(The Center Square) – The names and addresses of New Jersey’s elected officials would be exempt from public disclosure under proposals being considered by the state legislature, which open government groups say would erode transparency.
One proposal, which was approved Monday by the Assembly’s State and Local Government Committee, would add lawmakers and other elected officials, candidates for office and their immediate family members to a state list of people whose addresses are now subject to redaction in public records requests.
Two other proposals approved by the committee would end a requirement that local government officials disclose the addresses of their principal and secondary homes on annual financial disclosure forms, and other required disclosures. All three bills need to be approved by the full Senate and Assembly before landing on Gov. Phil Murphy’s desk for consideration.
Supporters of the proposals, like state Rep. Anthony Verrelli, D-Mercer, said it is necessary to protect the safety of elected officials and their family members amid increasing threats.
“Given the number of high-profile attacks on public officials and their families, such as the recent attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, and a few other instances that have occurred in New Jersey, I think there are a couple of bills here worth hearing and considering,” Verrelli told committee members.
Concerns about the safety of public officials has been on the minds of Connecticut’s political leaders since the 2020 murder of Daniel Anderl, who was shot and killed by an attorney and self-proclaimed “anti-feminist” who state prosecutors say was targeting Anderl’s mother, U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas.
In January, Murphy signed a law creating a state Office of Information Privacy to oversee requests from judges, state prosecutors, police officers and members of their families to have their home addresses redacted from public records. The measure, called Daniel’s Law, included $3 million in funding.
But proposals to redact the information of state and local elected officials, and others is being criticized by open government groups who say the changes, if approved, would be a blow to government transparency.
John Paff, chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Party’s open government advocacy project, told the committee he understands there may be legitimate concerns about safety, but suggested they’re being “overblown” by lawmakers.
“It’s not like these cases are popping up everywhere, where everybody’s declared war on public officials and their families,” he said during Monday’s hearing. “I’m not saying that the entire thing is so far-fetched it shouldn’t be considered, but I think there’s some countervailing interests that need to be considered.”
Some have suggested that redacting the information would be unworkable, because personal details of many elected officials are already widely distributed.
“Governments cannot redact every instance of an elected official’s address,” Micah Rasmussen, executive director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University, posted on social media. “There’s no legal way to release voter registration rolls, delinquent tax lists, or public notices of permit applications. Basic government functions could not occur.”
C.J. Griffin, a lawyer who handles public records cases, said shielding the information from the public would make it harder for the press and public to learn about corruption involving elected officials. He suggested the security fears are being overblown.
“To use the Pelosi tragedy to justify this move for secrecy seems over-reactionary,” he told the panel. “If there are threats against lawmakers, the solution is to beef up security.”
