Slashdot Mirror
Variably Sunny: SCOTUS Allows Local FOIA Restrictions
v3rgEz writes "The Supreme Court ruled Monday morning that states have the right to restrict public records access to locals, meaning one more hurdle to would-be muckrakers everywhere. Even in-state requesters are harmed: It means one more bureaucratic hurdle and another excuse for agencies to respond in paper rather than electronically. MuckRock has helped file requests in all 50 states — important for projects like the Drone Census — and we're looking for more volunteers to help ensure transparency from sea to shining sea. States impacted: Alabama; Arkansas; Delaware; Georgia; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Tennessee; and Virginia. If you live in one of the above, fill out a simple form and we can help ensure that sunshine isn't restricted depending on where you live."
While it took much longer for the UK to get a freedom of information act., it does seem much more powerful than that available in the US.
There's no cost for most inquiries (where the cost to the government body to respond is less than £600. It covers the bulk of public bodies. Anyone, anywhere on the world can use it. Replies are expected within 20 business days.
Combined with the Data Protection Act, and it seems UK citizens have far greater rights and protections when it comes to personal and public data than who live in the United States.
That's not to say the UK FOIA is perfect, far from it. Exceptions are too wide, and some government bodies can be obstructive. Still it has delivered useful information that would likely not have been discovered otherwise.
If with all the Internet at your disposal you can't find one single person in the state willing to submit the FOIA request and pass you back the results, it's a good sign you're wasting everybody's time and *shouldn't* have access to the information you seek.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
The SCOTUS loves to ignore the 9th amendment. They seem to find all these restrictions on civil liberties all over the place, because things aren't explicitly enumerated. Oh wait. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
FTFA.....
Summing up what the court had to say:
1. The government of a state works for the citizens of that state - who pay their salary. Not for non-state residents.
2. Information that is freely available online or at a clerk's office does not need to be provided through a FOIA request.
3. You do not have the right to treat the government of another state like a slave.
Until the government stonewalls.
I used to follow the site illegalsigns.ca until its demise a year or two ago. They quite frequently crowdsourced FOIA requests until somebody in the City department decided they were frivolous. A decent article on what took place: http://torontoist.com/2008/04/no_stonewalling/.
I admit, I haven't read the full thing, but as soon as I made it 1/2 a page in, I had to respond ...
First off, this doesn't seem to be about the federal FOIA, it's about a state's act. And the limit here is that states don't have to respond to people who aren't citizens of their states. The 2006 Lee v. Minner decision (458 F.3d 194) found that Delaware wasn't allowed to have such a clause in their FOIA, so this isn't even going to affect all states.
That being said, I'm an elected municipal official in Maryland (which falls under the Lee vs. Minner ruling, as I understand it) ... and it's possible that we'd get sued under the equivalent Maryland law, as someone recently tried to demand from us *EVERY* *LAST* business transaction that we made for the last 7 years. (I can't remember the exact wording; it's possible that we claim that the report requested was a 'new record' and thus something that didn't exist) Mind you, we have 8 employees, 3 of whom are police officers, and 3 of whom are public works. So that'd mean that we'd have to tie up our accountant or town clerk for weeks to go through all of the records, properly sanitize everything to keep from leaking restricted information (like PII, as we're so small that we have a single system that also handles payroll), which would mean that we couldn't actually serve our citizens in the process.
Why did the person want this it? Because they were starting a website to charge businesses for access to this information.
If a person has a legitimate need for the information, they should be able to get a citizen of the state to file the request on their behalf. How much time has been wasted in Hawaii by responding to birth certificate requests over the last few years?
(note; I have a full time job and don't participate in the day-to-day operations of our town; I have no idea how the request ended up playing out (or if it's finished playing out yet); I believe it was sent to our attorney to deal with)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It seems that State held information is a State matter and not a federal one.
It is interesting that people look upon the US as a monolithic country when it was formed more as a confederation of independent States. The states guard their sovereignty very strongly. The SCOTUS appears to see FOI requests from different states the same as FOI requests from different countries and, as it is the way the US is set up, it should. If a State does not want to respond to FOI requests from different States or countries there is no Federal power that requires them to.
Here is a quote from the decision;
The state FOIA essentially represents a mechanism by which those who ultimately hold sovereign power (i.e., the citizens of the Commonwealth) may obtain an accounting from the public officials to whom they delegate the exercise of that power.
I had to read both TFS and your post multiple times before I understood that "restrict public records access to locals" meant that they are restricting everyone else from accessing those public records.
It was a UNANIMOUS decision. Whatever you may think of Sarah Palin's politics, she was forced to step down as the governor of Alaska because of the cost of out-of-state FOIA requests to such a small state. If this has a cost so prohibitive that the corporations without any employees in a state can actually undermine the will of the voters of the state, then stopping such a practice is a Good Thing(TM).
The people of Virgina can access their information that way. Most of the rest these out-of-state people wanted they got through other means. One guy wanted his own records related to his kids...and got it. Another wanted info already on the Internet by Virginia, and ruling he had to spend a few minutes surfing to get it rather than the cumbersome FOIA process was hardly "burdensome".
Also, there is no constitutional right to records -- it has never been considered so historically, and is something elected officials did because citizens demanded it. Indeed, the right to inspect other peoples' records has historically been seen as a no-no.
So if the records don't concern you directly (you, a court case, property you may want to buy, all of which have mechanisms) and you are not a Virginia citizen, tough shit. FOIA doesn't help you.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.