An Act to amend 69.20 (2) (b), 69.21 (1) (a) 2. a., 69.21 (2) (a), 69.21 (2) (b), 69.21 (2) (d) 1. and 69.30 (3) of the statutes; Relating to: copies of and inspection or disclosure of information contained in certain vital records. (FE)
AB90 updates Wisconsin’s vital records laws to replace a fixed historical cutoff date—October 1, 1907—with a rolling 100-year rule. Under current law, access to certain birth records, certified copies, uncertified copies, photocopies, and related disclosures depends in part on whether the event occurred before or after that 1907 date. The bill would instead allow broader access when the event occurred at least 100 years before the date of the request or issuance, so the eligibility date automatically advances over time.
The bill amends several sections governing the state registrar and local registrars, including rules for inspection, disclosure, issuance of certified and uncertified copies, and copying or electronic availability of older vital records. It also preserves existing restrictions for more recent records and for records subject to direct-and-tangible-interest requirements or court orders. In practical terms, the bill would make older birth, death, marriage, and similar records easier to obtain as they age into the 100-year category, while maintaining confidentiality protections for newer records.
AB90 would change Wisconsin statutes governing vital records access by shifting the legal threshold from a fixed pre-1907 date to a moving 100-year cutoff. This affects the duties of the state registrar and local registrars, the public’s ability to inspect or obtain copies of records, and the treatment of uncertified copies and photocopies. The bill would likely expand access for genealogists, historians, researchers, and members of the public seeking older records, while leaving privacy restrictions in place for records that are less than 100 years old or otherwise protected by law.
The available context suggests the bill is largely administrative and noncontroversial in nature, with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. Its purpose appears to be modernization of record-access rules rather than a substantive policy shift, and the use of a rolling 100-year standard is presented as a straightforward update. Because there are no transcripts or vote tallies, there is no evidence here of organized support or opposition, but the bill’s framing implies a generally practical and technical approach.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between public access and privacy. Supporters would likely favor the bill because it simplifies access to older records and avoids the need to amend the statute repeatedly as time passes. Any concerns would likely come from privacy advocates or record custodians worried that expanding access to older vital records could expose sensitive family information, especially in cases involving birth records where the mother was unmarried. The bill retains direct-and-tangible-interest protections and other limits, which appear designed to address those concerns.