The recent assassinations of Minnesota Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and the shootings of Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, may intensify an ongoing debate over whether officials’ personal addresses should be publicly accessible. The debate centers around two conflicting principles: the demand for transparency and government accountability versus concerns about the risk of making sensitive information public.
Navigating Public Records: What the Laws Say
U.S. public records laws typically consider most government-held information to be public record, unless specific exemptions apply. These exemptions, often codified in state law or determined by court interpretation, can protect sensitive information ranging from Social Security numbers and state employees’ private health information to details about critical infrastructure.
Some transparency advocates argue that public access to certain information, such as officials’ addresses, helps ensure accountability. For instance, journalists might use this information to confirm identities or verify residency eligibility for candidates running for office. On the other hand, increased threats against public officials raise concerns about potential physical dangers to those whose personal information is easily accessible online.
Most legislatures are subject to state public records laws. However, many states have exemptions, most commonly for communications and working papers related to bill drafting. In other states, the work of legislators may be mostly or entirely exempt. Some legislatures are excluded from the definition of an agency or public body that is subject to state public records law; others are covered by separate public records statutes; and still others have broad authority to set their own public records policies and processes. These laws also are subject to court interpretation based on constitutional provisions and common law.
State Approaches to Privacy
Most states do not exempt lawmakers’ home addresses from public records requirements, but legislatures may have flexibility on where they can be accessed. For instance, there are generally no requirements to make addresses available on the legislature’s public website. In light of the recent violence, several states removed the home addresses of state lawmakers from their websites.
For example, in North Dakota, the law prohibits the release of addresses for prosecutors, judges, and probation and law enforcement officers. Public employees, minors and victims of crime may have their addresses protected, but it is not required. Statute does not explicitly address the privacy of members of the legislative branch; however, the state recently opted to remove the information from its public-facing webpages.
Similar tragedies and threats to the safety of public officials have led to legislative action in recent years. New Jersey lawmakers enacted the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2021 to prohibit disclosure of personal information, including home addresses, for judicial officers, prosecutors, law enforcement officers and their families.
The law was named for Daniel Anderl, the son of federal Judge Esther Salas, who was shot to death in a targeted attack at the judge’s home that also wounded her husband, Mark Anderl.
In addition to exempting the information from public records, the new law established criminal penalties and a civil action for disclosure of protected information. Efforts to expand these protections to elected officials and candidates for elected office were rejected by the Legislature in 2022.
Legislatures Respond to Recent Incidents
New Mexico officials also have addressed the accessibility of lawmakers’ personal information in recent years. Following the events in Minnesota, The Associated Press reported that New Mexico deleted all legislators’ home addresses from the Statehouse website as a precaution.
However, some personal information had already been restricted after drive-by shootings in 2022 and 2023 targeted four Democratic lawmakers in Albuquerque. New Mexico SB 180 directed the secretary of state to promulgate rules allowing elected or appointed public officials to designate their home address as confidential in election and financial disclosures. That information would then also be exempt from the state’s public records act and could not be posted on a government website.
California has one of the more comprehensive laws, preventing people, businesses, associations, and state and local agencies from posting the addresses or telephone numbers of elected or appointed officials and their family members. The law provides a cause of action for injunctive or declarative release and authorizes courts to impose a $1,000 fine for violations.
Separate provisions also restrict sharing the home address or telephone number of an official if the person intends to cause harm. The law creates a civil cause of action and provides for damages in the event of a violation.
The Florida Legislature passed similar legislation in 2025 (SB 268), which exempts certain personal information of state legislators from the state’s public records law, including their home addresses and information related to their families. That bill, currently awaiting the signature of Gov. Ron Desantis, would take effect July 1.
Will Clark is a program principal in NCSL’s Center for Legislative Strengthening.
Amber Widgery is a program principal in NCSL’s Civil and Criminal Justice Program.