California Public Records Act: elected or appointed officials.

Assembly Member Pacheco, with coauthor Ramos, seeks to broaden the California Public Records Act’s privacy protections by expanding who qualifies as an elected or appointed official. The core change would widen the set of individuals whose personal information is shielded from disclosure and whose related disclosures could carry criminal penalties under the act.

Specifically, the bill adds to the eligible roster: active or retired federal judges or federal defenders; retired judges of federally recognized Indian tribes; active or retired judges or court officials such as those associated with the State Bar Court; and appointees of a court to serve as children’s counsel in family or dependency proceedings. These additions accompany the categories already listed in the statute, thereby expanding the scope of exemptions and the circumstances in which information about those individuals may be restricted.

The bill also advances legislative findings that frame the changes as protective of personal information—such as home addresses and phone numbers—of elected or appointed officials and their families, arguing that harassment or targeted violence can justify limitations on public access. It treats unauthorized disclosures as a crime in relation to these expanded exemptions, aligning with the act’s existing framework for penalties tied to improper disclosures. The authors designate no state reimbursement for local agencies, asserting that the changes affect penalties or definitions of crime rather than create new statewide costs; however, local programs may incur non-reimbursable implementation costs as part of applying the expanded protections.

Implementation considerations include how agencies process records requests under the broadened exemptions and how enforcement would operate alongside existing criminal provisions. The bill does not specify a operative date within the enacted text, and its local impact designation suggests that some administrative updates—policy revisions, staff training, and recordkeeping adjustments—could be needed at the local level. Taken together, the changes situate the CPRA’s balance between transparency and privacy within a broader set of high-profile or sensitive official roles, reflecting a policy aim to restrict disclosure of personal information for a wider group of officials and related safeguarding concerns.