Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee advances bill to limit public posting of judges’ and law‑enforcement contact information
Summary
The panel voted to report S.126, which narrows disclosure of personal contact information for judges and law‑enforcement officers on government websites, establishes a standard request form and allows certain professional exceptions, with a delayed effective date to give counties time to implement software.
The Constitutional Law Subcommittee voted to report S.126 after hearing testimony from state and county records officials who urged clarity and more time for local offices to implement shielding of records.
Shannon Wiley, general counsel and public information director for the Secretary of State’s office, told the committee the secretary supports the amendments in S.126 and explained why the bill must preserve certain online business‑filing data. "The secretary of state's office serves as a repository for business filings and for uniform commercial code filings," Wiley said. "S.126 contains an exception, from having to redact those records." She said registered‑agent information is publicly available through the office’s business filing system and a wholesale redaction could leave a business without a registered agent.
Margaret Bailey, register of deeds for Dorchester County and president of the South Carolina Association of Clerks of Court and Registers of Deeds, said county offices generally support the amendments but need more time to deploy software that will allow records to be restricted online and unresected for legitimate uses such as mortgage closings. "We are in general favor of the amendments ... Most of our offices are gonna have to acquire software packages that will allow further restriction and or shielding of this information with the ability to then claw it back when they need to get a mortgage," Bailey said.
Julie Stutz, register of deeds for Aiken County, told the committee, "We are not prepared to implement Act 56. We need S.126 to pass and to restrict the access." Testimony noted the bill clarifies that the restriction on disclosure of personal contact information applies to publicly available Internet websites operated by state or local government agencies; it also specifies that the information may be disclosed to title insurers, title insurance agencies, or attorneys in good standing with the South Carolina Bar. The bill limits liability for state and local government employees related to disclosure and directs the Office of Court Administration and the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy to collaborate on a designated request form for officers and judges to request restricted access.
The bill sets an effective date of Jan. 1, 2026, in the draft discussed by the committee. Several county registers said implementation will require budgeted software purchases and procurement processes; one register said her county had set aside about $20,000 as a down payment toward a software solution.
With no amendments offered in committee, members recorded aye votes on a motion to report S.126 to the full Judiciary Committee.
Committee members said they appreciated stakeholder collaboration across state agencies, clerk and register offices, and county associations during drafting and encouraged the full committee consideration to continue that engagement.
