SACRAMENTO — California Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco introduced amendments to Assembly Bill 1821 in early June, which would allow local governments to charge fees for public records requests classified as commercial and pursue lawsuits against requesters deemed to have malicious intent.

Under AB 1821, a judge could impose hourly fees ranging from $22 to $66 to cover the cost of local government staff time spent on locating and reviewing records. The bill would also enable agencies to restrict public records submission methods, including limiting acceptance to phone calls or emails during standard business hours. Current California law permits government agencies to deny requests deemed unduly burdensome, and courts have often supported agencies in denying overly broad requests if the public interest served was unclear. The Oakland City Council unanimously voted to support AB 1821. Oakland Council President Kevin Jenkins had previously introduced a resolution supporting an earlier version of the legislation.

David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, said the bill would represent a setback for government transparency and accountability. "This bill would be a giant step backward on the government transparency and accountability front, putting California among the states that are the worst on access to government records. It would move California in exactly the wrong direction at exactly the wrong time. With the fundamentals of democracy under regular attack from Washington, the last thing California should do is follow suit," Snyder said.

Pacheco, representing Downey, defended the amendments by citing the burden of extensive requests on local governments. "Some cases span years of records, require review of hundreds of thousands of documents, and take months or longer to complete. My home city of Downey has seen a 73% increase of records requests since 2019," Pacheco said. Previously, in late May, Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks and Mia Bonta voted to advance AB 1821 from the Assembly Chamber to the State Senate, though that prior version would have only extended response deadlines for officials by several days. The restrictive provisions now in the bill were part of the original February draft but were removed by assembly colleagues before a prior vote. Cityside opposes the amended version of AB 1821.

Donald Larkin, a lawyer at Burke Williams and Sorensen working with the League of California Cities, stated: "One person sent a public records request in 2023 to every city in five Bay Area counties asking for all emails sent to all public officials." Oakland Councilmember Zac Unger indicated that he required additional time to review the amended bill language.