By Nick Smith
Gongwer News Service
Senators heard testimony from judicial officials Thursday calling on them to pass legislation shielding their personal identifying information and that of their family members to prevent potential intimidation or physical harm from angry defendants or members of the public.
“Judges … are held accountable just like other public officials, and the best way, I think, to hold judges accountable is through the ballot box, but this is intended to make sure that judges are able to exercise their roles as effectively as possible without any additional intimidation or interference,” Rep. Kelly Breen (D-Novi), sponsor of HB 5724 , told the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee .
Breen said her bill is intended to ensure the safety of judges and their families, without intimidation or interference.
Under HB 5724 , judges would be able to request that a public body or other person not publicly post or display certain information about them or their immediate family members.
Members were told the bill is modeled after federal law and that multiple other states have similar legislation.
Judge Esther Salas of the U.S District Court for the District of New Jersey previously testified before a House panel, outlining the 2020 incident in which a defendant came to her home and fatally shot her son at their doorstep. Her husband, Mark, was also injured in the attack.
She detailed her experience to senators on Thursday.
“The most important thing for all of you to understand is that I didn’t see it coming,” Salas said. “Judges need to be able to do their jobs without fear of retribution, reprisal or death. … We have to make it hard for them to be able to find us. We have to make it harder for them to try to intimidate judges, harass us, and really, I think, jeopardize democracy.”
Senior Judge David McKeague of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals testified in support of the bill. He also mentioned the incident involving the shooter at Salas’s home.
“Until this time, in 2020, we were largely content to be reactive,” McKeague said. “With this tragedy, everything changed, and the need to respond proactively to protect federal judges and their families became paramount to our national judicial security agenda.”
An S-2 substitute was adopted Thursday, but no further action was taken.
Under the substitute, the period in which personal identifying information that is already publicly posted would need to be removed following a judge’s request to a public body would be reduced from 10 business days to five business days.
Further language was added stating public bodies can comply by redacting the specified personal identifying information that is publicly posted or by masking the entire contents of a document or record that contains the information. This change would not alter a public body’s requirement to respond to requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act.
Several items were added to the list of exemptions for which the bill would apply to. These were added to ensure access to a judge and family members’ information does not affect their ability to get a car or home loan or for matters such as those related to insurance or health care.
Multiple new definitions were also added to the bill.
Sen. Jim Runestad (R-White Lake) said he supported the concept but raised questions about instances of a judge owning widespread business assets that might be able to be shielded under the bill.
Runestad used the example of where a judge might have an extensive network of businesses and other properties that could be shielded.
“The problem I’m having is with the idea is that a judge could have a business in Alaska, in Europe, nothing can be disclosed,” Runestad said. “If you have a summer home and you visit it, yeah, that makes sense. But any and every business that a judge owns, this is going backwards.”
He compared the bill to efforts by the Legislature to improve legislative branch and executive branch transparency of financial information to prevent possible conflicts of interest.
Gongwer News Service
Senators heard testimony from judicial officials Thursday calling on them to pass legislation shielding their personal identifying information and that of their family members to prevent potential intimidation or physical harm from angry defendants or members of the public.
“Judges … are held accountable just like other public officials, and the best way, I think, to hold judges accountable is through the ballot box, but this is intended to make sure that judges are able to exercise their roles as effectively as possible without any additional intimidation or interference,” Rep. Kelly Breen (D-Novi), sponsor of HB 5724 , told the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee .
Breen said her bill is intended to ensure the safety of judges and their families, without intimidation or interference.
Under HB 5724 , judges would be able to request that a public body or other person not publicly post or display certain information about them or their immediate family members.
Members were told the bill is modeled after federal law and that multiple other states have similar legislation.
Judge Esther Salas of the U.S District Court for the District of New Jersey previously testified before a House panel, outlining the 2020 incident in which a defendant came to her home and fatally shot her son at their doorstep. Her husband, Mark, was also injured in the attack.
She detailed her experience to senators on Thursday.
“The most important thing for all of you to understand is that I didn’t see it coming,” Salas said. “Judges need to be able to do their jobs without fear of retribution, reprisal or death. … We have to make it hard for them to be able to find us. We have to make it harder for them to try to intimidate judges, harass us, and really, I think, jeopardize democracy.”
Senior Judge David McKeague of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals testified in support of the bill. He also mentioned the incident involving the shooter at Salas’s home.
“Until this time, in 2020, we were largely content to be reactive,” McKeague said. “With this tragedy, everything changed, and the need to respond proactively to protect federal judges and their families became paramount to our national judicial security agenda.”
An S-2 substitute was adopted Thursday, but no further action was taken.
Under the substitute, the period in which personal identifying information that is already publicly posted would need to be removed following a judge’s request to a public body would be reduced from 10 business days to five business days.
Further language was added stating public bodies can comply by redacting the specified personal identifying information that is publicly posted or by masking the entire contents of a document or record that contains the information. This change would not alter a public body’s requirement to respond to requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act.
Several items were added to the list of exemptions for which the bill would apply to. These were added to ensure access to a judge and family members’ information does not affect their ability to get a car or home loan or for matters such as those related to insurance or health care.
Multiple new definitions were also added to the bill.
Sen. Jim Runestad (R-White Lake) said he supported the concept but raised questions about instances of a judge owning widespread business assets that might be able to be shielded under the bill.
Runestad used the example of where a judge might have an extensive network of businesses and other properties that could be shielded.
“The problem I’m having is with the idea is that a judge could have a business in Alaska, in Europe, nothing can be disclosed,” Runestad said. “If you have a summer home and you visit it, yeah, that makes sense. But any and every business that a judge owns, this is going backwards.”
He compared the bill to efforts by the Legislature to improve legislative branch and executive branch transparency of financial information to prevent possible conflicts of interest.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
