Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB966

Wisconsin 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/16/24
• Refer: 1/16/24
• Report Pass: 2/7/24
• Refer: 2/7/24
• Engrossed: 2/15/24
• Refer: 2/19/24
• Enrolled: 3/15/24
• Chaptered: 3/28/24
• Passed: 3/28/24

Caption

Privacy protections for judicial officers, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty. (FE)

Impact

The passage of AB966 modifies existing laws regarding public access to records and information pertaining to judicial officers. By amending statutes related to privacy protections, the legislation limits access to personal details such as home addresses and contact numbers, designating such information as non-public unless explicit consent is provided. This change has significant implications for how public information is managed and disclosed, especially concerning the safety of those in judicial positions.

Summary

Assembly Bill 966, enacted as Wisconsin Act 235, primarily focuses on privacy protections for judicial officers. The bill introduces extensive measures to safeguard the personal information of individuals serving in the judicial system, allowing them to request their data be kept confidential by government agencies and data brokers. This act aims to mitigate risks associated with public disclosure of sensitive information, thus enhancing the safety and security of judicial officers and their immediate families.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding AB966 has been supportive, particularly among law enforcement and judicial associations, who argue that the new privacy measures are critical for protecting officers from potential threats. However, there have been concerns raised about the implications this may have on transparency and public access to information, particularly in balancing privacy rights against the public's right to know. This has led to a mixed reception among advocates for transparency in government processes.

Contention

One notable point of contention related to the bill lies in defining what constitutes adequate privacy protection for judicial officers without infringing on transparency. Some stakeholders worry that overly restrictive privacy measures could impede the public's ability to hold judicial officers accountable. The debate focuses on protecting individual safety while ensuring that societal interests in transparency and access to court-related information are not severely compromised.