Friday, September 06, 2019

Washington: Parson continuing to use First Amendment ploy to keep public information secret

(From Rep. Barbara Washington, D-Kansas City)

Gov. Mike Parson intends to keep invoking the First Amendment to redact information from public documents, even after Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s office advised him that there is ample legal authority in opposition to practice and none in support of it, The Kansas City Star reported on Aug. 30.

Parson, a Republican, began using the novel legal argument that the First Amendment somehow allows government to redact basic personal information – such as people’s home or business addresses, phone numbers and email addresses – earlier this year in response to records requests under the state Sunshine Law.

Parson’s claim has been ridiculed by open records experts as wholly unsupported by any legal authority.








Among the various rights guaranteed by the First Amendment is the right to petition government for redress of grievances. However, the language of that clause makes no mention of shielding certain information in public documents from public disclosure and no court has ever ruled it does so. In a 2010 case from Washington state, the U.S. Supreme Court said disclosing the names and addresses of referendum petition signers didn’t violate the First Amendment.

In May, State Auditor Nicole Galloway, a Democrat, wrote to Schmitt, whom Parson appointed as attorney general in January, asking for a formal opinion as to whether Parson’s invocation of the First Amendment is legally sound. 

Although Schmitt has yet to issue that opinion, as he is required by statute to do, in a letter to Parson dated Aug. 29, Schmitt noted that Missouri’s Sunshine Law doesn’t allow for blanket redactions of personal information and advised the governor against relying on the First Amendment in support of that practice.

Related articles


KC STAR:  "Why is Missouri Gov. Mike Parson ignoring the AG and withholding public records?"


KC STAR:  "Governor will still withhold records from public, despite letter from attorney general"

No comments: