Lawmaker is back again with plan to shield records on Kentucky public officers – Courier Journal

Kentucky state Sen. Danny Carroll is back this year with another controversial proposal that would shield personal information about a wide range of "public officers" and their families from public view and would let them sue journalists and otherswho spreadsuch details.

The Kentucky Press Association sharply criticized the legislation this week, saying it's unconstitutional and "a broadside attack on the First Amendment" that violates Kentuckians' due process rights and "will chillthe ability of citizens and journalists alike to speak and write about" public servants.

"It will conceal from the public basic information that has long been available without incident and is essential for citizens to oversee elected and appointed public officials paid with their tax dollars," the KPA's general counsel, Jon Fleischaker and Michael Abate, said in a statement.

"It also will jeopardize the ability of businesses, agenciesand courts to perform routine public functions that depend on the free flow of information regarding public records concerning birth, death, marriage, insurance, property ownership, taxesand political contributions."

Latest: Kentucky lawmakers move to recoup state's $15 million Braidy Industries investment

Carroll's new legislationresembles a hotly debatedbill he filed last year.The legislature approveda modified version ofthat proposal, but Gov. Andy Beshear was able to veto it.

Carroll, R-Benton,was unavailable for comment Wednesday, but an assistant said hehas been working on this legislation with Rep. John Blanton, R-Salyersville. Blanton was involved in modifying Carrolls public records bill last year. He could not immediately be reached for comment.

He also sponsored a highly criticized proposal in 2021that would have made it a crime to insult a law enforcementofficerto the point it could provoke a violent response from them. That bill passed only the Senate, and he recently filed a largely similarbillfor this session.

Carroll's newpublic records legislation, Senate Bill 63, would:

SB 63 also would prohibit public agencies from disclosing "personally identifiable information in records that would reveal the address or location of a public officer" if that person says they don't want that information released.

Amye Bensenhaver, co-director of the Kentucky Open Government Coalition, told The Courier JournalCarroll's latest bill would upend Kentucky's open records law and morph it into a non-disclosure law.

Personal information already is well-shielded by the current law, said Bensenhaver, a former assistant attorney general, adding:"The truth is the privacy exception to theopen records law is so well-developed, and so well-interpreted and understood, that it will in most instances protect this type of information."

More: Gov. Andy Beshear proposes billions for health and human services in 2-year budget plan

She also predicted Carroll's bill would be struck down in court if it becomes law,with taxpayers footing the bill for the legal proceedings."This bill cannot survive any kind of challenge," she said.

Fleischaker and Abate, of the Kentucky Press Association, said the way thisbill is writtencould leadpublic officers to claim basic details, such as their name or employer,must be withheld.

Among other consequences,they said: "This could result inagencies repeatedly withholding public records that have been critically important to exposing egregious abuses by law enforcement officers..."

They also criticized the bill's incredibly broad definition of "immediate family member" as well as the wide array of data the bill classifies as "personally identifiable information."

Fleischaker and Abate raised major concerns as well about how the bill would let public officers and theirso-called immediate family membersfile civil lawsuits against peoplefor posting "personally identifiable information" about them.

Kentucky CRT: Kentucky's anti-'critical race theory' bills draw ire of students, educators

Carroll's bill says someone can be sued for thatif:

"This significant financial liability may be imposed with merely a subjective assertion that the sharing of the information placed the public officer in reasonable fear of physical injury or harm to their property," Fleischaker and Abate said. "Citizens and journalists simply will not know whether they can talk about, or report on, public officials, employees, or controversies that happen to turn on the myriad categories of information protected by the law."

Morgan Watkins is The Courier Journal'schief political reporter. Contact her atmwatkins@courierjournal.com. Follow her on Twitter: @morganwatkins26.

Read more:

Lawmaker is back again with plan to shield records on Kentucky public officers - Courier Journal