logo
Citing security threats, California lawmakers want to shield their addresses from public

Citing security threats, California lawmakers want to shield their addresses from public

California lawmakers want to limit public access to their addresses and phone numbers after two Minnesota lawmakers were shot, one fatally, in their homes last month.
One proposal would ban journalists from accessing that information through candidates' and public officials' voter registration records, even though there is no indication the Minnesota shooter used those kinds of records to track down his victims.
Officials' voter registration data is already confidential to most of the public. It is available to a select few, including journalists. But AB 1392, authored by Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins of La Mesa and sponsored by Secretary of State Shirley Weber's office, would eliminate that carve-out and effectively block journalists' access to politicians' phone numbers, emails and home addresses and prior voter registration.
'This common-sense bill will protect public servants and their families,' Sharp-Collins told lawmakers during a Tuesday Senate hearing.
Stripping the public of vital information?
But press freedom advocates say they doubt the measure would protect public officials from violence, arguing it would instead strip journalists of vital information they use to keep government officials in check. Journalists often use a politician's residential address to determine if they live in the district they represent and are eligible for office.
'Democracy is founded on the promise of 'trust but verify.' We are not required to take the government's word for it,' said David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, which advocates for public access to government documents and proceedings. 'We understand the concerns, but this should not deprive the press of its ability to do fundamental watchdog and accountability reporting.
Sharp-Collins' chief of staff Michael Lucien said she did not have time for an interview. Her office also did not respond to questions sent by CalMatters via text about how her measure would protect public officials, or whether she believed anyone had used information obtained from their voter registration to target them.
State lawmakers have often cited security concerns in passing laws that limit public disclosure. Last year, they made it harder to access politicians' phone numbers, home addresses and records about properties they own, all of which they are required to disclose in their economic interest statements. A 2022 law allowed California government workers and contractors to shield their addresses from the public if they fear violence.
This year, as lawmakers pushed to reduce public access, they cited fear of violence when they sought to shield use-of-force reports by peace officers and to restrict data brokers from selling politicians' personal information.
'Every single year, we see a number of attempts to limit the public's access to information and access to their lawmakers in person,' said Brittney Barsotti, general counsel of the California News Publishers Association. '(AB 1392) is just another attempt that is concerning.'
Timothy Cromartie, representing Weber's office, said at a Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendment Committee hearing earlier this month that 'escalating threats' to public officials make the measure 'an urgent necessity.' He pointed to the slaying of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband last month, the arson on Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro's home in April, the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump last year and the 2022 hammer attack on former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband at their home.
An earlier version of the measure only applied to state and federal officials. But at the suggestion of the Senate elections committee, it was expanded to apply to local elected officials and candidates for office and allow the secretary of state's office to make the information private sooner.
But critics doubt the proposal would help prevent tragedies like the Minnesota shootings, where the alleged suspect appeared to have obtained the lawmakers' home addresses via 'people search' sites instead of the voter roll.
They argue that state law lays out a rigorous request process, where those qualified to receive the voter registration information must submit their names and contact information, explain the reason for their request and attest to their honesty under penalty of perjury.
'It seems highly unlikely at best that reporters or others able to take advantage of that carve out under those strict conditions are going to commit crimes with that information,' Loy said.
Loy said the information not only helps journalists fact check officials' residency claims, but also allows reporters to identify politicians if they did things such as receiving a home as a gift from special interests, or leasing to or renting property from their major donors.
A check on data brokers
Another proposal inspired by the Minnesota tragedy, AB302 by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan of San Ramon, sought to allow politicians to request businesses, including data brokers and media outlets, to take down or refrain from publishing their personal information, opening the organizations up to lawsuits and fines if they do not comply.
An earlier version of the measure risked violating the First Amendment since it could chill and censor legitimate speech, according to a Senate Judiciary Committee analysis. The First Amendment Coalition and the Freedom of the Press Foundation opposed the effort, citing similar concerns, adding that newsrooms could be exposed to frivolous lawsuits simply because politicians do not like stories they publish.
'These demands and lawsuits will chill news outlets from reporting on matters of public concern,' the groups said in a joint letter. 'The fact that news outlets will have to defend their reporting as relating to a matter of public concern, potentially through multiple appeals, will cause some to self-censor.'
Bauer-Kahan told CalMatters Monday that her intention was to discourage data brokers from selling politicians' personal information. She has agreed to amend the measure to instead require the California Privacy Protection Agency to compile a list of politicians and request data brokers to delete their personal information.
'That's not nearly as troubling as giving them … a tool to be weaponized to silence legitimate reporting,' Loy said.
___
This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Rep. Nancy Mace kicks off South Carolina GOP gubernatorial bid. She says she's 'Trump in high heels'
Rep. Nancy Mace kicks off South Carolina GOP gubernatorial bid. She says she's 'Trump in high heels'

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Rep. Nancy Mace kicks off South Carolina GOP gubernatorial bid. She says she's 'Trump in high heels'

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina is running for governor, entering a GOP primary in which competition for President Donald Trump's endorsement — and the backing of his base of supporters — is expected to be fierce. Mace, who last year won her third term representing South Carolina's 1st District, made her run official during a launch event Monday at The Citadel military college in Charleston. Mace told The Associated Press on Sunday she plans a multi-pronged platform aimed in part at shoring up the state's criminal justice system, ending South Carolina's income tax, protecting women and children, expanding school choice and vocational education and improving the state's energy options. Official filing for South Carolina's 2026 elections doesn't open until March, but several other Republicans have already entered the state's first truly open governor's race in 16 years, including Attorney General Alan Wilson, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and Rep. Ralph Norman. Both Wilson and Evette have touted their own connections to the Republican president, but Mace — calling herself 'Trump in high heels' — said she is best positioned to carry out his agenda in South Carolina, where he has remained popular since his 2016 state primary win helped cement his status as the GOP presidential nominee. Saying she plans to seek his support, Mace pointed to her defense of Trump in an interview that resulted in ABC News agreeing to pay $15 million toward his presidential library to settle a defamation lawsuit. She also noted that she called Donald Trump early this year as part of an effort to persuade GOP holdouts to support Rep. Mike Johnson to become House speaker. 'No one will work harder to get his attention and his endorsement,' she said. 'No one else in this race can say they've been there for the president like I have, as much as I have and worked as hard as I have to get the president his agenda delivered to him in the White House.' Mace has largely supported Trump, working for his 2016 campaign but levying criticism against him following the Jan. 6, 2021, violence at the U.S. Capitol, which spurred Trump to back a GOP challenger in her 2022 race. Mace defeated that opponent, won reelection and was endorsed by Trump in her 2024 campaign. A month after she told the AP in January that she was 'seriously considering' a run, Mace went what she called 'scorched earth," using a nearly hour-long speech on the U.S. House floor in February to accuse her ex-fiancé of physically abusing her, recording sex acts with her and others without their consent, and conspiring with business associates in acts of rape and sexual misconduct. Mace's ex-fiancé said he 'categorically' denied the accusations, and another man Mace mentioned has sued her for defamation, arguing the accusations were a 'dangerous mix of falsehoods and baseless accusations.' 'I want every South Carolinian to watch me as I fight for my rights as a victim," Mace said, asked if she worried about litigation related to the speech. "I want them to know I will fight just as hard for them as I am fighting for myself.' Mace, 47, was the first woman to graduate from The Citadel, the state's military college, where her father then served as commandant of cadets. After briefly serving in the state House, in 2020 she became the first Republican woman elected to represent South Carolina in Congress, flipping the 1st District after one term with a Democratic representative. "I'm going to draw the line, and I'm going to hold it for South Carolina, and I'm going to put her people first," Mace said. ___ Kinnard can be reached at

Chief Justice John Roberts enabled Texas' gambit to gerrymander the state for the GOP
Chief Justice John Roberts enabled Texas' gambit to gerrymander the state for the GOP

CNN

time13 minutes ago

  • CNN

Chief Justice John Roberts enabled Texas' gambit to gerrymander the state for the GOP

The brazen partisan redistricting underway in Texas, with Republicans attempting to entrench themselves in office and Democrats weighing a counter-offensive in blue states, was greenlit by the US Supreme Court six years ago. Chief Justice John Roberts, in an opinion for a 5-4 court, declared that federal judges could not review extreme partisan gerrymanders to determine if they violated constitutional rights. Roberts' opinion reversed cases that would have allowed such districts – drawn to advantage one political party over another irrespective of voters' interests – to be challenged as violations of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and association and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The justices split among the familiar ideological lines, with the five conservatives ruling against partisan gerrymanders and the four liberals dissenting. 'Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one,' dissenting justices warned in 2019, 'The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.' That decision in Rucho v. Common Cause has generated a new era of partisan rivalry with vast repercussions for American democracy. The decision resonates as profoundly as the Roberts Court's decision last year in Trump v. United States, which granted presidents substantial immunity from criminal prosecution (also delivered among partisan lines). Trump has taken the 2024 ruling as a blank check, tearing through democratic norms. The gerrymandering case also lifted a federal guardrail. Lawsuits challenging extreme partisan gerrymanders can still be brought before state court judges. But state laws vary widely in their protections for redistricting practices and state judges differ in their ability to police the thorny political process. Roberts may have failed to foresee the consequences in 2019 and then in 2024. Or, alternatively, perhaps he understood and simply believed the effects were not properly the concern of the federal judiciary. In his opinion, Roberts acknowledged the apparent unfairness of gerrymandered districts. 'Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,' he wrote. But, he said, 'the fact that such gerrymandering is 'incompatible with democratic principles,' … does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary.' The chief justice said no constitutional authority exists for judges to oversee the politics of redistricting, nor are there standards for their decisions, that is, to know when state lawmakers have gone too far in what is an inherently political process. Roberts wrote: ''How much is too much?' At what point does permissible partisanship become unconstitutional?' The current redistricting controversy arises from Trump's pressure on fellow Republicans to generate as many GOP-controlled districts as possible before the 2026 midterm elections for the US House of Representatives. Right now, the focus is on Texas where legislators broke from the usual cycle of post-census redistricting that happens every 10 years and suddenly proposed a new map intended to push several Democrats out of office and buttress the chances that Republicans keep their majority, now hanging by a thread, in Congress. The audacious Texas effort has prompted liberals to consider a counterattack in Democratic-controlled states such as California to create new maps that could boost their numbers. But politicians' effort to draw lines to their advantage have never been free of controversy. The paired cases before the justices six years ago involved extreme gerrymanders by Republicans in North Carolina and by Democrats in Maryland. Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, whose vote was crucial. A year earlier, Kavanaugh had succeeded Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had previously left the door open to federal court challenges to partisan gerrymanders. Justice Elena Kagan, taking the lead for dissenters, insisted workable standards existed and had been used by lower US court judges. 'For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation,' she wrote, pointing up the stakes. 'The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives,' Kagan added. She was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who remains on the bench, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020, and Stephen Breyer, who retired in 2022. Echoing a line from redistricting precedent that appears apt as Texas legislators divide voters for predetermined results, Kagan wrote that a core principle of government is 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.'

Tesla Awards ‘Good Faith' Shares to Musk Worth $29 Billion
Tesla Awards ‘Good Faith' Shares to Musk Worth $29 Billion

New York Times

time14 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Tesla Awards ‘Good Faith' Shares to Musk Worth $29 Billion

Tesla granted shares to Elon Musk worth around $29 billion, the company said on Monday, describing it as a 'good faith' award to help retain the car maker's chief after his previous multibillion-dollar pay package was struck down by a judge. The company approved a package of 96 million shares for Mr. Musk, which he could tap after two years of service in a 'senior leadership role' at Tesla. The mercurial billionaire, whose business empire includes rockets, artificial intelligence, brain implants and more, hinted last month that he wanted more shares in Tesla, on top of his 13 percent stake. It was a 'major concern,' he said on an earnings call with analysts. Tesla said in a letter to investors that 'we know that one of your top concerns is keeping Elon's energies focused on Tesla.' It said the stock award was 'a critical first step toward achieving that goal.' In addition to his businesses, Mr. Musk has dove into politics, steering President Trump's cost-cutting initiative before they had a falling out, after which the tech billionaire pledged to start a new political party. Mr. Musk's previous pay package, awarded in 2018, was struck down last year by Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery, ruling that shareholders had not been properly informed of its details and that members of Tesla's board were not sufficiently independent. Tesla has appealed the decision, with its lawyers arguing that two shareholder votes in favor of the package should have cleared the way for reinstating it. Tesla is in a profit slump, and the company has not reported an increase in quarterly earnings since the third quarter of 2024. Sales also declined this spring. The company's stock has fallen nearly 20 percent this year.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store