House committee advances measure to restore public access to some attorney general records

ST. PAUL, Minn. — The House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee voted 7-6 on Feb. 13 to re-refer House File 20 to the General Register after a debate over whether a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling has allowed the Office of the Attorney General to withhold records that do not concern an identifiable natural person.

The bill, carried by Majority Leader Niska, “just adds 2 words to section 13.65,” Niska said during testimony, and “it accomplishes 3 very important goals,” including correcting what he described as a statutory-interpretation error in the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Energy Policy Advocates v. Ellison and restoring public accountability in the attorney general’s office.

Supporters said the court’s 4–3 majority ruling narrowed the public’s ability to see non‑individual policy and investigative files held by the AG’s office. Attorney James Dickey, who argued for Energy Policy Advocates in the litigation, told the committee that the decision “changed the traditional interpretation of the DPA” so that, in his words, “the data described by Section 13.65, Subdivision 1, are now only accessible to an individual if there is an individual who is the subject of the data.” He and other witnesses urged lawmakers to restore the prior balance between transparency and privacy.

Longtime state records official Don Gimberling, representing Minnesotans for Open Government, traced the statute’s history and told the committee the law was designed to treat data on natural persons differently from data about institutions. Gimberling described decades of implementation and said the court’s decision “skewed” the statutory classification system.

Rich Neumeister, a public‑records advocate, said reporters and citizens historically obtained inactive investigative materials that did not concern individuals and used that information for oversight and legislative work. Neumeister cited, as an example, a memorandum related to an officer‑involved shooting that he said would likely no longer be publicly available under the court’s interpretation.

Assistant Attorney General Oliver Larson and representatives of the Department of Administration raised counterpoints. Larson told the committee that applying the bill’s language could create practical risks for complainants’ privacy. “It is not clear that we would still be able to protect the identity of complaining witnesses,” he said, noting that some small businesses and family farms operate under business names or LLCs and that parsing whether a record is about an individual or an entity can be context‑dependent.

Tayah Moxie Golzwyth, director of the Data Practices Office at the Minnesota Department of Administration, gave a procedural overview of chapter 13 and the classification framework agencies use (public; private/nonpublic; confidential/protected nonpublic). She emphasized that the legislature decides how government data are classified and that drafting precision matters because classification determines access.

Committee members split over procedure and scope. Representative Liebling moved to refer the bill to the House State Government Committee so the AG’s office could supply a fiscal note and the broader data‑policy implications could be considered there; that motion failed 6–7. Representative Niska then renewed his motion to send House File 20 to the General Register; that motion passed 7–6, advancing the bill for further House floor consideration.

Votes at a glance

- Motion (Liebling): "That House File 20 be re‑referred to the State Government Committee." Vote: 6 ayes, 7 nays — motion failed. (Ayes: Coran, Feist, Finke, Frazier, Mahamud, Mohler. Nays: Chair Scott, Vice Chair Hudson, Bliss, Duran, Ingen, Rarick, Steer.)

- Motion (Niska): "That House File 20 be re‑referred to the General Register." Vote: 7 ayes, 6 nays — motion prevailed. (Ayes: Chair Scott, Vice Chair Hudson, Bliss, Duran, Ingen, Roehrig, Steer. Nays: Koran, Feist, Finke, Frazier, Mahamud, Mohler.)

Why it matters

Supporters said HF20 would narrow the court’s reading and return section 13.65 to a classification system in which protections labeled “private data on individuals” apply to data about identifiable natural persons, not to policy files, inactive investigative records, or communications about institutional or policy matters. They argued that public review of non‑individual records is essential to hold the attorney general’s office accountable when outside groups, nonprofits, or other states collaborate with or fund work inside the office.

Opponents — including the AG’s office — warned of unintended results for complainants and small businesses that lack corporate formality. Larson told the committee the line between data about a person and data about an entity can be “contextual,” and he described scenarios in which farmers or sole proprietors might lose privacy protections if the law were changed without further refinement.

Committee chair and next steps

Chair Scott presided over the meeting and reserved further committee action until the bill appears on the General Register. The committee heard multiple witnesses, including two attorneys and two long‑time public‑records advocates, and heard from the Department of Administration’s Data Practices Office immediately after the HF20 discussion. House File 20 will move next to the House calendar process for consideration by the full chamber.

Provenance: testimony and floor action on HF20 during the Feb. 13, 2025 meeting of the House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee.