Californias Democratic majority is advancing a measure that would make it more difficult, more time-consuming, and more expensive for citizens to find out what their own government is doing.
Assembly Bill 1821, authored by Assembly member Blanca Pacheco (DDowney), represents a sweeping attempt to weaken Californias landmark public records law, according to RedState. The proposal would impose new fees on records requests, empower government agencies to haul requesters into court over supposedly malicious inquiries, and extend the time bureaucrats have to respond, all while taxpayers continue footing the bill for the very officials trying to keep them in the dark.
The bills path has been as troubling as its contents. Critics lined up early, only to be blindsided when Pacheco rewrote major portions of the measure after it had already cleared the Assembly, prompting outrage from transparency advocates who saw the June 10 amendments as a bait-and-switch.
Those amendments dramatically altered the stakes for ordinary Californians seeking basic information about their government. They added hourly fees, a new court process targeting requesters, and longer response timelines, yet Sacramento Democrats pushed the revamped bill forward anyway, signaling a clear preference for shielding agencies over serving citizens.
Under the revised language, agencies would be allowed to charge up to $22.35 per hour in administrative fees and $66.26 per hour in professional fees simply to search for and review records, with both rates automatically indexed to inflation. At present, agencies are limited to charging only the direct costs of copying, meaning a resident asking about a police shooting, a pension arrangement, or a no-bid contract could suddenly face a bill in the hundreds or even thousands of dollars before seeing a single page.
The bill goes further by inviting agencies to drag requesters into court under the vague accusation of malicious intent. If a judge agrees with the agencys claim, additional fees can be imposed and the agencys duty to respond is put on hold while the case winds its way through the legal system:
"An agency may petition the superior court for a determination that a requester submitted a request with malicious intent, including for the purpose of delaying the agency. If the court determines that the request was submitted with malicious intent, the agency may impose on the requester, in addition to any other applicable fees, a payment of fees to cover the search and review time for the request. The agency's duty to respond to the request shall be suspended during the pendency of any court proceedings under this subparagraph."
In practice, that means any agency disinclined to release records can now weaponize the courts to stall indefinitely, while the requester racks up legal exposure and mounting costs. The mere threat of being sued by ones own governmentregardless of the meritsis enough to deter many citizens from ever filing a request in the first place.
The measure also quietly stretches the statutory response deadlines that have long served as a minimal safeguard against stonewalling. What is now a 10-calendar-day deadline becomes 10 business days, and the existing 14-day extension is likewise converted to business days, so a request filed on a Thursday could languish for more than a month before the requester even learns whether responsive records exist.
Supporters of AB 1821 insist the bill is aimed at curbing frivolous or AI-generated requests that they claim burden agencies. Yet the key determinationswhether a request is commercial or maliciousare left to the unilateral judgment of the agency, forcing citizens to challenge those labels at their own expense and only after the fact, and if a request is submitted by mail, fax, or an online portal rather than the agencys preferred method, the statutory timelines simply do not apply and the agency can ignore it indefinitely.
The breadth of opposition underscores how radical the proposal is. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the First Amendment Coalition, ACLU California Action, the California News Publishers Association, Oakland Privacy, and Buen Vecino all signed a formal letter of opposition, and when the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the ACLU are aligned, it usually signals either a rare moment of consensusor, in this case, a truly egregious piece of legislation.
David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, condemned the bill in stark terms. "It would be easily weaponized by agencies seeking to thwart transparency and accountability. For decades, California law has been clear that state and local agencies cannot sue records requesters."
If enacted, California would become the first state to explicitly grant agencies this power to sue those who seek information. That move comes despite a 2020 California Supreme Court ruling that search-and-review fees threaten the state constitutional right of access, meaning Pacheco is effectively reviving a mechanism the states highest court has already warned is constitutionally suspect.
The chilling effect is obvious: most ordinary citizens, faced with the possibility of litigation and escalating fees, will simply abandon their efforts to question government actions. One advocate has already described the bill as a "virtual horror show of governmental non-transparency," while another warned it would make California "the most secretive state in the country."
Snyder framed the stakes in broader civic terms. "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."
Public records laws are not a niche concern for journalists alone; they are the tools by which taxpayer groups uncover pension abuses, watchdogs expose police misconduct, and ordinary residents learn how their money is being spent. By layering on fees, delays, and the looming threat of court, AB 1821 would burden everyonefrom professional investigators to everyday taxpayerswho dares to hold government accountable.
The origins of the bill only deepen public skepticism. Pachecos own spokesperson admitted to the media that the idea for AB 1821 emerged from one of her sponsored trips, and Pacheco reported more than $45,000 in special-interest-funded travel last year, including a golf tournament at Pebble Beach, a conference in Maui, and a study tour in Spain, yet she now claims she cannot recall which junket inspired the legislation.
AB 1821 has already cleared the Assembly and is now moving through the state Senate, putting it on track to reach Governor Gavin Newsoms desk before the legislative session ends. If it does, Californias Democratic governor will face a defining choice: whether to sign what critics call the most anti-transparency public records law in the nation, or to reject a measure that would further insulate an already powerful state bureaucracy from the citizens it is supposed to serve.
Login