Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy And Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews draft to shield legislators’ residential addresses
Summary
Legislative Council presented a draft amending open‑records law to mark legislators’ and candidates’ residential addresses confidential; Secretary of State warned the change could limit public verification at filing deadlines and recommended an annual renewal or end‑of‑term re‑opening. The committee set the draft aside for amendment.
Chairman Klein opened the meeting by identifying security and confidentiality of legislators’ residential addresses as the committee’s first order of business. Legislative Council staff member Emily outlined a bill draft that would amend the open records chapter so a candidate’s or legislator’s residential address is treated as a confidential record rather than an agency‑discretion ‘‘exempt’’ entry.
The draft, Emily said, would sweep sitting legislators and a range of candidates (those who have declared candidacy, formed campaign committees, circulated nominating petitions or solicited contributions) into the confidential class and preserves election officials’ access for voting verification. She described a carve‑out: addresses placed on nomination or petition documents would still appear on those forms, and county auditors would serve as a repository for written confidentiality requests sent by political subdivisions.
Secretary of State Michael Howe told the committee his office helped craft the draft but was not formally advocating for or against it. He cautioned that making address information confidential at filing deadlines could reduce public transparency about whether a candidate actually met residency requirements at the time they filed. ‘‘If someone is filing an affidavit that says they meet qualifications, we would verify that and follow up if a residency concern is raised,’’ Howe said, warning that the public would not see the initial filing details if addresses were shielded.
Howe recommended the confidentiality designation include a sunset or renewal mechanism: remain confidential for the calendar year but be reviewed annually or revert to public status upon a candidate’s term completion. Emily described a likely implementation detail: an opt‑in checkbox on the affidavit of candidacy that would allow a filer to request the protection.
Committee members pressed on unintended consequences and on how much information would remain public (Howe clarified that name and office sought would still appear; the proposal shields full street address, city, state and ZIP). After discussion the chair said the committee would hold the draft for the next meeting so staff could prepare amended language that incorporated the Secretary’s concerns.
The item was set aside for further amendment and returned to the committee’s next agenda.
