Committee advances bill letting religious leaders petition to shield certain public records (House Bill 2123)

Committee advances bill letting religious leaders petition to shield certain public records (House Bill 2123)

The Arizona House Committee on Public Safety and Law Enforcement voted to return House Bill 2123 with a due-pass recommendation (vote recorded as 9 ayes, 3 nays, 3 present). The bill would add “religious leaders” to the list of eligible persons who may petition a superior court to prohibit public access to certain records and includes a statutory definition of religious leader; petitioning is opt-in.

Sponsor testimony framed the bill as a response to harassment and “doxing” of faith leaders and their families. The sponsor told the committee the provision is not mandatory and that religious leaders would need to opt in and petition the court for the protections. “I don't want any religious leader or organization to be afraid of speaking what they believe,” the sponsor said in committee remarks. Staff explained the bill would affect records maintained by county offices and the Arizona Department of Transportation, and that voter-registration records stored with the county recorder would fall under the bill’s scope unless amended.

Committee members pressed for clarifications and raised concerns. Representative Powell asked whether a person seeking the protection must demonstrate they are acting in a religious capacity; staff confirmed the bill contains definitions intended to qualify who may petition. Representative Collin asked whether the measure would exclude election-related records; the sponsor and staff said the intent is to protect addresses while not broadly shielding records, and said language could be amended to clarify exclusions for election records if lawmakers chose.

Members also discussed inclusivity and tribal faiths. Representative Sosie asked whether traditional tribal practitioners would be covered; the sponsor said page 6’s “or similar entity” phrasing should capture those practitioners but agreed to seek clarification or amendments to explicitly include traditional practitioners if needed.

Supporters and opponents split on the scope of carve-outs for public records. Some members urged broader protections for all citizens who face harassment; others argued against expanding exemptions for public officials or creating a precedent to broadly redact voter or public-record data. Several lawmakers said they would work on clarifying amendments on the floor.

By roll call, the committee recorded nine ayes, three nays and three present votes and returned the bill with a due-pass recommendation to the next legislative step.