State Legislature: nondisclosure agreements.

Patterson, joined by a broad group of colleagues, advances a measure that would bar Members of the Legislature from entering into nondisclosure agreements related to the drafting, negotiation, or discussion of proposed legislation. The authors suggest that confidentiality practices in legislative negotiations can impede public access to the process, and they would narrow exceptions to allow only limited protective NDAs for trade secrets or proprietary information. The provision targets Members acting in their official capacity and would not apply to private parties outside the Legislature.

Under the proposal, a new Government Code provision would forbid a legislator from entering into, or requesting that another party enter into, an NDA connected to drafting, negotiating, or discussing proposed legislation. Any such NDA entered into after the section’s effective date would be void and unenforceable, subject to exceptions that permit NDAs solely for the disclosure of trade secrets, financial information, or proprietary information. The bill defines key terms—discussion as communications aimed at decision-making on proposed legislation; drafting as the development of language for legislation; and negotiation as discussions about the form of proposed legislation with opposing interests. The restriction applies exclusively to Members in their official capacity, and penalties for violations are to be determined under the existing legislative ethics framework, with the bill indicating violations are punishable as a crime.

From the standpoint of enforcement and administration, the act states that no local reimbursement is required, aligning with constitutional provisions about mandated costs; it also notes a local-program review requirement. It does not create a new enforcement agency, and pre-existing NDAs entered prior to the act’s effective date are not rendered void by the measure. The legislative history shows the measure moved through the 2025–2026 session, undergoing amendments before passage and enrollment.

Contextual considerations include how the new prohibition interacts with existing ethics rules governing financial conflicts of interest and with cross-referenced provisions. The authors’ findings frame confidentiality in legislative negotiations as impeding transparency, while the narrowly tailored exceptions preserve protection for sensitive information. Uncertainties remain about definitions of protected information, potential applicability to staff or consultants, and the enforcement pathway beyond general ethics mechanisms. The proposal thus situates itself within a broader debate over transparency and governance in the drafting of proposed legislation.