Senate File 730 proposed to restore pre‑2022 public classification for AG office records; committee lays the bill over for stakeholder talks

Senator Kerwin introduced Senate File 730 to the Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 29, proposing a narrow amendment to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act to restore a pre‑2022 understanding that non‑individual government data are presumptively public unless another classification applies.

Why it matters: The bill responds to the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in Energy Policy Advocates v. Ellison, which the bill’s author and open‑government advocates said created uncertainty by treating a broad swath of Attorney General records — including administrative and policy materials not tied to individuals — as presumptively nonpublic.

“Senate File 730 is about a court case. My bill is quite simple. Just two words added to the statute, to clear up any confusion about the purpose of that statute,” Senator Kerwin said, arguing the change would return Section 13.65 to the way state attorneys general historically treated data that are not on individuals. “Minnesotans absolutely have a right to this information and to hold our government officials accountable,” Kerwin said.

Don Gaberling, a board member of Minnesotans for Open Government, testified in favor and provided historical context, describing the Data Practices Act’s original intent and how the attorney general’s 1979 emergency classification request shaped Section 13.65. Gaberling said the Supreme Court ruling now allows the attorney general office to treat “administrative or policy” records as not public, which he and advocates argued is broader than intended. “The senator’s bill, very simple bill, would correct that problem,” Gaberling said.

Open‑government advocate Rich Neumeister (Newmeister) testified that the Supreme Court decision “makes data secret that used to be public” and gave examples of records — such as inactive civil investigative files, policy memoranda, and investigative correspondence — that would be harder for the public to access under the court’s interpretation.

Committee members debated next steps. Several senators, including Senator Ladds and Senator Lantz, said the statute appears poorly worded and that the Supreme Court decision revealed inconsistencies; others said the bill would restore a longstanding practice. Multiple senators noted the Attorney General’s office had submitted a written response but did not appear for oral testimony; several members urged inviting the attorney general’s office and other stakeholders for a follow‑up session.

Senator Lantz asked whether any items in Section 13.65 should remain protected; witnesses said many investigative and deliberative protections already exist elsewhere in statute (for example, civil investigative data, attorney work product and criminal data provisions) and urged that inactive investigative data remain available with redactions when necessary. Senators from both parties urged further stakeholder talks and more precise statutory drafting.

The committee did not vote on the bill that day. Senator Lantz said he would invite the Attorney General's office and other stakeholders to a meeting to discuss specific language, and Chairpersons and members agreed to lay the bill over for further discussion.

Ending: The committee laid Senate File 730 over for further stakeholder discussions and did not take an up‑or‑down vote.