records from being disclosed, while other records are permissively exempted from being disclosed. (See e.g. Gov. Code, §§ 7920.505 & 7922.200.)

Existing law provides that there are several general categories of documents or information that are permissively exempt from disclosure under the CPRA essentially due to the character of the information. The exempt information can be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information, but it also may be disclosed if it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information. (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, at 652.).

Existing law provides that a public agency may comply with the requirements, above, by posting any public record on its website and, in response to a request for a public record posted on the website, directing a member of the public to the location on the website where the public record is posted. However, after the public agency directs a member of the public to their website, if that member of the public requests a copy of the public record due to an inability to access or reproduce the public record from the internet website, the public agency must promptly provide a copy of the public record, as specified. (Gov. Code, § 7922.545.)

Existing law prohibits a state or local agency from posting the address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the internet without first obtaining the written permission of the individual. (Gov. Code, § 7928.205.)

Existing law states that an “elected or appointed official” incudes, but is not limited to, all of the following: a state constitutional officer; a member of the Legislature; an active or retired judge, court commissioner, or judge of the State Bar Court; a district attorney; a public defender; a member of a city council; a member of a board of supervisors; an appointee of the Governor; an appointee of the Legislature; a mayor; a city attorney; a police chief or sheriff; a public safety official; a state administrative law judge; a federal judge or federal defender; a member of the United States Congress or appointee of the President of the United States; a judge of a federally recognized Indian tribe. (Gov. Code, § 7920.500.)

Existing law provides that for purposes of sentencing a person for a felony violation of criminal threats, the court may consider as an aggravating factor that the defendant willfully threatened to commit a crime that would result in the death or great bodily injury of a person the defendant knew to be a constitutional officer, member of the Legislature, judge, or court commissioner. (Penal Code, § 422.)

Existing law establishes an address confidentiality (or “Safe at Home”) program within the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) in order to enable state and local agencies to both accept and respond to requests for public records without disclosing the changed name or address of a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Permits any such adult victim, or parent or guardian acting on behalf of a minor or incapacitated person, to apply through a community-based victims’ assistance program to have an address designated by the SOS as their substitute mailing address. (Gov. Code, §§ 6205 et seq.)

Existing law allows reproductive health care providers, employees, volunteers, and patients to apply to the address confidentiality program through a community-based victims’ assistance program, as specified. (Gov. Code, § 6215 et seq.)

Existing law allows public entity employees and contractors to apply to the address confidentiality program, as provided. (Id.)

Existing law provides that any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for their safety, or the safety of their immediate family, is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a).)

Existing law provides that who falsely personates another in either their private or official capacity, and does any of the following, is guilty of the crime of false personation and cheats, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

• Becomes bail or surety for any party in any proceeding whatever, before any court or officer authorized to take that bail or surety.
• Verifies, publishes, acknowledges, or proves, in the name of another person, any written instrument, with intent that the same may be recorded, delivered, or used as true.
• Does any other act whereby, if done by the person falsely personated, they might, in any event, become liable to any suit or prosecution, or to pay any sum of money, or to incur any charge, forfeiture, or penalty, or whereby any benefit might accrue to the party personating, or to any other person. (Pen. Code, § 529.)

Existing law authorizes a court to issue civil harassment restraining orders for up to five years upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence of unlawful harassment. (Civ. Pro. Code, § 527.6, subds. (a) & (j)(1).)

Existing law provides that the order may be renewed, upon the request of a party, for a duration of no more than five additional years, without a showing of any further harassment since the issuance of the original order. (Civ. Pro. Code, § 527.6, subd. (j)(1).)

Existing law provides that every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury. (Pen. Code, § 118, subd. (a).)

Existing law provides that any person who, in any affidavit taken before any person authorized to administer oaths, swears, affirms, declares, deposes, or certifies that they will testify, declare, depose, or certify before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case then pending or thereafter to be instituted, in any particular manner, or to any particular fact, and in such affidavit willfully and contrary to such oath states as true any material matter which they know to be false, is guilty of perjury. In any prosecution, the subsequent testimony of such person, in any action involving the matters in such affidavit contained, which is contrary to any of the matters in such affidavit contained, shall be prima facie evidence that the matters in such affidavit were false. (Pen. Code, § 118a.)

Existing law makes perjury a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for two, three, or four years. (Pen. Code, § 126.)

This bill establishes the Judicial Home Security Act, to be administered by the Attorney General (AG), to allow judicial officers and their families to shield their home addresses from public disclosure.

This bill authorizes an adult person domiciled in California to apply to the AG to be accepted into the program.

• • An accepted program participant may use an alternate mailing address or request shielding of public records consistent with the provisions of the bill.
  • A program participant may withdraw from program participation by submitting to the AG written notification of withdrawal and the program participant’s current identification card. Certification shall be terminated and notification forwarded to the appropriate state or local agency on the date of receipt of this notification.
  • A program participant may update their home address or alternate mailing address in the program by submitting to the AG written notification of the same with the participant’s current identification card. The AG shall issue a new identification card.
  • The AG shall commence accepting applications under the program beginning on April 1, 2027.

This bill authorizes the AG to approve an application if it is filed in the manner and on the form prescribed by the AG and if it contains all of the following:

• • Documentation showing that the individual is to commence employment as or is a judicial officer.
  • A sworn statement that the applicant fears for their safety or the safety of their family due to their employment as a judicial officer.
    • Falsification of this sworn statement is perjury, a felony.
  • The alternate mailing address requested for substitution for any reference to the person’s home address. The application shall include documentation issued by the United States Postal Service or the personal mailbox rental company confirming the mailbox is rented to the applicant or a household member of the applicant. The AG shall not approve an application if the alternate mailing address is any address other than a post office box or personal mailbox, or if it is a post office box or mailbox rented by anyone other than the applicant or a household member of the applicant.
  • The telephone numbers and email addresses where the applicant can be reached by the AG.
  • The home address that the applicant requests not be disclosed because disclosure will increase the risk of harassment, threats, or violence against the applicant or their family.
  • The signature of the applicant under penalty of perjury and the date on which the applicant signed the application.
    • Perjury is a felony.

This bill requires the AG to issue a certified program participant documentation that they are a certified program participant, which must include, but not be limited to, both of the following:

• • A program participant identification card listing their alternate mailing address; and
  • A standing authorization by the AG for the program participant to use the alternate mailing address for all protections offered by the program.

This bill provides that a person who knowingly provides false or incorrect information upon making an application is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This bill authorizes the AG to terminate a program participant’s certification and invalidate the program participant’s authorization card for any of the reasons listed below and requires the AG to send written notification of the intended termination to the program participant. The program participant shall have 30 days in which to appeal the intended termination under procedures developed by the AG.

• • The program participant has failed to pay their annual program fee. Before terminating a participant’s certification due to a lapse in payment, the AG shall attempt to contact the participant by telephone and email, if available, to resolve the payment issue.
  • The AG has been informed that another state agency has determined that false information was used in the application process to qualify as a program participant or that participation in the program is being used as a subterfuge to avoid detection of illegal or criminal activity or apprehension by law enforcement.
  • The program participant no longer resides at the most recent home address provided to the AG and has not provided notice in writing of a change in address within 30 days of the change of their home address.
  • The United States Postal Service or the personal mailbox rental company responsible for the alternate mailing address of a program participant informs the AG that the alternate mailing address is no longer rented in the name of the program participant or their household member.
  • The program participant moves from their California place of residence to relocate out of state.

This bill requires the AG to create, maintain, and update monthly a list that includes certain information for each current program participant and a list for former program participants, as provided.

This bill requires state and local agencies to use a program participant’s alternate mailing address for any reference to the program participant’s home address when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, with certain specified exceptions.

This bill requires a county assessor’s office and a county recorder office to shield the participant’s public record when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, including real property deeds, real estate records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant.

This bill requires a county assessor’s office, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, to substitute the program participant’s alternate mailing address for the situs address on assessment rolls, maps, property ownership statements and records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant.

This bill requires that the AG, state, and local agencies shall not disclose or release a program participant’s home address except under specified circumstances.

This bill prohibits a person or organization from publicly posting or displaying the home address of a program participant who has made a written demand of the person or organization.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

Violence and threats against judges have risen sharply, with thousands of incidents reported in recent years and a dramatic increase since 2015, leaving many judges and their families fearing for their safety. At the same time, judicial officers’ home addresses remain easily accessible through public records and online databases, creating a direct pathway for bad actors to locate them and their families. Existing privacy protections in California are insufficient, as they do not effectively prevent the widespread dissemination of this sensitive information, especially when it originates from government sources. This gap leaves judges uniquely exposed to targeted harassment, intimidation, and potential violence at their homes.

AB 2235, the Judicial Home Security Act, addresses this urgent risk by allowing judges to use an alternate mailing address in public records while preserving legitimate access for business, legal, and law enforcement purposes. By replacing home addresses, the bill strikes a careful balance between transparency and safety, ensuring public records remain functional without compromising personal security. In light of the escalating threats and clear vulnerabilities, AB 2235 is a necessary and measured step to protect the judiciary and uphold the integrity of the justice system.

1. Civil Harassment Restraining Orders

Civil harassment restraining orders may be issued when an individual has suffered harassment. (Code of Civ. Pro., § 527.6, subd. (a)(1).) Harassment is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner. (Code of Civ. Pro., § 527.6, subd. (b)(3).) A person may be the subject of a restraining order even if they are not facing a criminal charge and are never convicted of any criminal act. Simple violation of a restraining order is a misdemeanor. (See Pen. Code, § 166, subd. (a)(4); Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a).)

1. Safe at Home

Safe at Home is a confidential address program administered by the SOS. It offers a substitute mailing address to receive mail at for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, child abduction, and elder or dependent adult abuse, as well as reproductive health care workers and public entity employees who are in fear for their safety.^[1] This address is accepted by state, county, and city government agencies in lieu of a residential or other mailing address where a victim can be tracked down, keeping the residence address confidential and out of the hands of someone who might want to harm the victim.

1. Perjury

Perjury occurs when a person, having taken an oath that they will speak honestly before a tribunal, officer, or person, states as true any material matter which they know to be false. (Pen. Code, § 118, subd. (a).) Perjury applies not only to the described testimony but also to written sworn affidavits. (Pen. Code, § 118a.) It is a felony punishable by two, three, or four years of imprisonment in a county jail. (Pen. Code, § 126.)

It is not a defense to perjury that the person accused was not competent to give the testimony of which the falsehood is alleged. (Pen. Code, § 122.) It is also not a defense to perjury that the person accused did not know the materiality of the false statement or did not know the effect that the false statement could have. (Pen. Code, § 123.) A person cannot be convicted of perjury if the proof of their perjury rests solely upon the testimony of one other person. (Pen. Code, § 118, subd. (b).)

1. Enhanced Sentencing and Deterrence

Research shows that increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime. According to the National Institute of Justice, an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, “[l]aws and policies designed to deter crime by focusing mainly on increasing the severity of punishment are ineffective partly because criminals know little about the sanctions for specific crimes. More severe punishments do not ‘chasten’ individuals convicted of crimes, and prisons may exacerbate recidivism… Studies show that for most individuals convicted of a crime, short to moderate prison sentences may be a deterrent but longer prison terms produce only a limited deterrent effect. In addition, the crime prevention benefit falls far short of the social and economic costs.”^[2]

1. Proposed Amendments

Due to the timing of this bill’s presentation, this committee will take amendments proposed by the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Those amendments would:

• Define “shielding.”
• Require that the home address of an accepted program participant be substituted with an alternate mailing address.
• Allow the accepted program participant to request shielding of public records by notifying the Assess and Recorder.
• Provide that a request for shielding must include either the alternate mailing address requested for substitution for any reference to the person’s home address or a request for shielding public records, including a list of all document types, recording numbers, and assessor parcel numbers the judicial officer wishes to shield.
• Require the AG to issue a certified program participant documentation that they are a program participant including a standing authorization by the AG for the program participant to request shielding of public records where the home address is contained.
• Allow a program participant to withdraw from program participation by submitting to the AG written notification of withdrawal and the program participant’s current identification card. Require certification be terminated and notification forwarded to the appropriate state or local agency on the date of receipt of this notification.
• Require that the AG create a list of former program participants that shall be publicly available.
• Require that when disclosing or releasing records, as specified, a county assessor’s office must substitute the addresses, as specified.
• Require that a county assessor’s office and a county recorder’s office shield a participant’s public records, including real property deeds, real estate records, and any other records showing the home address of the program participant, if the request for shielding contains specified information, including a sworn statement attesting to the accuracy of the information provided.
  • Falsification of a sworn statement is perjury, a felony.
• Require that the recorder and assessor be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of the bill and not be liable for failure to shield a program participant’s home address or public records if the participant fails to comply with program requirements.
• Require that upon receipt of a request for shielding, the Recorder and Assessor must validate and shield the requested records within 5 business days.
• Provide that third-party data broker or aggregator shall not sell, license, trade, purchase, transfer, release, or otherwise share in any format or medium the home address of a program participant, including on the internet, unless such sale, license, trade, purchase, transfer, release, or other sharing is authorized under the California Consumer Privacy Act.

1. Effect of This Bill

This bill seeks to establish a way for judicial officers to shield their home addresses in public documents. The bill establishes the program in the AG’s Office, instead of in the SOS’s Office like the Safe At Home Program. The author argues this program is different and therefore more appropriately placed in the AG’s office because it allows for shielding of a person’s address by state and local agencies, including country recorders and assessors. The bill provides several exceptions for accessing or publicly posting the address of a program participant, such as if requested by a law enforcement agency or under certain federal laws.

Civil harassment restraining orders are the main mechanism used to reduce unlawful harassment. This bill may reduce the need for civil harassment restraining orders, or other kinds of criminal protective orders, as individuals wishing to harm judges may have a harder time harassing judges without information about their whereabouts.

This bill, as proposed to be amended, creates three felonies and one misdemeanor. A judge must sign a sworn statement, triggering penalty of perjury; the applicant – who may be the judge or may be a member of the judge’s household – must sign under penalty of perjury; the application if falsified carries a misdemeanor penalty; and a person requesting shielding to a county assessor’s office or county recorder office must sign a sworn statement, triggering penalty of perjury. As written, if one person fraudulently files an application, that person may accrue two felonies and one misdemeanor. Perjury carries a sentence of up to four years of incarceration in a county jail. Additionally, because it is already a crime to impersonate a judge when signing under penalty of perjury, this bill may carry additional felony consequences. (Pen. Code, § 529, subd. (a)(2).)

There is a public interest in maintaining some incentive for these applications not to be falsified; however, stronger punishments do not translate to increased deterrence. The Committee may wish to consider amending this bill, such that only one crime is committed if an application is fraudulently submitted. As for the sworn statement a request for shielding to a county assessor’s office or a county recorder office contains, the Committee may consider assessing a civil fine or misdemeanor for falsifying a request. The Committee may wish to consider if other crimes, such as impersonating a judge, may already punish the conduct described in this bill. If the Committee keeps all perjury offenses, the Committee may wish to consider standardizing the perjury language in the bill; the bill uses either “penalty of perjury” or “sworn affidavit,” indicating the same crime but with different language.

1. Argument in Support

According to the Judicial Council of California:

Modeled after California’s Safe at Home Program, AB 2235 would authorize judicial officers to use an alternate P.O. box or personal mailbox in place of their home address in public records, including by the County Assessor and Recorder offices as a substitute for the program participant’s situs address on real property deeds, real estate records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant.

Assembly Bill 2235 promotes the safety and security of judges, which is a key legislative priority for the Judicial Council. Threats against judges appear to be increasing and there have been a number of high-profile incidents of violence against judges in other states that have made judges in California fear for their safety. That fear impinges on their ability to function with independence. AB 2235 is a narrowly tailored solution that will offer protection for judges, including federal judges, tribal judges, court commissioners, as well as former judges, in a manner similar to existing programs operated by the Secretary of State which protect victims of domestic violence as well as health care providers who have been targeted for providing abortions or gender affirming care.

1. Argument in Opposition

According to the County Recorders’ Association of California:

While we support efforts to safeguard personal information and understand the intent of creating a system that seeks to protect members of the public and government officials, we believe this language presents administrative concerns and lacks clarity on the proposed program and processes. County recorders serve primarily as administrators of critical public records systems, and even minor disruptions to established administrative processes can create cascading impacts for our offices, stakeholders, and the public. It is essential that implementation includes a process that minimizes operational disruptions and reduces public confusion.

The County Recorders’ Association of California greatly appreciates the collaboration and work done thus far with the author’s office and sponsors of AB 2235 over the past several years. Through those conversations, we have shared amendments with both parties that we would respectfully request be taken into consideration. Those amendments do the following:

• Provides an alternate method of shielding for which recorder offices will shield public records containing the participants home address.
• Specifies that the individual may apply to the AG to be accepted into the Judicial Home Security Program and upon receiving approval, participant must notify the county recorder of the document types they would like shielded, among providing identification and proof of authorization.
• Clarifies that for the purposes of not disrupting critical services such as real estate transactions, estate planning, legal reasons, etc., requestors must sign under penalty of perjury to view non-shielded documents as to not disrupt the real estate transaction processes.
• Adds that the program participant can withdraw from the program and would have to notify the government agency along with the document types that were previously shielded.
• Adds a County Board of Supervisors approved fee for recovery of costs incurred to implement this program.
• Provides indemnification clause.

It is because of the administrative concerns expressed above that we have respectfully taken an "oppose unless amended" position on AB 2235.

-- END --

1. AB 82 (Ward) Ch. 679, Stats. of 2025. ↑

2. National Institute of Justice (May 2016). Five Things about Deterrence https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf ↑

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 2235 (Author:Pacheco)

Version: April 9, 2026

Hearing Date: June 23, 2026

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

The Judicial Home Security Act

DIGEST

This bill establishes the Judicial Home Security Act, to be administered by the Attorney General, to allow judicial officers and their families to shield their home addresses from public disclosure, as provided.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Threats on public officials, including judges, are on the rise causing legitimate fear and concern for the safety of themselves and their families. The recent events in Minnesota where elected politicians and their spouses were targeted in their homes and, in one instance, tragically killed, as well as the heartbreaking incident in 2020, in which the son of a federal judge in New Jersey was shot and killed when he answered the door to their home, provide a stark reminder that serving in public office poses risks for those who choose to serve and their families.^[1] Tragically, in 2020 the son of a federal judge in New Jersey was shot and killed when he answered the door to their home. This bill seeks to establish the Judicial Home Security Act to allow judicial officers and their families to shield their home addresses from public disclosure.

The bill is sponsored by the California Judges Association and supported by the Judicial Council of California. The bill in print is opposed unless amended by the California Recorders Association and the California Assessors’ Association, which understand the concerns the bill is attempting to address, but have issues regarding the implementation of the bill and potential unintended consequences. In light of their concerns, the author has offered amendments to the bill that seem to address the opposition’s concerns. This bill will analyze the bill as proposed to be amended. A mock-up of the amendments can be found at the end of the analysis. Should the bill pass this Committee, the bill will then be referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee. Due to timing, the amendments will processed in the next Committee.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Provides, pursuant to the California Constitution, that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies are required to be open to public scrutiny. (Cal. const. art. I, § 3(b)(1).)
   1. Requires a statute to be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. (Cal. const. art. I, § 3(b)(1).)
   2. Requires a statute that limits the public’s right of access to be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. (Cal. const. art. I, § 3(b)(1).)
2. Governs the disclosure of information collected and maintained by public agencies pursuant to the CPRA. (Gov. Code §§ 792.000 et seq.)
   1. States that, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Gov. Code § 7921.000.)
   2. Defines “public records” as any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Gov. Code § 7920.530.)
   3. Defines “public agency” as any state or local agency. (Gov. Code § 7920.525(a).)
3. Provides that all public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of a state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, unless the record is exempt from public disclosure. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. (Gov. Code § 7922.525.)
   1. Some records are prohibited from being disclosed and other records are permissively exempted from being disclosed. (See e.g. Gov. Code §§ 7920.505 & 7922.200.)
   2. There are several general categories of documents or information that are permissively exempt from disclosure under the CPRA essentially due to the character of the information. The exempt information can be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information, but it also may be disclosed if it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information. (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, at 652.).
4. Provides that a public agency may comply with the requirement in 3), above, by posting any public record on its website and, in response to a request for a public record posted on the website, directing a member of the public to the location on the website where the public record is posted. However, if after the public agency directs a member of the public to their website, that member of the public requests a copy of the public record due to an inability to access or reproduce the public record from the internet website, the public agency must promptly provide a copy of the public record, as specified. (Gov. Code § 7922.545.)
5. Prohibits a state or local agency from posting the address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the internet without first obtaining the written permission of the individual. (Gov. Code § 7928.205.)
   1. An “elected or appointed official” incudes, but is not limited to, all of the following: a state constitutional officer; a member of the Legislature; an active or retired judge, court commissioner, or judge of the State Bar Court; a district attorney; a public defender; a member of a city council; a member of a board of supervisors; an appointee of the Governor; an appointee of the Legislature; a mayor; a city attorney; a police chief or sheriff; a public safety official; a state administrative law judge; a federal judge or federal defender; a member of the United States Congress or appointee of the President of the United States; a judge of a federally recognized Indian tribe. (Gov. Code § 7920.500.)
6. Provides that for purposes of sentencing a person for a felony violation of criminal threats, the court may consider as an aggravating factor that the defendant willfully threatened to commit a crime that would result in the death or great bodily injury of a person the defendant knew to be a constitutional officer, member of the Legislature, judge, or court commissioner. (Penal Code § 422.)
7. Establishes an address confidentiality (or “Safe at Home”) program within the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) in order to enable state and local agencies to both accept and respond to requests for public records without disclosing the changed name or address of a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Existing law permits any such adult victim, or parent or guardian acting on behalf of a minor or incapacitated person, to apply through a community-based victims’ assistance program to have an address designated by the SOS as their substitute mailing address. (Gov. Code §§ 6205 et seq.)
   1. Allows reproductive health care providers, employees, volunteers, and patients to apply to the address confidentiality program through a community-based victims’ assistance program, as specified. (Gov. Code § 6215 et seq.)
   2. Allows public entity employees and contractors to apply to the address confidentiality program, as provided. (Id.)

This bill:

1. Establishes the Judicial Home Security Act, to be administered by the Attorney General, to allow judicial officers and their families to shield their home addresses from public disclosure.
   1. Authorize an adult person domiciled in California to apply to the AG to be accepted into the program.
   2. An accepted program participant may use an alternate mailing address or request shielding of public records consistent with the provisions of the bill.
   3. A program participant may withdraw from program participation by submitting to the Attorney General written notification of withdrawal and the program participant’s current identification card. Certification shall be terminated and notification forwarded to the appropriate state or local agency on the date of receipt of this notification.
   4. A program participant may update their home address or alternate mailing address in the program by submitting to the Attorney General written notification of the same with the participant’s current identification card. The Attorney General shall issue a new identification card.
   5. The Attorney General shall commence accepting applications under the program beginning on April 1, 2027.
2. Authorizes the Attorney General to approve an application if it is filed in the manner and on the form prescribed by the Attorney General and if it contains all of the following.
   1. Documentation showing that the individual is to commence employment as or is a judicial officer.
   2. A sworn statement that the applicant fears for their safety or the safety of their family due to their employment as a judicial officer.
   3. The alternate mailing address requested for substitution for any reference to the person’s home address or a request for shielding of public records, including a list of all Document Types, Recording Numbers, and Assessor Parcel Numbers the judicial officer wishes to shield. The application shall include documentation issued by the United States Postal Service or the personal mailbox rental company confirming the mailbox is rented to the applicant or a household member of the applicant. The Attorney General shall not approve an application if the alternate mailing address is any address other than a post office box or personal mailbox, or if it is a post office box or mailbox rented by anyone other than the applicant or a household member of the applicant.
   4. The telephone numbers and email addresses where the applicant can be reached by the Attorney General.
   5. The home address that the applicant requests not be disclosed because disclosure will increase the risk of harassment, threats, or violence against the applicant or their family.
   6. The signature of the applicant under penalty of perjury and the date on which the applicant signed the application.
3. Requires the Attorney General to issue a certified program participant documentation that they are a certified program participant, which shall include, but not be limited to, both of the following:
   1. a program participant identification card listing their alternate mailing address; and
   2. a standing authorization by the Attorney General for the program participant to request for shielding of public records where the home address is contained and use the alternate mailing address for all protections offered by the program.
4. Provides that a person who knowingly provides false or incorrect information upon making an application is guilty of a misdemeanor.
5. Authorizes the Attorney General to terminate a program participant’s certification and invalidate the program participant’s authorization card for any of the reasons listed below and requires the Attorney General to send written notification of the intended termination to the program participant. The program participant shall have 30 days in which to appeal the intended termination under procedures developed by the Attorney General.
   1. The program participant has failed to pay their annual program fee. Before terminating a participant’s certification due to a lapse in payment, the Attorney General shall attempt to contact the participant by telephone and email, if available, to resolve the payment issue.
   2. The Attorney General has been informed that another state agency has determined that false information was used in the application process to qualify as a program participant or that participation in the program is being used as a subterfuge to avoid detection of illegal or criminal activity or apprehension by law enforcement.
   3. The program participant no longer resides at the most recent home address provided to the Attorney General and has not provided notice in writing of a change in address within 30 days of the change of their home address.
   4. The United States Postal Service or the personal mailbox rental company responsible for the alternate mailing address of a program participant informs the Attorney General that the alternate mailing address is no longer rented in the name of the program participant or their household member.
   5. The program participant moves from their California place of residence to relocate out of state.
6. Requires the Attorney General to create, maintain, and update monthly a list that includes certain information for each current program participant and a list for former program participants, as provided.
7. Requires state and local agencies to use a program participant’s alternate mailing address for any reference to the program participant’s home address when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, with certain specified exceptions.
8. Requires a county assessor office and a county recorder office to shield the participant’s public record when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, including real property deeds, real estate records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant.
9. Requires a county assessor office, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, to substitute the program participant’s alternate mailing address for the situs address on assessment rolls, maps, property ownership statements and records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant.
10. Requires a request for shielding to contain specified information, including all Document Types, Recording Numbers, and Assessor Parcel Numbers containing the home address of the participant and a sworn statement attesting to the accuracy of the information provided.
    1. Program participants are responsible for notifying the Assessor and Recorder in writing when they are no longer participating in the program or no longer own a property that was previously identified to be shielded. Notification shall include the affected Document Types, Recording Numbers, and Assessor Parcel Numbers.
    2. Upon receipt of a request for shielding the Recorder and Assessor shall have 5 business days to validate and shield the requested records.
    3. Original documents shall only be made available to the participant, spouse or household member living at the property, or under certain specified circumstances.
    4. Request for shielding shall be accompanied by payment of a County Board of Supervisors approved fee established to recover the cost of the programs implementation, maintenance and support. This fee shall not exceed the Recorder’s or assessor’s actual cost to verify, shield, maintain, and track requests for access of shielded records.
    5. The recorder and assessor shall be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of the bill and not be liable for failure to shield a program participant’s home address or public records if the participant fails to comply with program requirements.
11. Prohibits a person or organization from publicly posting or displaying the home address of a program participant who has made a written demand of the person or organization.
12. A third-party data broker or aggregator shall not sell, license, trade, purchase, transfer, release, or otherwise share in any format or medium the home address of a program participant, including on the internet, unless such sale, license, trade, purchase, transfer, release, or other sharing is authorized under the California Consumer Privacy Act.
13. Makes Legislative findings and declarations regarding the need to limit access to public records.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

Violence and threats against judges have risen sharply, with thousands of incidents reported in recent years and a dramatic increase since 2015, leaving many judges and their families fearing for their safety. At the same time, judicial officers’ home addresses remain easily accessible through public records and online databases, creating a direct pathway for bad actors to locate them and their families. Existing privacy protections in California are insufficient, as they do not effectively prevent the widespread dissemination of this sensitive information, especially when it originates from government sources. This gap leaves judges uniquely exposed to targeted harassment, intimidation, and potential violence at their homes.

AB 2235, the Judicial Home Security Act, addresses this urgent risk by allowing judges to use an alternate mailing address in public records while preserving legitimate access for business, legal, and law enforcement purposes. By replacing home addresses, the bill strikes a careful balance between transparency and safety, ensuring public records remain functional without compromising personal security. In light of the escalating threats and clear vulnerabilities, AB 2235 is a necessary and measured step to protect the judiciary and uphold the integrity of the justice system.

1. This bill establishes the Judicial Home Security Act

The author and sponsor of the bill report to the Committee that from 2020 to 2025, at least 310 threats against bench officers were reported to the California Highway Patrol Threat Assessment Center. The California Highway Patrol is charged with security of California’s judicial officers through its Judicial Protection Section. As of March 2026, the year-to-date total is 20 threats. The sponsor argues that both the five-year total and the year-to-date total are far less than the actual number of violence or threats made against judicial officers in California because the data only includes state courts (as opposed to federal, tribal or administrative law courts) and the data only includes threats that have been self-reported by the state courts.

The sponsors of the bill, the California Judges Association, writes:

In recent years, violence and threats against judges have increased significantly nationwide. According to the U.S. Marshals Service, which is responsible for protecting federal judges, there were 5,873 threats and inappropriate communications directed at members of the judiciary between 2021 and 2022; overall there has been an alarming 400 percent increase since 2015.Courts and judicial officers have also been targeted through bomb threats to state court facilities and intimidation directed at judges handling controversial cases. Tragically, several violent incidents have underscored these risks, including the assassination of an Indiana judge and his wife earlier this year, the attempted murder of a Nevada district judge, and the murder of the son of a federal judge at her home in New Jersey. These incidents highlight the continuing need to strengthen safeguards that prevent the improper disclosure of the home addresses which can be used to target judges and their families.

To address the issue of increased threats, this bill seeks to establish a way for judicial officers to shield their home addresses in public documents. The bill establishes the program in the Attorney General’s Office, instead of in the Secretary of State’s Office like the Safe At Home Program. The author argues this program is different and therefore more appropriately placed in the Attorney General’s office because it allows for shielding of a person’s address by state and local agencies, including country recorders and assessors. The bill provides several exceptions for accessing or publicly posting the address of a program participant, such as if requested by a law enforcement agency or if a state or local agency is posting a legally required notice or publication.

1. Stakeholder statements

The California Judges Association, the sponsor of the bill, writes in support stating:

AB 2235 addresses this concern by allowing judicial officers to designate an alternate mailing address, such as a post office box or private mailbox, to be substituted wherever their home address would otherwise appear in public records. State agencies would use the alternate mailing address when disclosing records that would otherwise reveal a judge’s home address. For county recorders and assessors, based upon our ongoing conversations, proposed amendments specify the shielding of those property records with a judge’s home address.

Importantly, the bill maintains appropriate transparency and legitimate access to records. Law enforcement agencies and certain regulated entities with a bona fide need for information, such as financial institutions, title companies, and attorneys involved in real estate transactions, may still access the home address when necessary for lawful purposes.

By protecting the home addresses of judicial officers and their families, AB 2235 helps reduce the risk of harassment, intimidation, and violence directed at judges outside the courthouse. Ensuring that judicial officers can carry out their duties without fear of retaliation in their homes strengthens judicial independence and promotes public confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice.

The Judicial Council of California writes:

Assembly Bill 2235 promotes the safety and security of judges, which is a key legislative priority for the Judicial Council. Threats against judges appear to be increasing and there have been a number of high-profile incidents of violence against judges in other states that have made judges in California fear for their safety. That fear impinges on their ability to function with independence. AB 2235 is a narrowly tailored solution that will offer protection for judges, including federal judges, tribal judges, court commissioners, as well as former judges, in a manner similar to existing programs operated by the Secretary of State which protect victims of domestic violence as well as health care providers who have been targeted for providing abortions or gender affirming care.

The bill is opposed unless amended by the California Assessors’ Association and the

California Recorders Association. However, the proposed amendments, set forth below, seem to address many, if not all, of the concerns raised by the opposition.

The California Assessors’ Association writes:

We believe that AB 2235 contains the foundation of a framework that considers this balance and we applaud the persistent efforts of the author. The establishment of the opt-in Judicial Home Security Program facilitated by the Attorney General's Office (AG) creates the cornerstone for a privacy protection system that can lead to success. Although the bill in its current form presents several challenges, we anticipate that a series of amendments could result in moving our position to one of neutrality or support.

Our position is predicated on administrative concerns that could significantly impact

assessors' ability to effectively ensure compliance with public information requirements, as mandated by the Revenue and Taxation Code (R&T Code).

The California Recorders Association writes:

The County Recorders’ Association of California greatly appreciates the collaboration and work done thus far with the author’s office and sponsors of AB 2235 over the past several years. Through those conversations, we have shared amendments with both parties that we would respectfully request be taken into consideration. Those amendments do the following:

• Provides an alternate method of shielding for which recorder offices will shield public records containing the participants home address.
• Specifies that the individual may apply to the Attorney General to be accepted into the Judicial Home Security Program and upon receiving approval, participant must notify the county recorder of the document types they would like shielded, among providing identification and proof of authorization.
• Clarifies that for the purposes of not disrupting critical services such as real estate transactions, estate planning, legal reasons, etc., requestors must sign under penalty of perjury to view non-shielded documents as to not disrupt the real estate transaction processes.
• Adds that the program participant can withdraw from the program and would have to notify the government agency along with the document types that were previously shielded.
• Adds a County Board of Supervisors approved fee for recovery of costs incurred to implement this program.
• Provides indemnification clause.

SUPPORT

California Judges Association (sponsor)

Judicial Council of California

OPPOSITION

California Assessors’ Association
California Recorders Association

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: AB 883 (Lowenthal, 2026) requires information about the accessible deletion mechanism to be provided to elected officials and judges, as specified. AB 883 is currently pending in this Committee.

Prior Legislation:

AB 343 (Pacheco, Ch. 142, Stats. 2025) expanded the definition of “elected or appointed official” under the California Public Records Act to include retired judges, court commissioners, federal judges, federal defenders, or judges of a federally recognized Indian tribe, and an appointee of a court to serve as children’s counsel in a family or dependency proceeding.

AB 1785 (Pacheco, Ch. 551, Stats. 2024) prohibited a state or local agency from publicly posting, as defined, the home address, telephone number, or both the name and assessor parcel number associated with the home address of any elected or appointed official on the internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.

PRIOR VOTES

Assembly Floor (Ayes 72, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 0)

**************

MOCK-UP OF AB 2235 (PACHECO) AS PROPSOED TO BE AMENDED^[2]

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.  Chapter 3.4 (commencing with Section 6225) is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read:

CHAPTER  3.4. The Judicial Home Security Act

6225.  This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Judicial Home Security Act.

6225.1.  The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) The Legislature finds that persons employed as judicial officers in California are subject to an increased risk of threats or actual violence against themselves and their families. As public officials responsible for the functioning of the judicial system, judicial officers have a uniquely high level of exposure to the public and the criminal justice system. Persons and groups might attempt to subvert, delay, or otherwise impede the justice system by threatening or intimidating judicial officers. These individuals or groups may also threaten or take violent action against judicial officers or their families as retribution for past rulings or judicial actions. The threat of violence towards judicial officers and their families extends beyond the courtroom and into the home. The purpose of this chapter is to enable state and local agencies to respond to requests for public records without disclosing or referencing in any way the home addresses of judicial officers who are in the Judicial Home Security Program, to enable interagency cooperation with the Attorney General in providing home address confidentiality for these judicial officers, and to enable state and local agencies to substitute mailing addresses for any reference to home addresses of these judicial officers in records that are made public.

(b) The Legislature finds that judicial officers are subject to such serious and detrimental risks of threats and violence that the public interest in justice and fairness under the law clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of judicial officers’ home addresses. Any reference to judicial officers’ home addresses is thus entitled to exemption from the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1).

6225.2.  Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.

(a) “Alternate mailing address” means a United States Postal Service post office box or personal mailbox provided by a private company.

(b) “Cohabitant” has the same meaning as in subdivision (b) of Section 18291 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(c) “Domicile” means a place of habitation as defined in Section 349 of the Elections Code.

(d) “Home address” includes any reference to all of the following, as specified on the individual’s application to be a program participant under this chapter:

(1) A property address.

(2) A common street address.

(3) An assessor’s parcel number.

(4) A property legal description.

(e) “Household member” means an adult person who resides at the same home address as the applicant or participant and is related to the applicant or participant by blood, marriage, registered domestic partnership, or adoption, or is a cohabitant of an applicant or participant.

(f) “Judicial officer” means a person who is currently employed or was formerly employed as any of the following:

(1) A supreme court justice.

(2) A court of appeal judge or justice.

(3) A superior court or district court judge.

(4) A municipal court judge.

(5) A court commissioner or court magistrate.

(6) A federal, state, or local agency judge.

(7) A tribal judge.

(8) A state bar court judge.

(g) “Program participant” means a person certified as a program participant under this chapter.

(h) “Shielding” means a process by which an agency has removed public access to an image which contains the program participants home address.

6225.3.  (a) An adult person who is domiciled in California may apply to the Attorney General to be accepted into the Judicial Home Security Program. An accepted program participant may use an alternate mailing address or request shielding of public records consistent with the provisions of this chapter. have a designated alternate mailing address substituted for any reference to the person’s home address in records that are made public. The Attorney General shall approve an application if it is filed in the manner and on the form prescribed by the Attorney General and if it contains all of the following:

(1) Documentation showing that the individual is to commence employment as or is a judicial officer.

(2) A sworn statement that the applicant fears for their safety or the safety of their family due to their employment as a judicial officer.

(3) (A) The alternate mailing address requested for substitution for any reference to the person’s home address or a request for shielding of public records, including a list of all Document Types, Recording Numbers, and Assessor Parcel Numbers the judicial officer wishes to shield in public records. The application shall include documentation issued by the United States Postal Service or the personal mailbox rental company confirming the mailbox is rented to the applicant or a household member of the applicant.

(B) The Attorney General shall not approve an application if the alternate mailing address is any address other than a post office box or personal mailbox, or if it is a post office box or mailbox rented by anyone other than the applicant or a household member of the applicant.

(4) The telephone numbers and email addresses where the applicant can be reached by the Attorney General.

(5) The home address that the applicant requests not be disclosed because disclosure will increase the risk of harassment, threats, or violence against the applicant or their family.

(6) The signature of the applicant under penalty of perjury and the date on which the applicant signed the application.

(b) Applications shall be filed with the office of the Attorney General.

(c) (1) Submitted applications shall be accompanied by payment of a fee to be determined by the Attorney General. This fee shall not exceed the actual costs of enrolling in the program.

(2) The Attorney General may assess an annual fee to a program participant in an amount to defray the actual costs of maintaining this program and to reimburse the General Fund for any amounts expended from that fund for the purposes of this chapter.

(d) The Judicial Home Security Program Fund is hereby created in the General Fund. All moneys collected by the Attorney General pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited into the fund. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, moneys in the fund are available for the administration of the program established pursuant to this chapter.

(e) Upon filing a properly completed application, the Attorney General shall certify the applicant as a program participant. Program participants shall be certified for life, unless and until the certification is withdrawn or terminated pursuant to Section 6225.4.

(f) The Attorney General shall issue a certified program participant documentation that they are a certified program participant, which shall include, but not be limited to, both of the following:

(1) A program participant identification card listing their alternate mailing address.

(2) A standing authorization by the Attorney General for the program participant to request for shielding of public records where the home address is contained and use the alternate mailing address for all protections offered by the program.

(g) A person who knowingly provides false or incorrect information upon making an application is guilty of a misdemeanor. A notice shall be printed in bold type and in a conspicuous location on the face of the application informing the applicant of the penalties for a violation of this subdivision.

(h) A program participant may update their home address or alternate mailing address in the program by submitting to the Attorney General written notification of the same with the participant’s current identification card. The Attorney General shall issue a new identification card.

6225.4.  (a) A program participant may withdraw from program participation by submitting to the Attorney General written notification of withdrawal and the program participant’s current identification card. Certification shall be terminated and notification forwarded to the appropriate state or local agency on the date of receipt of this notification.

(b) The Attorney General may terminate a program participant’s certification and invalidate the program participant’s authorization card for any of the following reasons:

(1) The program participant has failed to pay their annual program fee. Before terminating a participant’s certification due to a lapse in payment, the Attorney General shall attempt to contact the participant by telephone and email, if available, to resolve the payment issue.

(2) The Attorney General has been informed that another state agency has determined that false information was used in the application process to qualify as a program participant or that participation in the program is being used as a subterfuge to avoid detection of illegal or criminal activity or apprehension by law enforcement.

(3) The program participant no longer resides at the most recent home address provided to the Attorney General and has not provided notice in writing of a change in address within 30 days of the change of their home address.

(4) The United States Postal Service or the personal mailbox rental company responsible for the alternate mailing address of a program participant informs the Attorney General that the alternate mailing address is no longer rented in the name of the program participant or their household member.

(5) The program participant moves from their California place of residence to relocate out of state.

(c) If intended termination is based on any of the reasons under subdivision (b), the Attorney General shall send written notification of the intended termination to the program participant. The program participant shall have 30 days in which to appeal the intended termination under procedures developed by the Attorney General.

6225.5. (a) (1) The Attorney General shall create, maintain, and update monthly a list that includes all of the following information for each current program participant:

(A) Name.

(B) County of residence.

(C) Designated alternate mailing address.

(2) The list shall be publicly available for compliance purposes.

(b) The Attorney General shall create, maintain, and update monthly a list that includes former program participants who are no longer in the program, regardless of the reason. The list shall be publicly available to state and local agencies and third-party data brokers and aggregators for compliance purposes.

6225.6. (a) When disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, state and local agencies shall substitute use the program participant’s alternate mailing address for any reference to the program participant’s home address.

(b) When disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, as part of a request for shielding, a county assessor office and a county recorder office shall shield the participant’s public record substitute the program participant’s alternate mailing address for the situs address on including real property deeds, real estate records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant. Any request for shielding must contain the following:

(1) A list including all Document Types, Recording Numbers, and Assessor Parcel Numbers containing the home address of the participant.

(2) A copy of the program participant’s identification card and approved authorization from the Attorney General.

(3) A signed sworn statement attesting to the accuracy of the information provided.

(c) A program participant may submit a request to update the list of documents to be shielded in the program by complying with the requirements of 6225.6(b).

(d) Program participants are responsible for notifying the Assessor and Recorder in writing when they are no longer participating in the program or no longer own a property that was previously identified to be shielded. Notification shall include the affected Document Types, Recording Numbers, and Assessor Parcel Numbers.

(e) Upon receipt of a request for shielding the Recorder and Assessor shall have 5 business days to validate and shield the requested records.

(f) Original document shall only be made available to the participant, spouse or household member living at the property, or under the circumstances defined in subdivision (a) of Section 6225.8.

(g) Request for shielding shall be accompanied by payment of a County Board of Supervisor approved fee established to recover the cost of the programs implementation, maintenance and support. This fee shall not exceed the Recorder’s or Assessor’s actual cost to verify, shield, maintain, and track requests for access of shielded records.

(h) Recorder and Assessor shall be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of Sections 6225.6 thru 6225.8 and shall not be liable for failure to shield a program participants home address or public record if the participant fails to comply with the requirements set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 6225.6.

(i) When disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, a county assessor office shall substitute the program participant’s alternate mailing address for the situs address on assessment rolls, maps, property ownership statements and records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant

6225.7.  When a program participant leaves the program, regardless of the reason, the Attorney General and state and local agencies shall retain all records relating to that program participant for at least three years from departure.

6225.8. (a) The Attorney General and state and local agencies shall not allow disclosure or release of a program participant’s home address except under either any of the following circumstances:

(1) If requested by any of the following entities:

(A) A law enforcement agency, to the law enforcement agency.

(B) A consumer reporting agency, as defined in Section 1681a of Title 15 of the United States Code.

(C) A financial institution subject to the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Public Law 106-102) and regulations implementing that act.

(D) A title company.

(E) An attorney representing a client in any of the following matters:

(i) Estate planning.

(ii) Judgment enforcement.

(iii) Bankruptcy debtor or trustee representation.

(iv) A real estate transaction.

(F) A real estate licensee, as defined in Section 10014 of the Business and Professions Code.

(2) If directed by a court order, to a person identified in the order.

(3) A state or local agency posting a legally required notice or publication of a program participant.

(b) Nothing in this section should be construed as prohibiting an address to name search of real estate records, meaning a search of real estate records or address information based solely on a property address. This section is intended to expressly prohibit disclosure or release of a home address based on a program participant’s name, including a search of real estate records or address information based on a program participant’s name.

6225.9. (a) A person or organization shall not publicly post or display the home address of a program participant who has made a written demand of that person or organization, including on the internet.

(b) A third-party data broker or aggregator shall not sell, license, trade, purchase, transfer, release, or otherwise share in any format or medium the home address of a program participant, including on the internet unless such sale, license, trade, purchase, transfer, release, or other sharing is an activity or purposes recognized under Sections 1798.105, 1798.145, or 1798.146 of the Civil Code.

6225.10. Certification as a program participant shall not be evidence that minor children in the program participant’s custody are at risk in the participant’s care.

6225.11. The Attorney General may adopt guidance to facilitate the administration of this chapter by state and local agencies.

6225.12. (a) The Attorney General shall commence accepting applications under this the program established pursuant to this chapter on April 1, 2027.

(b) (1) Beginning January 10, 2028, and no later than January 10 of each year thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit to the Legislature a report that includes the total number of applications received for the program established by this chapter.

(2) A report to be submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795.

SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that this act imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:

. Persons employed as judicial officers in California are subject to increased risk of threats or actual violence against themselves and their families and require protections. The public interest in nondisclosure of judicial home addresses clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Nondisclosure supports judicial security, judicial integrity, and public trust in the rule of law, whereas disclosure increases the documented risk of violence against judicial officers

SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that this act furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:

Persons employed as judicial officers in California are subject to increased risk of threats or actual violence against themselves and their families and require protections. The public interest in nondisclosure of judicial home addresses clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Nondisclosure supports judicial security, judicial integrity, and public trust in the rule of law, whereas disclosure increases the documented risk of violence against judicial officers.

SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for certain costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district because, in that regard, this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

However, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

1. Steven Karnowski, et. al, The man suspected of shooting 2 Minnesota lawmakers is in custody after surrendering to the police, AP News, (June 16, 2025), available at https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-lawmakers-shot-8ce70a94c9eb90688baaa1a71faef6cc; Meredith Deliso, ABC News, Suspected gunman who killed Judge Esther Salas' son disparaged her as a Latina, (Jul. 21, 2020), available at https://abcnews.com/US/suspect-deadly-shooting-called-federal-judge-esther-salas/story?id=71901734. ↑

2. The amendments may include nonsubstantive changes as identified by Legislative Counsel. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2235

Author:(Pacheco)

As Amended Ver:April 9, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes the Judicial Home Security Act.

Major Provisions

1. Enacts the Judicial Home Security Act (Act).
2. Defines the following for the purpose of this Act, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
   1. "Home address" includes any reference to all of the following, as specified on the individual's application to be a program participant:
      1. A property address;
      2. A common street address;
      3. An assessor's parcel number;
      4. A property legal description.
3. Authorizes an adult person who is domiciled in California to apply to the Attorney General to have a designated alternate mailing address substituted for any reference to the person's home address in records that are made public.
4. Provides standards and procedures for the Attorney General related to administering the program.
5. Requires state and local agencies, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, to substitute the program participant's alternate mailing address for any reference to the program participant's home address.
6. Requires County Assessor and Recorder offices, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, to substitute the program participants alternate mailing address for the situs address on real property deeds, real estate records, and any other records containing the home address of the program participant.
7. Prohibits the Attorney General and state and local agencies from allowing disclosure or release of a program participant's home address except as specified.
8. Prohibits a person or organization from publicly posting or displaying the home address of a program participant who has made a written demand of that person or organization, including on the internet.
9. Prohibits a third-party data broker or aggregator from selling, licensing, trading, purchasing, transferring, releasing, or otherwise sharing in any format or medium the home address of a program participant, including on the internet.
10. Requires the Attorney General to commence accepting applications under this program on April 1, 2027.

COMMENTS

On March 23, 2026, in her speech before both houses of the Legislature for the annual State of the Judiciary, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court Patricia Guerrero called the Legislature to action on the issue of judicial security. The Chief Justice made a plea for "resources to protect 'personnel, the public and court systems from physical, online, and cyber threats.'" Her statements further called for legislation "designed to protect the privacy of judges – an issue that is fundamentally intertwined with judicial security." These comments come after several years of increased violence targeted at judicial officers.

Existing law relating to public disclosure of personal information. Individual property records, including the full name of the owner, are publicly accessible through local agencies, county assessor and recorders offices. The availability of that information makes it fairly easy for someone trying to find a specific person to do so, as long as they own property in California. Additionally, the California Public Records Act (CPRA) requires public records to be open to inspection by the public at all times during the office hours of a public agency, unless otherwise exempted. (California Government Code Section 7922.525.) One of the CPRA's numerous exceptions includes the home address or telephone number, along with other personally identifiable information, and the home address or telephone number of an elected or appointed official absent prior written permission. (Government Code Section 7928.300 (a), 7928.205.) In 2024, the Legislature enacted AB 1785 (Pacheco) Chapter 551, Statutes of 2024. That measure clarified that in addition to the previous two exceptions, public agencies are prohibited from posting the name and assessor's parcel number associated with the home address of any elected or appointed official without first obtaining written consent. (Government Code Section 7928.205.)

This bill proposes another expansion of the concept initially introduced by the Safe at Home program, this time available to the state's judicial officers. The Judicial Home Security Act would authorize a judicial officer to apply to the Attorney General (AG) to have an alternate mailing address substituted for their home address in public records. In order to qualify, the judicial officer would be required to 1) demonstrate that they are currently or were formerly employed as a judicial officer, and 2) submit a sworn statement that they fear for their safety or the safety of their family because of their employment as a judicial officer.

In addition to numerous guidelines for processing applications and general procedures for administering the program, the bill requires local and state agencies to use the participant's alternate address when releasing any public record that would otherwise reflect their home address, prohibit anyone from publicly posting a participant's home address, and would prohibit third party data brokers from sharing or selling a participant's address. Acknowledging the numerous legitimate business reasons why certain professionals may need access to a participant's home address, the bill also provides a list of circumstances and related professionals that may access the participant's full address upon request. Finally, the bill mirrors the existing SAH program and prohibits a person or organization from publicly sharing a participant's home address if the participant has made a written demand of that person or organization.

According to the Author

Violence and threats against judges have risen sharply, with thousands of incidents reported in recent years and a dramatic increase since 2015, leaving many judges and their families fearing for their safety. At the same time, judicial officers' home addresses remain easily accessible through public records and online databases, creating a direct pathway for bad actors to locate them and their families. Existing privacy protections in California are insufficient, as they do not effectively prevent the widespread dissemination of this sensitive information, especially when it originates from government sources. This gap leaves judges uniquely exposed to targeted harassment, intimidation, and potential violence at their homes.

AB 2235, the Judicial Home Security Act, addresses this urgent risk by allowing judges to use an alternate mailing address in public records while preserving legitimate access for business, legal, and law enforcement purposes. By replacing home addresses, the bill strikes a careful balance between transparency and safety, ensuring public records remain functional without compromising personal security. In light of the escalating threats and clear vulnerabilities, AB 2235 is a necessary and measured step to protect the judiciary and uphold the integrity of the justice system.

Arguments in Support

This bill is sponsored by the California Judges Association. It is supported by the Association of African American California Judicial Officers, California Women Judges, and Kiesel Law LLP. In support of the bill the sponsors submit:

Judicial officers routinely preside over high-conflict criminal, civil, and family law matters, and their work can expose them and their families to threats of violence or even death. As public officials responsible for the functioning of the justice system, judges face a heightened risk of threats or violence stemming from decisions they are required to make in the course of their duties.

Unfortunately, under current law it can be relatively easy for individuals to locate a judge's home address through publicly available property and government records. These records are often accessible through county assessors and recorder offices and, in some jurisdictions, through online databases. The ease with which this information can be obtained creates significant safety concerns for judicial officers and their families and increases the risk that individuals with malicious intent could use these records to locate a judge's residence.

In recent years, violence and threats against judges have increased significantly nationwide. According to the U.S. Marshals Service, which is responsible for protecting federal judges, there were 5,873 threats and inappropriate communications directed at members of the judiciary between 2021 and 2022; overall there has been an alarming 400 percent increase since 2015. Courts and judicial officers have also been targeted through bomb threats to state court facilities and intimidation directed at judges handling controversial cases. Tragically, several violent incidents have underscored these risks, including the assassination of an Indiana judge and his wife earlier this year, the attempted murder of a Nevada district judge, and the murder of the son of a federal judge at her home in New Jersey. These incidents highlight the continuing need to strengthen safeguards that prevent the improper disclosure of the home addresses which can be used to target judges and their families.

AB 2235 addresses this concern by allowing judicial officers to designate an alternate mailing address, such as a post office box or private mailbox, to be substituted wherever their home address would otherwise appear in public records. State and local agencies, including county assessors and recorder offices, would use the alternate mailing address when disclosing records that would otherwise reveal a judge's home address.

Importantly, the bill maintains appropriate transparency and legitimate access to records. Law enforcement agencies and certain regulated entities with a bona fide need for information, such as financial institutions, title companies, and attorneys involved in real estate transactions, may still access the home address when necessary for lawful purposes.

By protecting the home addresses of judicial officers and their families, AB 2235 helps reduce the risk of harassment, intimidation, and violence directed at judges outside the courthouse. Ensuring that judicial officers can carry out their duties without fear of retaliation in their homes strengthens judicial independence and promotes public confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice.

Arguments in Opposition

There is no formal opposition. However, the California Assessors' Association and the California Land Title Association (CLTA) have submitted a position of oppose unless amended. The California Assessors' Association cites implementation concerns and the preservation of construction notice that may be frustrated by the definition of "home address," and the California Land Title Association cites additional implementation concerns, including uncertainty in real property records, and deviations from the original Safe at Home Program. CLTA submits:

CLTA appreciates having had the opportunity to discuss alternatives to AB 2235 with the author and sponsor that avoid the issues pertaining to constructive notice described above, including restrictions to online access to documents, combined with the bill's existing data broker prohibitions and Attorney General certification program. Such an alternative would effectively remove judicial officers' address information from the online space while preserving the integrity of the recording system and the constructive notice doctrine.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs (General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount, likely in the low millions of dollars one-time and several hundred thousand to over one million dollars annually ongoing, to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to stand up and administer a new judicial home security address confidentiality program. The Secretary of State estimated approximately $330,000 in year one and $255,000 ongoing for an analogous expansion of the existing Safe at Home program to a new applicant type under AB 82 (Ward), Chapter 679, Statutes of 2025; standing up an entirely new program at DOJ, which has no existing address confidentiality program infrastructure, would likely entail substantially higher startup costs. DOJ was unable to provide an estimate at the time this analysis was written.
2. The bill creates the Judicial Home Security Program Fund within the General Fund, supported by application and annual fees set by DOJ at amounts not to exceed actual program costs. Fee revenue is likely to lag program startup costs, requiring General Fund support in the early years until the participant base stabilizes and fees can be set to recover ongoing costs. The actual costs and fee structure depend on the size of the participant universe — California has roughly 1,750 sitting Superior Court judges, 110 Court of Appeal justices, seven Supreme Court justices, plus unknown numbers of court commissioners and magistrates, federal judges, state and local agency administrative law judges, tribal judges, and former judicial officers (who are eligible for lifetime certification under the bill).
3. Costs (local funds) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to county assessor and recorder offices to modify records systems to support alternate-address substitution on real property deeds, real estate records, and other county records containing participant home addresses. Workload includes identifying parcels owned by program participants, modifying records to substitute alternate addresses, and maintaining records ongoing as participants enter and exit the program. These costs are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.
4. Costs (Trial Court Trust Fund) of an unknown but likely minor amount to the trial courts to issue court orders authorizing disclosure and to adjudicate civil enforcement actions for unauthorized disclosure or data broker violations.

The Legislative Analyst's Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year beginning in the 2027-28 fiscal year.

VOTES

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Lee, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: April 9, 2026

CONSULTANT: Manuela Boucher / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0002636

Date of Hearing: May 13, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2235

Author:(Pacheco) – As Amended Ver:April 9, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill enacts the Judicial Home Security Act, which establishes within the Department of Justice an address confidentiality program authorizing current and former judicial officers to apply to have an alternate mailing address substituted for their home address in public records.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the Attorney General to certify eligible applicants as program participants for life, subject to specified withdrawal and termination provisions, and to issue program participant identification cards.
2. Requires state and local agencies, when disclosing records containing a participant’s home address, to substitute the participant’s alternate mailing address. The bill imposes parallel requirements on county assessor and county recorder offices with respect to real property deeds and records.
3. Authorizes the Attorney General to charge a one-time enrollment fee not exceeding actual enrollment costs and an annual fee to defray ongoing program costs and reimburse the General Fund.
4. Creates the Judicial Home Security Program Fund in the General Fund to receive fee revenue, available upon appropriation for administration of the program.
5. Requires the Attorney General to begin accepting applications by April 1, 2027, and to submit an annual report to the Legislature beginning January 10, 2028.
6. Provides specified exceptions allowing disclosure of a participant’s home address to law enforcement, consumer reporting agencies, financial institutions subject to Gramm-Leach-Bliley, title companies, real estate licensees, attorneys in specified matters, and upon court order.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Costs (General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount, likely in the low millions of dollars one-time and several hundred thousand to over one million dollars annually ongoing, to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to stand up and administer a new judicial home security address confidentiality program. The Secretary of State estimated approximately $330,000 in year one and $255,000 ongoing for an analogous expansion of the existing Safe at Home program to a new applicant type under AB 82 (Ward), Chapter 679, Statutes of 2025; standing up an entirely new program at DOJ, which has no existing address confidentiality program infrastructure, would likely entail substantially higher startup costs. DOJ was unable to provide an estimate at the time this analysis was written.
2. The bill creates the Judicial Home Security Program Fund within the General Fund, supported by application and annual fees set by DOJ at amounts not to exceed actual program costs. Fee revenue is likely to lag program startup costs, requiring General Fund support in the early years until the participant base stabilizes and fees can be set to recover ongoing costs. The actual costs and fee structure depend on the size of the participant universe — California has roughly 1,750 sitting Superior Court judges, 110 Court of Appeal justices, seven Supreme Court justices, plus unknown numbers of court commissioners and magistrates, federal judges, state and local agency administrative law judges, tribal judges, and former judicial officers (who are eligible for lifetime certification under the bill).
3. Costs (local funds) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to county assessor and recorder offices to modify records systems to support alternate-address substitution on real property deeds, real estate records, and other county records containing participant home addresses. Workload includes identifying parcels owned by program participants, modifying records to substitute alternate addresses, and maintaining records ongoing as participants enter and exit the program. These costs are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.
4. Costs (Trial Court Trust Fund) of an unknown but likely minor amount to the trial courts to issue court orders authorizing disclosure and to adjudicate civil enforcement actions for unauthorized disclosure or data broker violations.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year beginning in the 2027-28 fiscal year.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Violence and threats against judges have risen sharply, with thousands of incidents reported in recent years and a dramatic increase since 2015, leaving many judges and their families fearing for their safety. At the same time, judicial officers’ home addresses remain easily accessible through public records and online databases, creating a direct pathway for bad actors to locate them and their families. Existing privacy protections in California are insufficient, as they do not effectively prevent the widespread dissemination of this sensitive information, especially when it originates from government sources. This gap leaves judges uniquely exposed to targeted harassment, intimidation, and potential violence at their homes. AB 2235, the Judicial Home Security Act, addresses this urgent risk by allowing judges to use an alternate mailing address in public records while preserving legitimate access for business, legal, and law enforcement purposes.

1. Background. California operates the Safe at Home program under the Secretary of State, established in 1998 for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, and elder or dependent adult abuse, and subsequently extended to reproductive and gender-affirming health care providers and public employees facing work-related threats. This bill draws on that model but places the judicial program under the Attorney General rather than the Secretary of State, and adopts a broader definition of “home address” that includes assessor’s parcel number and property legal description in addition to residential and common street addresses. Existing law also restricts public posting by state and local agencies of the home address, phone number, or name paired with APN for elected and appointed officials without written consent under AB 1785 (Pacheco), Chapter 551, Statutes 2024. That statute addresses one disclosure channel — internet posting by government agencies — and applies only to a narrow class of officials. It does not prevent disclosure of judicial officer home addresses via Public Records Act requests, does not substitute an alternate address on underlying records (including real property deeds), does not bind third-party data brokers, and generally does not cover court commissioners and magistrates, federal judges, tribal judges, agency administrative law judges, or retired or former judicial officers. This bill establishes an affirmative address confidentiality program addressing those gaps. In her March 23, 2026 State of the Judiciary address, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero called on the Legislature to provide resources to protect judicial officers from physical, online, and cyber threats and to advance legislation protecting judge privacy. This bill responds to that call.

Analysis Prepared by: Shiran Zohar / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 7, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2235

Author:(Pacheco) – As Introduced Ver:February 19, 2026

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: The Judicial Home Security Act

KEY ISSUE: IN RESPONSE TO INCREASING THREATS AGAINST JUDICIAL OFFICERS SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE ENACT THE JUDICIAL HOME SECURITY ACT WHICH WOULD ALLOW JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND THEIR FAMILIES TO SHIELD THEIR HOME ADDRESSES FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE?

SYNOPSIS

On March 23, 2026, in her speech before both houses of the Legislature for the annual State of the Judiciary, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court Patricia Guerrero called the Legislature to action on the issue of judicial security. In particular, Chief Justice Guerrero made a plea for resources to protect judicial officers from physical, online, and cyber threats, and reflected on an increase in dangerous rhetoric targeted at the judicial branch. This bill presents one such attempt and proposes the Judicial Home Security Act. Modeled after the existing Safe at Home Program, the Judicial Home Security Act would allow judicial officers to apply to the Attorney General to have an alternate mailing address substituted for any reference to their home address in public records. While supportive in concept, the California Land Title Association raises a nuanced concern surrounding the bill’s potential to frustrate the legal doctrine of constructive notice. Additionally, the California Assessors’ Association applaud the author’s ultimate goal, but raise a number of implementation concerns. These issues, and some proposed fixes, are discussed in further detail in the body of this analysis. Additionally, the author proposes a number of clarifying amendments incorporated into the SUMMARY and also discussed in the COMMENTS section of this analysis.

This bill is sponsored by the California Judges Association and supported by the Association of African American California Judicial Officers, California Women Judges, and Kiesel Law LLP. There is no formal opposition on file.

SUMMARY: Establishes the Judicial Home Security Act. Specifically, this bill:

1. Enacts the Judicial Home Security Act (Act).
2. Makes the following findings and declarations on behalf of the Legislature:
   1. The Legislature finds that persons employed as judicial officers in California are subject to increased risk of threats or actual violence against themselves and their families. As public officials responsible for the functioning of the judicial system, judicial officers have a uniquely high level of exposure to the public and the criminal justice system. Persons and groups might attempt to subvert, delay, or otherwise impede the justice system by threatening or intimidating judicial officers. These individuals or groups may also threaten or take violent action against judicial officers or their families as retribution for past rulings or judicial actions. The threat of violence towards judicial officers and their families extends beyond the courtroom and into the home. The purpose of this chapter is to enable state and local agencies to respond to requests for public records without disclosing or referencing in any way the home addresses of judicial officers who are in the Judicial Home Security Program, to enable interagency cooperation with the Attorney General in providing home address confidentiality for these judicial officers, and to enable state and local agencies to substitute mailing addresses for any reference to home addresses of these judicial officers in records that are made public;
   2. The Legislature finds that judicial officers are subject to such serious and detrimental risks of threats and violence that the public interest in justice and fairness under the law clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of judicial officers’ home addresses. Any reference to judicial officers’ home address is thus entitled to exemption from the California Public Records Act.
3. Defines the following for the purpose of this Act, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
   1. “Home address” includes any reference to all of the following, as specified on the individual’s application to be a program participant:
      1. A property address;
      2. A common street address;
      3. An assessor’s parcel number;
      4. A property legal description.
   2. “Alternate mailing address” means a United States Postal Service post office box or personal mailbox provided by a private company;
   3. “Domicile” means a place of habitation, as defined;
   4. “Cohabitant” means two unrelated adult persons living together for a substantial period of time, resulting in some permanency of relationship;
   5. “Household member” means an adult person who resides at the same home address as the applicant or participant and is related to the applicant or participant by blood, marriage, registered domestic partnership, or adoption, or is a cohabitant of an applicant or participant;
   6. “Program participant” means a person certified as a program participant under the Act;
   7. “Judicial officer” means a person who is currently employed or was formerly employed as any of the following:
      1. A supreme court justice;
      2. A court of appeal judge or justice;
      3. A superior court or district court judge;
      4. A municipal court judge;
      5. A court commissioner or court magistrate;
      6. A federal, state, or local agency judge;
      7. A tribal judge.
4. Authorizes an adult person who is domiciled in California to apply to the Attorney General to have a designated alternate mailing address substituted for any reference to the person’s home address in records that are made public.
5. Requires the Attorney General to approve the application if it is filed in the manner and on the form prescribed by the Attorney General and contains all of the following:
   1. Documentation showing that the individual is to commence employment or is a judicial officer;
   2. A sworn statement that the applicant fears for their safety or the safety of their family due to their employment as a judicial officer;
   3. The alternate mailing address requested for substitution for any reference to the person’s home address in public records. Requires the application to include documentation issued by the United States Postal Service or the personal mailbox rental company confirming the mailbox is rented to the applicant or a household member of the applicant;
      1. Prohibits the Attorney General from approving an application if the alternate mailing address is any address other than a post office box or personal mailbox, or if it is a post office box or mailbox rented by anyone other than the applicant or a household member of the applicant.
   4. The telephone number and email addresses where the applicant can be reached by the Attorney General;
   5. The home address that the applicant requests not be disclosed because disclosure will increase the risk of harassment, threats, or violence against the applicant or their family;
   6. The signature of the applicant under penalty of perjury and the date on which the applicant signed the application.
6. Requires applications to be filed with the office of the Attorney General.
7. Requires submitted applications to be accompanied by payment of a fee to be determined by the Attorney General, but not exceeding the actual costs of enrolling in the program. Further authorizes the Attorney General to assess annual fees to defray the actual costs of maintaining the program, and use those fees to reimburse the General Fund for any amounts expended from that fund for the purposes of the Act.
8. Creates the Judicial Home Security Program Fund in the General Fund. Requires all moneys collected by the Attorney General pursuant to the Act to be deposited into the fund. Makes moneys in the fund available for the administration of the program established pursuant to the act upon appropriation by the Legislature.
9. Requires the Attorney General to certify the applicant as a program participant upon filing a properly completed application. Requires program participants to be certified for life, unless the certification is withdrawn or invalidated pursuant to the Act’s provisions.
10. Requires the Attorney General to issue documentation to certified program participants that they are a certified program participant which is required to occur, but not be limited to, both of the following:
    1. A program participant identification card listing their alternate mailing address;
    2. A standing authorization by the Attorney General for the program participant to use the alternate mailing address for all protections offered by the program.
11. Makes a person who knowingly provides false or incorrect information upon making an application guilty of a misdemeanor. Requires notice to be printed in bold type and in a conspicuous location on the face of the application informing the applicant of the penalties for a violation.
12. Authorizes a program participant to update their home address or alternate mailing address in the program by submitting to the Attorney General written notification of the same with the participant’s current identification card. Requires the Attorney General to issue a new identification card.
13. Authorizes a program participant to withdraw from program participation by submitting to the Attorney General written notification of withdrawal and the program participant’s current identification card. Requires certification to be terminated on the date of receipt of this notification.
14. Authorizes the Attorney General to terminate a program participant’s certification and invalidate the program participant’s authorization card for any of the following reasons:
    1. The program participant has failed to pay their annual program fee. Before terminating a participant’s certification due to a lapse in payment, requires the Attorney General to attempt to contact the participant by telephone and email, if available, to resolve the payment issue;
    2. The Attorney General has been informed that another state agency has determined that false information was used in the application process to qualify as a program participant or that participation in the program is being used as a subterfuge to avoid detection of illegal or criminal activity or apprehension by law enforcement;
    3. The program participant no longer resides at the most recent home address provided to the Attorney General and has not provided notice in writing of a change in address within 30 days of the change in their home address;
    4. The United States Postal Service or the personal mailbox rental company responsible for the alternate mailing address of a program participant informs the Attorney General that the alternate mailing address is no longer rented in the name of the program participant or their household member;
    5. The program participant moves from their California place of residence to relocate out of state.
15. Requires the Attorney General, if termination is based on any of the reasons under 14), to send written notification of the intended termination to the program participant.
16. Grants the program participant 30 days in which to appeal the intended termination under procedures developed by the Attorney General.
17. Directs the Attorney General to create, maintain, and update monthly a list that includes the following information for each current program participant:
    1. Name;
    2. County of residence;
    3. Designated alternate mailing address.
18. Requires the list to be publicly available for compliance purposes.
19. Directs the Attorney General to create, maintain, and update monthly a list that includes former program participants who are no longer in the program, regardless of the reason. Makes the list available to state and local agencies and third-party data brokers and aggregators for compliance purposes.
20. Requires state and local agencies, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, to substitute the program participant’s alternate mailing address for any reference to the program participant’s home address.
21. Requires County Assessor and Recorder offices, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, to substitute the program participants alternate mailing address for the situs address on real property deeds, real estate records, and any other records containing the home address of the program participant.
22. If a program participant leaves the program, requires the Attorney General and state local agencies to retain all records relating to that program participant for at least three years from departure, regardless of the reason for the departure.
23. Prohibits the Attorney General and state and local agencies from allowing disclosure or release of a program participant’s home address except in any of the following circumstances:
    1. If requested by any of the following:
       1. A law enforcement agency, to the law enforcement agency;
       2. A consumer reporting agency, as defined;
       3. A financial institution subject to the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and regulations implementing that Act;
       4. A title company;
       5. An attorney representing a client in any of the following matters: estate planning; judgment enforcement; bankruptcy debtor or trustee representation; real estate transaction;
       6. A real estate licensee, as defined.
    2. If directed by a court order, to a person identified in the order;
    3. Specifies that nothing in this section should be construed as prohibiting an address to name search of real estate records, meaning a search of real estate records or address information based solely on a property address. Clarifies that the section is intended to expressly prohibit disclosure or release of a home address based on a program participant’s name, including a search of real estate records or address information based on a program participant’s name.
24. Prohibits a person or organization from publicly posting or displaying the home address of a program participant who has made a written demand of that person or organization, including on the internet.
25. Prohibits a third-party data broker or aggregator from selling, licensing, trading, purchasing, transferring, releasing, or otherwise sharing in any format or medium the home address of a program participant, including on the internet.
26. Establishes that certification as a program participant is not evidence that minor children in the program participant’s custody are at risk in the participant’s care.
27. Authorizes the Attorney General to adopt guidance to facilitate the administration of the Act by state and local agencies.
28. Requires the Attorney General to commence accepting applications under this program on April 1, 2027.
29. Directs the Attorney General, beginning January 10, 2028, and no later than January 10 of each year thereafter, to submit a report to the Legislature that includes the total number of applications received for the program. Requires the report to be submitted in compliance with Government Code Section 9795.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Safe at Home (SAH) address confidentiality program within the office of the Secretary of State (SOS) in order to enable state and local agencies to both accept and respond to requests for public records without disclosing the changed name or address of a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Permits any such adult victim, or parent or guardian acting on behalf of a minor or incapacitated person, to apply through a community-based victims’ assistance program to have an address designated by the SOS as his or her substitute mailing address. (Chapter 3.1 (commencing with Section 6205) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code.)
2. Prohibits a state or local agency from publicly posting the home address, telephone number, or both the name and assessor parcel number associated with the home address of any elected or appointed official on the internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual. (Government Code Section 7928.205 (a).)
3. Allows reproductive health care providers, employees, volunteers, and patients to apply to the address confidentiality program through a community-based victims’ assistance program, as specified. (Government Code Section 6215 et seq.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: On March 23, 2026, in her speech before both houses of the Legislature for the annual State of the Judiciary, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court Patricia Guerrero called the Legislature to action on the issue of judicial security. The Chief Justice made a plea for “resources to protect ‘personnel, the public and court systems from physical, online, and cyber threats.’” Her statements further called for legislation “designed to protect the privacy of judges – an issue that is fundamentally intertwined with judicial security.”

“A marked increase in negative rhetoric surrounding judges, including comments from elected officials, has contributed to these concerns. We welcome public scrutiny, transparency, and accountability regarding the legal reasoning reflected in our rulings. Public engagement, whether resulting in praise or criticism for our decisions, is commendable and should be encouraged. We do not, however, welcome divisive name-calling or inaccurate and uninformed accounts about our roles – this serves only to distort the public’s understanding of the judiciary and shake their confidence in our democracy. And we should emphatically speak out against the normalization of personal attacks against judges – for all our sakes.”

These comments come after several years of increased violence targeted at judicial officers. According to the author:

Violence and threats against judges have risen sharply, with thousands of incidents reported in recent years and a dramatic increase since 2015, leaving many judges and their families fearing for their safety. At the same time, judicial officers’ home addresses remain easily accessible through public records and online databases, creating a direct pathway for bad actors to locate them and their families. Existing privacy protections in California are insufficient, as they do not effectively prevent the widespread dissemination of this sensitive information, especially when it originates from government sources. This gap leaves judges uniquely exposed to targeted harassment, intimidation, and potential violence at their homes.

AB 2235, the Judicial Home Security Act, addresses this urgent risk by allowing judges to use an alternate mailing address in public records while preserving legitimate access for business, legal, and law enforcement purposes. By replacing home addresses, the bill strikes a careful balance between transparency and safety, ensuring public records remain functional without compromising personal security. In light of the escalating threats and clear vulnerabilities, AB 2235 is a necessary and measured step to protect the judiciary and uphold the integrity of the justice system.

Existing law relating to public disclosure of personal information. Individual property records, including the full name of the owner, are publicly accessible through local agencies, county assessor and recorders offices. The availability of that information makes it fairly easy for someone trying to find a specific person to do so, as long as they own property in California. Additionally, the California Public Records Act requires public records to be open to inspection by the public at all times during the office hours of a public agency, unless otherwise exempted. (California Government Code Section 7922.525.) One of the CPRA’s numerous exceptions includes the home address or telephone number, along with other personally identifiable information, and the home address or telephone number of an elected or appointed official absent prior written permission. (Government Code Section 7928.300 (a), 7928.205.) In 2024, the Legislature enacted AB 1785 (Pacheco, 2024) Chap. 551, Stats. 2024. That measure clarified that in addition to the previous two exceptions, public agencies are prohibited from posting the name and assessor’s parcel number associated with the home address of any elected or appointed official without first obtaining written consent. (Government Code Section 7928.205.)

Safe at Home. An important tool to protect the safety of persons who are subject to abuse and harassment is the Secretary of State’s (SOS) Safe at Home (SAH) address confidentiality program. The SAH program was created in 1998 to allow victims of domestic violence or stalking to obtain an alternate confidential address to be used in public records. Under the SAH program, the SOS is responsible for providing a substitute address to program participants while protecting their actual residential addresses, and also acts as the participants’ agent for service of process, and forwards mail received at the substitute address. A participant must be certified by the enrolling office and may stay in the program for four years unless recertified. Their SAH address is also accepted by California state, county, and city government agencies in lieu of a residential or other mailing address.

The SAH address confidentiality program has been expanded over time to include survivors of other crimes – including sexual assault, human trafficking, stalking, and elder or dependent adult abuse. (See Section 6205.) In 2002, the SAH program was replicated and made available to reproductive health care services providers, employees, volunteers and patients who are fearful for their safety. (See Government Code Section 6215 (a).) In 2022, as the result of AB 1131 (Newman), Chap. 554, Stats. 2022, the program for reproductive service providers, employees, volunteers and patients was expanded to include a person is employed by or performs work pursuant to a contract with a public entity and faces threats of violence or violence or harassment from the public because of their work for the public entity. (See Government Code Section 6215 (b).) In response to increasing threats against professionals that provide gender-affirming care the Legislature once again expanded the Safe at Home program to capture gender-affirming health care providers, employees, or volunteers (AB 82 (Ward, 2025) Chap. 679, Stats. 2025).

This bill proposes another expansion of the concept initially introduced by the SAH program, this time available to the state’s judicial officers. The Judicial Home Security Act would authorize a judicial officer to apply to the Attorney General (AG) to have an alternate mailing address substituted for their home address in public records. In order to qualify, the judicial officer would be required to 1) demonstrate that they are currently or were formerly employed as a judicial officer, and 2) submit a sworn statement that they fear for their safety or the safety of their family because of their employment as a judicial officer.

The bill would require local and state agencies to use the participant’s alternate address when releasing any public record that would otherwise reflect their home address, prohibit anyone from publicly posting a participant’s home address, and would prohibit third party data brokers from sharing or selling a participant’s address. Acknowledging the numerous legitimate business reasons why certain professionals may need access to a participant’s home address, the bill also provides a list of circumstances and related professionals that may access the participant’s full address upon request.

Author’s amendments. As currently in print, this bill would prohibit a person or organization from publicly sharing a participant’s home address. However, there is no indication of how that person or organization may know about the participant’s enrollment in the program. In order to address this ambiguity, and to more closely mirror existing provisions in the SAH program, the author proposes the following amendment:

6225.9 (a) A person or organization shall not publicly post or display the home address of a program participant who has made a written demand of that person or organization, including on the internet.

The author is also proposing a number of clarifying technical amendments as follows:

• 6225.3. (a) An adult person who is domiciled in California may apply to the Attorney General to have a designated alternate mailing address substituted for any reference to the person’s home address in records that are made public. The Attorney General shall approve an application if it is filed in the manner and on the form prescribed by the Attorney General and if it contains all of the following:

(1) Documentation showing that the individual is to commence employment or is currently or formerly employed as a judicial officer.

[…]

(c) (1) Submitted applications shall be accompanied by payment of a fee to be determined by the Attorney General. This fee shall not exceed the actual costs of enrolling in the program. In addition, annual fees may also be assessed by the

(2) The Attorney General may assess annual fee to the program participant in an amount to defray the actual costs of maintaining this program. Annual fees assessed by the Attorney General shall also be used and to reimburse the General Fund for any amounts expended from that fund for the purposes of this chapter.

(d) The Judicial Home Security Program Fund is hereby created in the General Fund. All moneys collected by the Attorney General pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited into the fund. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, moneys in the fund are available for the administration of the program established pursuant to this chapter.

(e) Upon filing a properly completed application, the Attorney General shall certify the applicant as a program participant. Program participants shall be certified for life, unless and until the certification is withdrawn or invalidated before that date terminated pursuant to Section 6225.4.

(f) Certified program participants shall receive documentation issued by the The Attorney General shall issue a certified program participant documentation that they are a certified program participant. This which shall occur by means including include, but not be limited to, both of the following:

• 6225.4. (a) A program participant may withdraw from program participation by submitting to the Attorney General written notification of withdrawal and the program participant’s current identification card. Certification shall be terminated on the date of receipt of this notification.

(b) The Attorney General may terminate a program participant’s certification and invalidate the program participant’s authorization card for any of the following reasons:

[…]

(3) The program participant no longer resides at the most recent home address provided to the Attorney General and has not provided notice in writing of a change in address within 30 days of the change of their home address.

• 6225.8. (a) The Attorney General and state and local agencies shall not allow disclosure or release of a program participant’s home address except under any of the following circumstances:

(1) If requested by any of the following a law enforcement agency, to the law enforcement agency.

(A) A law enforcement agency, to the law enforcement agency.

(B) A consumer reporting agency, as defined by Section 1681a of Title 15 of the United States Code.

(C) A financial institution subject to the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Public Law 106-102) and regulations implementing that act.

(D) A title company.

(E) An attorney representing a client in any of the following matters:

(i) Estate planning.

(ii) Judgment enforcement.

(iii) Bankruptcy debtor or trustee representation.

(iv) Real estate transaction.

(F) A real estate licensee, as defined in Section 10014 of the Business and Professions Code.

(2) If directed by a court order, to a person identified in the order.

(3) A consumer reporting agency, as defined by Section 1681a of Title 15 of the United States Code.

(4) A financial institution subject to the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Public Law 106-102) and regulations implementing that act.

(5) A title company.

(6) An attorney representing a client in any of the following matters:

(A) Estate planning.

(B) Judgment enforcement.

(C) Bankruptcy debtor or trustee representation.

(D) Real estate transaction.

(7) A real estate licensee, as defined in Section 10014 of the Business and Professions Code.

• 6225.12. (a) The Attorney General shall commence accepting applications under this program on April 1, 2027.

(b) (1) The Attorney General shall submit to the Legislature, Beginning January 10, 2028, and no later than January 10 of each year thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit to the Legislature a report that includes the total number of applications received for the program established by this chapter.

Concerns from the California Assessors’ Association. While supportive of the author’s goal, the Assessors’ Association raise concerns regarding the bill’s implementation. They voice concern over a lack of clarity as to how the participant’s request to substitute their real address for the new “alternate address” may impact their internal and cross-departmental functions such as tax collection, recorder, and appeals. They request language to clarify the distinction between internal use of a participant’s mailing address and external publication.

The Assessors also note that the list of exemptions to the bill, or circumstances in which certain professionals may gain access to a participant’s address, may be broadly interpreted and that the accompanying risk to the professional may foreclose their ability to benefit from the exemption. They request a “centralized, standardized verification and disclosure process administered at the state level.”

Next, the Assessor’s point out some potential complications related to the Board of Equalization, which is the regulatory body that oversees the state’s assessors. The Assessors request “clarity on how compliance is to be audited and adjudicated, and defining the chain of responsibility.” The Assessors also suggest ensuring that the new program would comply, or potentially conflict, with Sections 408.1 and 602 of the Revenue and Taxation Code regarding property assessments. Should this bill move forward, the author is encouraged to continue collaboration with the Assessors’ Association to ensure the bill can be effectively implemented.

Finally, the Assessors suggest that the bill as currently in print “requires the maintenance of an ‘unaltered database to be available to those who have a legitimate business purpose to access a registered participant’s home address.’” Although the bill in print does not currently require either the AG nor any other agency to maintain one or more databases in order to implement the new program, it is reasonable to conclude that some state agencies may ultimately need to do so. The author is encouraged to collaborate with the Assessors to ensure such requirements can be implemented by the Assessors and similarly situated agencies.

Concerns from the California Land Title Association regarding the Act’s impact on constructive notice. While likewise supportive of the bill’s intent, California Land Title Association (CLTA) has raised concerns that the breadth of the Act may inadvertently frustrate the doctrine of constructive notice in California. The doctrine of constructive notice refers to the concept that someone may be able to piece together notice of an event, regardless of whether they were formally notified. In the context of real estate transactions, constructive notice consists of various documented legal transactions, such as recording a deed with a county recorder’s office. AB 2235, however, defines “home address” to include not only the applicant’s property address and common street address, but also the assessor’s parcel number and the property’s legal description. CLTA acknowledges that the bill attempts to address this issue by exempting title companies and attorneys representing a client in a real estate transaction and other specified professionals who may request the participant’s home address. However, according to CLTA, by including such an expansive definition of “home address,” the bill effectively precludes any opportunity for a potential buyer who is not one of those professionals to have constructive notice of the sale of a property.

The expansive scope of the Judicial Home Security Act deviates from the precedent set by the Safe at Home program. The SAH program defines “address” as a residential street address, school address, or work address. It does not include assessor’s parcel number or property’s legal description. It is not clear why judicial officers would need more information shielded from public discovery than individuals who may participate in the existing SAH program. Additionally, it seems that these extra two elements risk causing significant implementational concerns when they are arguably unnecessary in light of the written permission required by AB 1785, discussed above. The author may wish to consider amending the definition of “home address” to more closely adhere to the existing SAH program by deleting reference to assessor’s parcel number and property’s legal description. This amendment would also seem to address some concerns raised by the Assessors Association.

Additional considerations. While modeled after the SAH program, the Judicial Home Security Act is distinct in a number of ways. One such deviation are the references to “third-party data brokers and aggregators.” Third-party data broker refers to a business that collects individuals’ personal information, whether that’s a physical address, name, phone number, or other type of data point, and sells it to other businesses. The bill requires the AG to maintain a list that includes former participants’ information and makes that list available to state and local agencies and third-party data brokers and aggregators “for compliance purposes.” (Proposed Section 6225.5 (b).) While the act would impose confidentiality standards on state and local agencies that may otherwise be obligated to disclose a program participant’s home address, there does not appear to be an equivalent requirement for third-party data brokers. In fact, these private businesses seem more appropriately captured under the notice provision under proposed Section 6225.9. Therefore, the author may wish to consider striking the reference to third-party data brokers and aggregators from proposed section 6225.5 (b).

Finally, Section 6225.6 (b) requires County Assessor and Recorder offices to substitute a participant’s home address with their alternate mailing address on any record that may contain their full home address, such as a deed. However, it is not clear from the text of the bill how a County Assessor and Recorder may ever know about the judicial officer’s participation in the program. While state and local agencies are required to have access to the AG’s monthly list of former participants, there is nothing that requires the county offices to receive notice of someone’s participation. Considering the participants themselves are the ones who will be the first to know about their own participation and likely most quickly able to alert their local county offices about their new designation, the author may wish to consider amending Section 6225(b) to only require the County Assessor and Recorders to substitute the participant’s address upon notice provided by the participant themselves.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by the California Judges Association. It is supported by the Association of African American California Judicial Officers, California Women Judges, and Kiesel Law LLP. In support of the bill the sponsors submit:

Judicial officers routinely preside over high-conflict criminal, civil, and family law matters, and their work can expose them and their families to threats of violence or even death. As public officials responsible for the functioning of the justice system, judges face a heightened risk of threats or violence stemming from decisions they are required to make in the course of their duties.

Unfortunately, under current law it can be relatively easy for individuals to locate a judge’s home address through publicly available property and government records. These records are often accessible through county assessors and recorder offices and, in some jurisdictions, through online databases. The ease with which this information can be obtained creates significant safety concerns for judicial officers and their families and increases the risk that individuals with malicious intent could use these records to locate a judge’s residence.

In recent years, violence and threats against judges have increased significantly nationwide. According to the U.S. Marshals Service, which is responsible for protecting federal judges, there were 5,873 threats and inappropriate communications directed at members of the judiciary between 2021 and 2022; overall there has been an alarming 400 percent increase since 2015. Courts and judicial officers have also been targeted through bomb threats to state court facilities and intimidation directed at judges handling controversial cases. Tragically, several violent incidents have underscored these risks, including the assassination of an Indiana judge and his wife earlier this year, the attempted murder of a Nevada district judge, and the murder of the son of a federal judge at her home in New Jersey. These incidents highlight the continuing need to strengthen safeguards that prevent the improper disclosure of the home addresses which can be used to target judges and their families.

AB 2235 addresses this concern by allowing judicial officers to designate an alternate mailing address, such as a post office box or private mailbox, to be substituted wherever their home address would otherwise appear in public records. State and local agencies, including county assessors and recorder offices, would use the alternate mailing address when disclosing records that would otherwise reveal a judge’s home address.

Importantly, the bill maintains appropriate transparency and legitimate access to records. Law enforcement agencies and certain regulated entities with a bona fide need for information, such as financial institutions, title companies, and attorneys involved in real estate transactions, may still access the home address when necessary for lawful purposes.

By protecting the home addresses of judicial officers and their families, AB 2235 helps reduce the risk of harassment, intimidation, and violence directed at judges outside the courthouse. Ensuring that judicial officers can carry out their duties without fear of retaliation in their homes strengthens judicial independence and promotes public confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Judges Association (sponsor)
Association of African American California Judicial Officers, INC.
California Women Judges
Kiesel Law LLP

1 individual

Opposition

None on file

Oppose unless amended

California Assessors’ Association

California Land Title Association

Analysis Prepared by: Manuela Boucher-de la Cadena / JUD. / (916) 319-2334