Credit: (Tayeb Mezahdia from Pixabay)

The addresses of lawmakers, elected officials and candidates would be exempt from public disclosure under three measures that sailed through a legislative committee Monday, dealing another blow to transparency and public access in the state. 

If enacted, one bill (A-4094) would add all elected officials, candidates for public office and their immediate family members to the list of people whose addresses are now subject to redaction as part of public records requests. Earlier this year, lawmakers passed and Gov. Phil Murphy signed a bill known as Daniel’s Law that created a state Office of Information Privacy, with $3 million in funding, to oversee requests from judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers and members of their immediate families to have their home addresses redacted from public records.  

But a measure the Assembly State and Local Government Committees passed unanimously without discussion or dissent would automatically require the redaction of the addresses of elected officials, candidates and their families by exempting these from disclosure under the state’s public records laws. 

In a joint statement provided to NJ Spotlight News, Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin (D-Middlesex) and Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald (D-Camden) said the bills are needed, given the changed technology and attitudes of today’s world.

“We are living in a different day and age, in which people’s personal information is a click of a button away,” the statement said. “The negative consequences of that reality are made clear by recent events like the break-in and attack at Speaker Pelosi’s home, near-incident outside of Justice Kavanaugh’s home, and the tragedy that befell Judge Salas’ family right here in New Jersey. That gives real merit to a need for caution and so, in an effort to protect legislators, elected and appointed officials, and their families while balancing our duty toward transparency as elected officials, these bills responsibly shield home addresses. We believe existing processes retain the ability to ensure that any residency requirements continue to be adhered to.”

‘Darkness just makes it easier for corruption to occur.’ — Attorney CJ Griffin 

The only comment during the committee hearing about the measures was made by chairman Anthony Verrelli (D-Mercer), who opened the meeting by saying they are necessary for the safety of officials. 

“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 said. He may have been referring to the 2020 murder of Daniel Anderl, who was shot and killed by a men’s rights attorney who called himself an “anti-feminist” and appeared to have been targeting Anderl’s mother, U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas, over a case he had pending before her. Pelosi’s husband was hospitalized after a far-right extremist broke into the couple’s home in San Francisco and attacked him. 

“It’s a privacy package, as I like to call it.” Verrelli said. 

Concerns about transparency 

While no one objected to the measure, or two related ones, during the brief hearing several advocates for government transparency complained that the measure would make it harder for the media and the public to find officials’ ethical lapses and would be hard to implement. 

“To use the Pelosi tragedy to justify this move for secrecy seems over-reactionary,” said CJ Griffin, a lawyer who handles public access issues and has won several public records access lawsuits in the state Supreme Court. “If there are threats against lawmakers, the solution is to beef up security. Darkness just makes it easier for corruption to occur, as it’ll be very difficult for reporters to investigate whether politicians are involved in shady land deals or whether they are complying with various residency requirements … Secrecy breeds distrust. The response to any anger from the public should be to lean into transparency and make their financial disclosures more robust, so as to build trust with the public.” 

John Paff, chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Party’s Open Government Advocacy Project, agreed that exempting addresses would make it more difficult to provide people with information they may want to consider when voting and in keeping public officials honest as they do their work. He also said he doesn’t think the law would provide the protections advertised because a person determined to hurt an elected official will find the information another way. 

‘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.’ — John Paff, New Jersey Libertarian Party 

“I understand that there are legitimate concerns and I think they’re overblown. It’s not like these cases are popping up everywhere, where everybody’s declared war on public officials and their families,” Paff said. “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: mainly, the efficacy of doing it and if it’s really going to solve the problem. Is a person with a mentality that is so depraved that they’re going to consider doing harm to a public official or their family, are they going to be dissuaded or somehow stopped from carrying out that by suppressing these addresses?” 

A tweet from the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University, headed by Micah Rasmussen, contends that the measure would be impossible to fully carry out. 

An ‘unworkable’ bill? 

“A-4904 is unworkable and unsignable. Governments cannot redact every instance of an elected official’s address. There’s be no legal way to release voter registration rolls, delinquent tax lists, public notices of permit applications. Basic government functions could not occur,” the tweet reads. 

While the sponsors of bills often testify during a committee hearing, none spoke Monday. A-4904, which would require the redactions, is sponsored by Greenwald and Assemblywoman Carol Murphy (D-Burlington).  

The other two measures are co-sponsored by Coughlin and Assembly Minority Leader John DiMaio (R-Warren). A-4889 would end the requirement that local government officials disclose the addresses of their principal and secondary homes on annual financial disclosure forms. ACR-166 would amend the Legislative Code of Ethics and end the practice of lawmakers disclosing the same information on their forms, beginning next year. They would be required to report the municipality and county in which they live. 

The financial disclosure forms that lawmakers must file are already considered sparse on details, with lawmakers only having to disclose ranges of income and liabilities with a top amount of $50,000 or more. Those forms are provided as PDF documents, unable to be easily analyzed using computer software. And some lawmakers continue to fill them out by hand, making them hard to read. 

Lawmakers in 2002 also largely exempted themselves from the state’s Open Public Records Act, or OPRA; correspondences that legislators receive, including emails, memos, notes and reports are all exempt from public disclosure. 

‘Not surprising’ 

Griffin said the move to end the disclosure of addresses is “disappointing, but frankly not surprising” because the Legislature has a poor track record regarding transparency. 

“Sadly, since OPRA was signed into law in 2002, all the Legislature has done is chip away at public access,” Griffin said. “There’s never any legislation to make more records public or to fix OPRA’s serious flaws, such as the fact that agencies flat out ignore the statute’s deadlines and abuse the deliberative process privilege. And the only access we’ve gained to police records [has] come from the courts. OPRA is our main tool to guard against corruption, waste, and misconduct and that tool is becoming less effective with the passage of each of these bills.” 

This was the first legislative action on all three measures, which will need to be approved by the full Senate and Assembly. The two bills will also need Murphy’s signature to become law, which the change in lawmakers’ address reporting does not because it changes legislative rules.