US Lawmakers Step Up Efforts to Protect Public Officials’ Personal Information from Disclosure

Following threats and attacks on government officials, state legislators across the US stepped up efforts to protect against public disclosure of personal information about judges, police, elected officials and various government employees.

These measures tend to have broad support in state capitals – adding a layer of secrecy in the name of security can make it difficult to determine whether state officials are complying with residency laws and paying property taxes.

Efforts to free more information from public disclosure are being made despite the fact that many governments are more transparent than ever when it comes to their meetings, making online streaming options permanent in response to coronavirus-related restrictions. to public meetings.

This led to a split assessment of government openness during Sunny Week, the annual recognition of public information laws that began on Sunday and will run through Saturday.

While the meetings may be more accessible, “in general, the government is getting more secretive every year,” said David Cuillie, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Arizona who analyzes data on government compliance with open reporting laws.

BIG TECH ‘USED CENSORSHIP’ PROTECTS CONSERVATIVES FROM DANGEROUS SPEED INFORMATION, RESEARCH SHOWS

According to Cuillie’s research, people requesting documents from the federal government are only successful one-fifth of the time, down from more than 50% success more than a decade ago.

Information requests under state laws tend to be fairer, Cuillie said, but “every year we get exceptions passed by state legislatures across the country, and it only seems to be accelerating.”

On a case-by-case basis, many exceptions to public records may seem reasonable and justified. One good example is the movement to protect judges’ home addresses.

In 2020, a man dissatisfied with U.S. District Judge Esther Salas came to her New Jersey home disguised as a delivery man and fatally shot her 20-year-old son, wounding her husband. New Jersey officials responded later that year by passing legislation that exempted the home addresses of serving or retired judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials from disclosure under public records laws. The measure, named the Daniel Act after the judge’s son, also allowed officials covered by the law to ask businesses or individuals to remove their home addresses from websites they control.

While some states already had similar laws, the New Jersey case spurred action elsewhere. According to research by Jody Gil, associate professor of journalism at Southern Connecticut State University, most states now have laws preventing government agencies from disclosing the home addresses of at least some government employees, with judges among the most protected.

A research group from the Uniform Law Commission, a nonprofit organization that develops potential laws for state legislators, plans to recommend a general policy this spring to exclude judges’ home addresses and certain personal information from public sources, Vince DeLiberato said. , director of the Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau and chairman of the study committee. The policy could also include the ability to protect information from other public officials facing threats, he said.

Meanwhile, states are pushing their own exclusion laws for certain officials.

The Missouri Senate recently voted 30 to 1 for legislation that allows judges and prosecutors to require their home addresses, phone numbers, personal email addresses, marital status, children’s identities and other information to be removed from public view. The shield will apply not only to government records and websites, but also to private sites such as online telephone directories and Internet search engines. This bill is currently under consideration in the House of Representatives.

On the same day as the vote in Missouri, the Georgia Senate voted 53-0 on legislation allowing federal, state or local government employees to require their residential addresses and phone numbers to be removed from online property records posted by local governments. This bill is currently under consideration in the House of Representatives.

JUDGE BLOCKS Attempts to protect information about military ban on transgender people

“We don’t want people to be able to track down these people and harm them,” Georgia Republican Senator Matt Brass said as he explained his bill to a Senate committee.

But Richard Griffiths, former president of the Georgia First Amendment Fund, expressed concern about the unintended consequences, arguing that the New Jersey law “turned into something like a train wreck.” Some governments are shutting down entire databases out of uncertainty about whose information should be removed from which public records, he said.

New Jersey legislators responded in January 2022 by changing the process in the Daniel Act and creating a $3 million State Information Privacy Office to create an online portal through which judicial and law enforcement agencies can request redaction of their information.

According to Gil, public records showing the home addresses of government officials can be an important tool for journalists working on reporting on public accountability. Addresses in voter registration files and property records can be used to determine whether officials actually live in the county they represent or if they do not pay property taxes.

When she was a journalist a decade ago, Gil reported that a local tax collector certified that some government officials paid vehicle taxes when they actually didn’t.

“That’s something I would never even try to do if public records didn’t link government officials and their addresses,” Gil said. “I didn’t release any addresses – I didn’t say the mayor lives in this house – but I needed his address to prove he was paying taxes.”

Lawmakers are taking different approaches to addressing privacy this year. Oregon law prohibits public disclosure of the home addresses of elected officials and candidates on voter registration lists. The Connecticut bill would add bailiffs, employees of the attorney general, and employees of the state division that determines services for people with disabilities to a list of about a dozen types of government employees whose home addresses are confidential under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act.

The Connecticut bill was supported by State Attorney General William Tong, a Democrat who told lawmakers his aides were being targeted online.

“People get really angry when they get enforced,” Tong said, “and sometimes they retaliate and threaten people in my office with violence.”

But removing government employees’ addresses from public records won’t necessarily prevent threats and “provide employees with a false sense of comfort and security,” said Colleen Murphy, executive director of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission, the state agency that manages and enforces open-record laws.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“For better or worse, the fact is that most people’s addresses are now readily available for free or for a nominal fee on the Internet and through other commercial services,” Murphy said.

In New Mexico, a series of drive-by shootings of elected Democratic officials prompted the Senate to pass legislation that would allow state officials to keep their home addresses secret on election-related documents and on government websites. This provision was included in the broader electoral bill now before the House of Representatives.

Supporters include Democratic Senator Linda Lopez of Albuquerque, whose home was hit by several shots while her 10-year-old daughter slept.

“I understand the transparency issue,” Lopez said, “but the day and time we’re in really needs to rethink what we’re doing.”