Public records assault

A few weeks back, we raised some concerns -- based on their one-line summaries -- about a few bill drafts requested by the state Supreme Court.

On Thursday, more details emerged about the proposals -- and it's clear our concerns were warranted.

One measure would exempt the courts from a 2007 bill that put teeth into the state's public records law by imposing a timetable on public agencies for responding to records requests.

Supreme Court Justice Jim Hardesty claimed last week that the modification is not "an attempt to keep any of the courts' records from the public," but simply an effort to ensure the law recognizes the "many practical differences between the judiciary and the executive branch."

In effect, the proposal would let the high court set the rules for how the judiciary must comply with public records requests.

We'll await further details, but if you're objective isn't to water down existing law as it concerns the courts, why bother? Will Justice Hardesty and his cohorts present proposed changes that strengthen the current law as it applies to judges? Not likely.

The second troublesome proposal is buried inside a bill draft that would make it a felony to threaten judges over their rulings. Such threats could probably be prosecuted under current statutes, but the bill draft doesn't stop there. It also includes a provision to widely expand an existing law that allows judges and law enforcement personnel to request that certain personal information -- addresses, phone numbers and other contact data -- maintained by county assessors be kept confidential.

The new proposal covers everyone -- and we mean everyone -- who has any contact with or involvement in the judicial system, from witnesses to court reporters to attorneys to court interpreters. And it applies not just to assessors, but to the DMV, registrar of voters and secretary of state. If passed, this bill could be interpreted to apply to someone who fought a traffic ticket.

It blows a hole in the public records statutes, which are important protections against government waste, mismanagement and tyranny, and is certain to invite copycat measures designed to "protect" other public employees. Yes, prosecutors, judges and others may be threatened on occasion by bad people -- unfortunately, it goes with the territory. But their concerns about criminals using public databases to take revenge or commit wrongdoing against them could also, for instance, apply to upper-middle class or wealthy homeowners fearing burglaries. Should they be exempt from the law, too?

If somebody truly wants to find out an address or phone number, he can do so regardless of the law. And there are already avenues for people to limit how much personal information they provide government agencies.

The state Supreme Court has made important strides of late when it comes to open government -- particularly in its new rules limiting the power of judges to seal cases. But if it succeeds in getting these new proposals passed by the 2009 Legislature, it will have taken a big step backward.