Advocates push to end publication requirement for legal name changes, citing safety and privacy concerns

A coalition of transgender advocates, survivors’ groups and legal‑rights organizations urged the Joint Committee on the Judiciary to report S.1045 favorably, a bill that would remove the longstanding newspaper publication requirement and permit courts to seal legal name‑change petitions when safety concerns exist. Advocates told the committee the current Massachusetts process requires petitioners to publish name‑change notices in local newspapers and leaves name‑change petitions available in some court public records, exposing petitioners’ prior identities and personal information. They said mandatory publication imposes financial costs and safety risks, particularly for transgender people, survivors of domestic and sexual violence, and others for whom public disclosure can lead to harassment, discrimination or violence. Speakers included Kelsey Grunstra and Finn Gardner of the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, staff from GLAD Law and the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, Jane Doe Inc. (the state domestic‑violence coalition), and MassEquality. Witnesses described helping hundreds of petitioners navigate expensive and inconsistent local practices and said judges currently have uneven discretion to waive publication. They proposed a statute that treats name‑change records similarly to other sensitive family records and allows redaction or sealing where safety is shown. Advocates emphasized other states (including nearby examples cited in testimony) have eliminated publication requirements without increases in fraud, and they described technical safeguards the courts can keep—background checks and judicial review—while removing public publication. Jane Doe Inc. and survivor‑support groups described cases in which public name‑change records contributed to stalking, harassment or increased danger for survivors and urged the committee to act to protect privacy and safety. Representatives of the trial courts and sponsors have discussed amended language to preserve judicial discretion for limited, safety‑driven publication in narrowly defined circumstances; witnesses said they support those collaborative changes. Legal aid and civil‑liberties advocates requested that the committee adopt language that also secures access to sealed records for necessary government functions (voting, law enforcement, etc.) while preventing wide public access or automated scraping of data by third parties. Committee members asked sponsors about technical implementation, how the bill would affect different counties and whether an initial cost or education plan for court clerks is needed. Advocates told the committee they have model language and are prepared to work with trial‑court administrators on practical steps for implementation.