Dimwit from Downey Defanged

Assembly Bill 1821 got hauled to a Los Angeles chop shop in late June, and what rolled off the lift is a shadow of the bill that had First Amendment lawyers howling. The wilted version of the bill cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee 12-0 on June 30, and it’s parked in Senate Appropriations awaiting an Aug. 3 hearing.

Assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco, D-Downey, spent June trying to dismantle the California Public Records Act before opposition forced her to strip all but one provision — the one she says will lighten the burden of records requests across California.

What’s hiding under the bed? Pacheco didn’t ask for any of it up front; she waited to slip through the back door. The Assembly passed a modest AB 1821 on May 27, 55-12. Two weeks later, safely out of her own chamber, she amended in hourly search fees, a “commercial use” tier and a first-in-the-nation provision letting agencies sue requesters for “malicious intent.” The bill her colleagues voted for is not the bill they got.

And she didn’t write it alone. The rewritten version, as reported by CalMatters, was co-authored by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties — the same League where Pacheco served as Los Angeles Division president and sat on the state board. A former League officer and municipal lawyer carried the League’s language to gut the law that constrains municipalities.

The details previously reported in The Rimfire Report and ChicoSol, before they were removed from AB1821:

• The Search-Fee Barrier The original amended text sets two specific fee tiers requestors would pay for their queries: an administrative fee of $22 per hour and a professional fee of $66 per hour, both subject to cost-of-living adjustments tied to the U.S. Consumer Price Index. Charges for less than a full hour would have been billed in quarter-hour increments. If requestors didn’t fall into a fee-exemption category, fees for even modest records requests could have been excessive for many people.
• Unequal Access and Press Exemptions One of the most controversial aspects of the amended AB 1821 is that it included exemptions for certain groups, including traditional media organizations. Historically, anyone can make a public records request in cities, counties and at the state level.

• The “Malicious Intent” Standard. The most terrifying aspect of the former version of AB 1821 is the bill’s “malicious intent” provision for agency lawsuits, which used a vague legal standard that could result in requestors being sued by public agencies who deem their efforts “malicious.” This would have invited ambiguity and stricter rules that may limit access for everyday Californians who fear litigation. Worst yet, any taxpayer-funded agency accused of misconduct would decide whether the person seeking evidence of that misconduct has “malicious” motives — a determination made by the very institution with the most to lose from disclosure.

As AB 1821 currently stands, Pacheco has managed to keep one stipulation alive: a CPRA request from 10 calendar days to 10 business days or 14 business days for “unusual” circumstances. The bill is set for an Aug. 3 Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, one of three steps before the bill could become law.

The karate black belt who loves to box didn’t get her knockout. She got her hand caught — the fees and the lawsuits were stripped out on June 25, three weeks after her colleagues voted for a bill that no longer existed. What’s left still could buy agencies extra daylight, and the First Amendment Coalition still opposes it.

The bell for the next round rings Aug. 3 in Senate Appropriations. Curious Californians should be ringside.

Quinn’s commentary was originally published in his substack The Rimfire Report.