Q: Yesterday I asked a California Senate committee for copies of the opposition letters they received regarding an active bill and shortly thereafter they faxed seven letters to me. So far so good, but on three of the letters the identity of the writer was redacted. (The other four letters were from organizations, and their identities were not redacted.) Two of the three redacted letters appeared to be from private individuals, not on behalf of any organization or business (one of those two was a copy of an opposition letter submitted by me, as an individual). The third redacted letter was from a lawyer, on his office stationery.
Redactions like that put the opponents of a bill who are individuals at a disadvantage as they cannot organize into a group.
I have read GC 9070 – 9080 and am not sure whether those laws justify such redactions, particularly the redaction of the lawyer’s identity.
Fortunately, this time the bill I was opposing did not make it out of committee. But it was a cliffhanger, a 3 – 3 tie. I am concerned about what might happen next time.
A: The Legislative Open Records Act (LORA) provides public access to records of the legislature, but, generally, LORA is not as broad as the Public Records Act, which provides access to records of executive and local agencies. LORA recognizes that access to legislative records is a “fundamental and necessary right of every citizen in this state.” Govt. Code § 9070.
Lora applies to “any writing prepared on or after December 2, 1974, which contains information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by the Legislature.” Govt. Code 9072(c). A “writing” is broadly defined and includes letters. Govt. Code § 9072(d). Not all writings must be disclosed, Government Code section 9075 identifies numerous categories of documents need not be disclosed. This list includes letters sent by private citizens to the legislature. Govt. Code § 9075(j).
Unfortunately, it may be that since the legislature is not required to disclose letters from private citizens to individual legislators, it does not have to provide you with the name of individuals who sent those letters if it does choose to disclose those communications. If the lawyer was writing his or her letter as a private citizen, and not as a representative of a corporate entity, then it may be that the identity of that individual, too, does not have to be disclosed
Bryan Cave LLP is general counsel for the First Amendment Coalition and responds to FAC hotline inquiries. In responding to these inquiries, we can give general information regarding open government and speech issues but cannot provide specific legal advice or representation.