Wisconsin Senate Bill SB927

Wisconsin 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/19/24
• Refer: 1/19/24
• Report Pass: 2/27/24
• Failed: 4/15/24

Caption

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

Impact

The implementation of SB927 would amend existing statutes to provide stringent privacy safeguards specifically tailored for judicial officers. It defines 'personal information' to include addresses, phone numbers, and other sensitive data. Moreover, it establishes rules around how this information can be accessed and shared, constraining data brokers from selling or disclosing such information without explicit consent from the judicial officers or their immediate family members. This act essentially expands the privacy rights of judicial officers, reinforcing their protection against potential threats that may arise due to public disclosures of their personal information.

Summary

Senate Bill 927 focuses on enhancing privacy protections for judicial officers in the state, specifically concerning the handling and disclosure of their personal information. This bill prohibits government agencies from publicly posting any personal details of judicial officers unless a written request is made by the officer to refrain from such disclosures. Upon receiving such a request, agencies are mandated to remove any related information within five business days and ensure that it is not publicly displayed in the future.

Contention

Noteworthy points of contention surrounding SB927 arise primarily related to the balance between privacy and public transparency. Critics of the bill express concerns about the potential for these privacy measures to obscure public access to information that is traditionally available under public records laws. Furthermore, there are discussion points regarding how the bill would affect the nomination process for judicial candidates, as it allows the option for candidates to certify their residence without public disclosure of their home address. This could potentially lead to heightened anonymity for judicial candidates, raising questions about voter transparency and accountability.