Public records exemption would shield judicial assistants’ personal information
Rep. David Smith
A House panel has voted overwhelmingly to extend the same public records exemption that shields judges to the judicial assistants who serve them.
The House Civil Justice Subcommittee voted 18-0 on March 14 to approve HB 75 by Rep. David Smith, R-Winter Springs.
“As many of you know, judicial assistants are the public face of our judges,” Smith said. “They are coming under an increasing amount of harassment.”
Smith told the panel he has a long list of incidents in which judicial assistants, or their spouses and children, have received threats or been the victims of stalking.
“I’ve got pages and pages,” he said. “It’s mostly family law issues, but there are also criminal matters.”
Under HB 75, the home addresses, dates of birth, and telephone numbers of all current and former judicial assistants would be exempt from public records laws.
It would also exempt the names, home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and places of employment of a judicial assistant’s spouse and children, and the names and locations of the children’s schools and daycares.
Smith said litigants and defendants vent their anger on judicial assistants because they can’t communicate with a judge outside of the courtroom.
“Folks can’t get to that judge, but they certainly can get to the public face of that judge,” he said.
HB 75 faces additional vetting in the Ethics, Elections & Open Government Subcommittee, and Judiciary, before reaching the House floor.
Sen. Tom Wright, R-Port Orange, filed the companion, SB 50, in November.
Wright has sponsored the legislation for the past several years.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-1 to approve SB 50 on January 17. It faces two more hearings, in the Governmental Oversight & Accountability Committee, and Rules.
The bills contain a statement of public necessity that is required of all proposed public records exemptions.
“In the course of assisting in making rulings, entering judgments, imposing sentences, or reviewing cases, judicial assistants may incur the ill will of litigants, the accused, the convicted, and their associates and families, thus making judicial assistants and their spouses and children targets for acts of revenge.”
In addition to requiring a supermajority approval in both chambers, public records exemptions are required to be as narrowly tailored as possible, and to sunset automatically so lawmakers can give them periodic review.
