Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Safety Data Redaction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to let judges redact contact details from some public sites to reduce safety risks
Summary
The Judiciary Committee approved House Bill 199 to let judges submit a form through the Administrative Office of the Courts and local governments to restrict personally identifiable information from public websites; sponsors said the change reduces cybersecurity and cost concerns from an earlier centralized database approach.
Representative Kelly, a sponsor of House Bill 199, told the Judiciary Committee that the bill would allow judges to submit a form to the Administrative Office of the Courts and local governments so certain personally identifiable information would be removed from public websites. "We've seen in our country instances where our judges and their closest family members have been attacked, threatened, and lives been put at danger," Representative Kelly said.
The bill aims to modify a process established last year under Senate Bill 580 that would have maintained a single database of judicial contact information. Kelly said cybersecurity experts advised that a single centralized site could be a vulnerability, and that the new process — a form submitted to the AOC and to local governments — would be more secure and less expensive.
The committee's discussion focused on scope and mechanics. Representative Hawken asked whether the protection would be unique to judges; Kelly said the current measure is limited to judges, though prior conversations considered extending protections to other elected officials. Representative Oliver sought clarity about which state or local actors would implement redaction and whether the bill changes who is protected; Kelly replied that some entities that handle the records would not be added to protections but would instead be responsible for implementing removals.
Kelly told the committee that an earlier implementation estimate ran about $177,000, while the revised, decentralized process would cost roughly $27,000 — a difference he described as a $150,000 savings to taxpayers. The sponsor also said he would offer minor verbal amendments to align AOC and county processes.
Committee members offered and adopted amendments addressing verbiage and implementation details. After discussion, the committee approved the amended bill by voice vote with no recorded opposition.
The bill's sponsors and proponents told the committee the measure preserves existing notice and qualification processes for judges while amending how personally identifiable information is removed from publicly available content. The committee recorded no roll-call vote in the transcript; the chair declared the bill passed by voice vote and said the committee would recess to a press conference before returning for remaining business.
