A growing battle over government transparency is unfolding in California as free speech advocates, news publishers, and public records supporters push back against a state bill they argue would make it more difficult and expensive for citizens to obtain information about government activities.
Assembly Bill 1821, introduced by Assembly member Blanca Pacheco, has drawn increasing scrutiny after significant changes were made to the legislation. The measure originally focused on extending the amount of time government agencies would have to respond to public records requests. However, critics say the revised version goes much further by creating new financial and legal hurdles for those seeking access to public information.
Under the updated proposal, government agencies could charge substantial fees for the time employees spend locating records that are otherwise publicly available. The bill would establish an administrative fee of $22.35 per hour and a professional fee of $66.26 per hour, with both rates subject to future cost-of-living increases.
Transparency advocates argue that the new fee structure represents a major shift from current practice, where agencies generally may charge only for the cost of copying records. Opponents fear the changes could significantly increase the cost of obtaining government documents and discourage public oversight of government operations.
The measure has generated even stronger criticism because of a provision dealing with what agencies consider “malicious intent.” Under the proposal, a government entity that believes a requester is acting with malicious intent could seek a court determination on the matter. During that process, the records request could be placed on hold until the court reaches a decision.
The First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit organization focused on free speech and government accountability, has strongly criticized the provision. Executive Director David Snyder warned that allowing agencies to pursue court action against records requesters could be used to obstruct transparency efforts.
Snyder argued that California law has long prevented state and local agencies from suing people who request public records, and he contends that the new language could be used by agencies seeking to avoid public scrutiny.
Supporters of the legislation reject those concerns. A spokesperson for Pacheco said the bill is intended to help smaller government entities manage burdensome requests that can consume large amounts of staff time and public resources.
Backers of the measure point to examples such as a records request involving El Dorado County that sought communications between the county and four email domains over a five-year period. According to supporters, the request generated more than 42,000 potential records and remained broad despite efforts to narrow its scope.
Pacheco’s office said the malicious-intent provision is designed for rare situations in which records requests are allegedly used to disrupt government operations, harass employees, or consume excessive public resources. The office emphasized that the court process serves as a safeguard and does not authorize penalties or damages against requesters.
Supporters further note that the fee provisions are aimed primarily at commercial entities seeking records for profit, such as data brokers, rather than members of the news media or educational institutions.
Graham Knaus, CEO of the California State Association of Counties, defended the proposal, arguing that any determination of malicious intent would be made by an impartial court rather than the government agency itself. He also pointed to the rise of artificial intelligence as making it easier to generate massive records requests that can impose significant costs on local governments.
Still, opponents remain unconvinced. Snyder warned that the legislation could create a chilling effect on public access to government information at a time when transparency and accountability remain central concerns in American democracy.
The bill has already passed the California Assembly and is now moving through the state Senate. Lawmakers have until the end of August to send legislation to the governor for consideration.
[READ MORE: White House Retires Long-Serving Air Force One as Qatari Jet Nears Presidential Service]
