Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy And Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington bill would let elected officials redact home addresses, expand security funds and assessments
Summary
House Bill 2,333 would let elected officials, some election and criminal-justice participants request redaction of residential addresses from campaign, voter-registration, property and financial-affairs records, expand security assessments and allow campaign/member funds for security expenditures; supporters cite rising political violence, critics warn of implementation, constitutional and transparency problems.
Representative Liz Berry (D-36) told the House Committee on State Government and Tribal Relations that "political violence is on the rise," and presented House Bill 2,333 as a response to threats against public servants. The bill would expand existing address-confidentiality protections to include candidates, elected officials, executive state officers, election officials and certain criminal-justice participants; authorize security assessments by sergeants at arms and the Washington State Patrol; increase certain harassment penalties; and permit use of campaign or legislative member security accounts to reimburse personal security measures.
OPR staff Desiree Omley outlined how the bill would change four main public-records areas: campaign finance reports, financial-affairs (F-1) filings, voter-registration records and county property records. Under the proposal, an eligible official could request redaction of their residential address (and the address of persons residing with them) from campaign filings and request that filers provide an alternative address. Executive officers with reportable real property could report only the city or town and type of residence in lieu of parcel numbers or legal descriptions on F-1s. Original voter-registration forms would remain confidential for covered persons, and county auditors would be required to grant or deny parcel/address redaction requests for recorded instruments when the requester qualifies as a covered person.
Proponents — including prosecutors Caroline Jamolev and Michael Mohandesen, judges and public-safety organizations — described repeated, serious threats and said redactions and security funding are necessary to protect officials and their families and to preserve the ability to serve. Jamolev, chair of a county violent-crimes unit, said she had been repeatedly threatened and that "an angry person with access to my home address is a terrifying prospect, far more so in the Internet age." Mohandesen said commercial data brokers and PeopleSearch sites resurface scraped public-record information, creating a persistent risk.
Opponents and operational witnesses raised legal and logistical concerns. Media and open-government representatives warned the proposal risks prior restraint on publication and could be constitutionally problematic. The Allied Daily Newspapers/Washington State Association of Broadcasters urged care so news reporting and agency oversight remain possible. The Coalition for Open Government said narrowing access to records risks eroding public trust. County auditors, the state archivist and the Public Disclosure Commission noted significant implementation burdens: archives maintain millions of electronic and paper records; counties index by parcel numbers not address strings; current systems do not track an authoritative list of covered persons; and immediate-effect clauses could be hard to implement. PDC staff said the bill would convert an existing modification request process into a right reserved for elected officials and would increase PDC workload and systems needs.
Committee members pressed both sides on effectiveness and scale. Some members asked whether the bill would really stop motivated stalkers or stop information scraped by private data brokers; proponents said redaction of the source public records would make it harder to repopulate scraped sites and that additional protections (data removal services, moving, changing service patterns) remain complementary. Technical questions remain about how redactions would be implemented for archival, title and election uses, and whether federal-law or jurisdictional issues affect scope.
The hearing produced no final action. Staff noted a requested fiscal note is pending. Committee members said they would continue to gather implementation details and work with stakeholders on clarifications.
