quote:

---

RE: SUPPORT IF AMENDED, SB 696 (PORTANTINO/LOW) NOTARIES PUBLIC

Dear Chairman Maienschein and Ranking Member Essayli,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding SB 696, the remote online notaries bill presently under your committee’s review. Though the spirit of the bill may be good, its current iteration causes much concern.

While proponents of the bill claim that it will expand access to notarial services for California residents, as drafted, SB 696 creates a permissive environment that will allow large technology companies, who facilitate online notarizations, to consolidate and monopolize the notarial market and channel it through notary farms located in states with the lowest costs and lesser standards, which ultimately puts California residents at risk. Also, the lack of jurisdictional protections in the bill will lead to local notaries being driven out of business, leaving online notarization as the only option. This would create an undue burden for California businesses and residents seeking in-person notary services.

To illustrate, Sierra County, California, which is home to over 3200 residents, currently has only 4 active notaries public. While technology proponents have asserted that remote online notarization is the solution to this scarcity, it's important to note that effective online notarization requires a robust internet connection and the ability to scan and upload documents—resources not universally available. Further, the Annual Mortgage Experience Survey published by Solidifi, one of the nation’s most trusted networks of independent appraisers and notaries, consistently indicates that more than 80% of borrowers prefer an in-person signing experience.

Given these concerns, I urge you to amend SB 696 to include provisions that protect and maintain access to in-person notarial services within our state. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and for your consideration.

Sincerely,
[Your Name, Company Affiliation and County]

---