Leftist lawmakers were accused of taking a “backward step toward unaccountability” after a change to a state bill appeared aimed “to thwart transparency.”
In case objections to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and ongoing fraud investigations hadn’t already demonstrated Democrats’ desire to maintain secrecy, public records requests may soon be subject to fees and potential court scrutiny in California.
As it concerns California Assembly Bill 1821, Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco (D) amended the language that the legislation no longer seeks to just extend the timeline of responses to record requests, but also provides court oversight on top of administrative and “professional” fees.
“It would be easily weaponized by agencies seeking to thwart transparency and accountability, as has already happened elsewhere in the country,” said First Amendment Coalition executive director David Snyder in a report by the California Post.
Under the latest version of the bill, an administrative fee of $22.35 per hour could be imposed, as well as a $66.26 per hour “professional fee” for time staff is required to facilitate record requests, both subject to cost-of-living increases. Additionally, if a request is perceived as “malicious intent” by the government, the request would then be subject to court oversight, leading to a potential hold for review.
“For decades, California law has been clear that state and local agencies cannot sue records requesters,” remarked Snyder. “The fundamentals of democracy are being tested now in America. It is exactly the wrong time for California to take the serious backward step toward unaccountability.”
In response to the framing of the legislative effort, a spokesperson for Pacheco argued to the Post that the bill is meant to address unreasonable records requests made to smaller government entities, especially as artificial intelligence has increased the ease with which such steps can be made.
“The malicious-intent provision is intended to address the rare circumstances which the Public Records Act is being used to disrupt agency operations, harass staff, or consume disproportionate public resources without a corresponding public benefit,” said the spokesperson.
Speaking in support of the legislation, California State Association of Counties CEO Graham Knaus made the case that court involvement would be rare and said, “We believe that taxpayers should not be forced to bear the cost of an AI business model for those that are attempting to overwhelm the ability of local governments to provide services to our residents.”
The new language of AB 1821 comes as California also faces backlash over lawmakers’ alleged stand against transparency following the introduction of Assembly Bill 2624, dubbed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” described as criminalizing investigative journalism.
Worth noting, Pacheco also happens to be a leader of the Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee, with state Sen. John Laird (D) responsible for managing the Capitol Annex Project, which has repeatedly been called out over a lack of transparency.
Reporter calls out Newsom about his own $1.1B ‘ballroom’ equivalent cloaked in secrecy, his response says it all https://t.co/nVZYJjPLWZ
— BPR (@BIZPACReview) October 29, 2025
Native of Brooklyn, NY, Kevin Haggerty is a graduate of Hunter College where he studied Cultural Anthropology and Geography. An avid reader and truth seeker, he currently resides in Texas with his wife and their dog and, when he isn't researching current events and their impacts, you'll find him spending time with friends and family or working on his next novel.
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.