BUFFINGTON: Proposed legislation on secrecy goes too far

SB215 and SB 176 would require the redaction of property records for law enforcement other public officials in the state if a public employee requests the records be redacted.

The intent of the legislation is noble. The idea is to prevent the crazies of the world from finding the home address of a public official they wish to harm.

One of the events that led to this proposal in Georgia, and a number of other states, was the murder of a judge’s son in New Jersey by a man who found the judge’s home address online.

Here in Georgia, some state and local elections officials got threats from right-wing crazies after the 2020 election, which some GOP officials claimed had been a stolen election (it wasn’t.)

While the concept of protecting judicial officials is good, there are a number of problems associated with hiding property records of public officials:

• State law already redacts personal information for public employees, if those records identify the person as a public employee. That includes personal phone numbers, social security numbers and a slew of other kinds of personal information. Since property ownership records don’t identify a person by their job or title, those aren’t included under the current law exemptions.

• Allowing public employees to have their names redacted from property records would hide important information, such as when a public official doesn’t pay his property taxes, or when a public official owns property that might be associated with a pending rezoning issue. In theory, the proposed legislation would allow a public official to go through the rezoning process without anyone ever knowing who owned the property in question. In addition, a public official would be able to seek special property exemptions without that being publicly disclosed.

• The law would presumably only apply to home address and not other property an official owns, but that isn’t very clear and could be a loophole that would allow for other properties to be hidden behind a veil of secrecy.

• The logistics of redacting public officials’ names from property records would be difficult for clerks of court to do. Property records exist in books that are used by real estate people to research property titles, etc. I’m not sure how you can have a secret deed record that doesn’t have an owner’s name, or how to keep such records secret. In New Jersey, that state’s 2020 law about this was so complex, the state legislature there had to go back and clean it up, including creating a new state agency just to oversee the exemption process.

• How would redacted records come back into the public domain once a person left public office or public employment? People don’t stay in public office forever, nor do public employees always work in public sector employment. It would be a logistical nightmare to keep up with all of that in a county clerk’s office and to go back and make secret property records public again.

• Some state campaign laws require candidates for public office to disclose their property ownership. This proposed law would be in direct conflict with that and with the idea of transparency for public officials and those seeking public office.

• Even if this law is passed, there are other ways people can locate the homes of public officials. In small towns, that kind of information is common knowledge. And with social media, there is a lot of personal information people broadcast about themselves. Making property deed records secret won’t solve any of that.

• SB176 would make it a criminal offense to disclose the home address of judicial officials or law enforcement officials if the “intent” is to cause harassment, or is done with “reckless disregard.” That means that a reporter could be charged with a crime for publishing the home address of a judicial official even if that is done within the bounds of legitimate reporting. If, for example, there were a domestic dispute at the residence of a judge that showed up in a law enforcement incident or arrest report, disclosing the address of the incident could be used to arrest the reporter who wrote the story.

•••

While everyone would agree that public officials shouldn’t be the target of harassment or harm, these proposed bills are overly broad and would create a multitude of problems and wouldn’t solve the larger issue. Public officials don’t just exist at their homes, they’re also out in public and could be subject to harassment in other places — restaurants, grocery stores, and on the sidewalk.

If the goal is to prevent harm or harassment of public officials, especially law enforcement or judicial officials, then legislation should focus on that regardless of where it takes place.

Making property records secret for public officials is bridge too far.