Citing security threats, California lawmakers want to shield their addresses from public

California lawmakers want to limit public access to their addresses and phone numbers after two Minnesota lawmakers were shot, one fatally, in their homes last month.

One proposal would ban journalists from accessing that information through candidates’ and public officials’ voter registration records, even though there is no indication the Minnesota shooter used those kinds of records to track down his victims.

Officials’ voter registration data is already confidential to most of the public. It is available to a select few, including journalists. But AB 1392, authored by Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins of La Mesa and sponsored by Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office, would eliminate that carve-out and effectively block journalists’ access to politicians’ phone numbers, emails and home addresses and prior voter registration.

“This common-sense bill will protect public servants and their families,” Sharp-Collins told lawmakers during a Tuesday Senate hearing.

Stripping the public of vital information?

But press freedom advocates say they doubt the measure would protect public officials from violence, arguing it would instead strip journalists of vital information they use to keep government officials in check. Journalists often use a politician's residential address to determine if they live in the district they represent and are eligible for office.

“Democracy is founded on the promise of ‘trust but verify.’ We are not required to take the government’s word for it,” said David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, which advocates for public access to government documents and proceedings. “We understand the concerns, but this should not deprive the press of its ability to do fundamental watchdog and accountability reporting.

Sharp-Collins’ chief of staff Michael Lucien said she did not have time for an interview. Her office also did not respond to questions sent by CalMatters via text about how her measure would protect public officials, or whether she believed anyone had used information obtained from their voter registration to target them.

State lawmakers have often cited security concerns in passing laws that limit public disclosure. Last year, they made it harder to access politicians’ phone numbers, home addresses and records about properties they own, all of which they are required to disclose in their economic interest statements. A 2022 law allowed California government workers and contractors to shield their addresses from the public if they fear violence.

This year, as lawmakers pushed to reduce public access, they cited fear of violence when they sought to shield use-of-force reports by peace officers and to restrict data brokers from selling politicians’ personal information.

“Every single year, we see a number of attempts to limit the public’s access to information and access to their lawmakers in person,” said Brittney Barsotti, general counsel of the California News Publishers Association. “(AB 1392) is just another attempt that is concerning.”

Timothy Cromartie, representing Weber’s office, said at a Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendment Committee hearing earlier this month that “escalating threats” to public officials make the measure “an urgent necessity.” He pointed to the slaying of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband last month, the arson on Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home in April, the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump last year and the 2022 hammer attack on former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband at their home.

Pallbearers carry caskets of slain Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman, at the Basilica of Saint Mary’s in Minneapolis on June 28, 2025.

(

Craig Lassig

/

Reuters

)

An earlier version of the measure only applied to state and federal officials. But at the suggestion of the Senate elections committee, it was expanded to apply to local elected officials and candidates for office and allow the secretary of state’s office to make the information private sooner.

But critics doubt the proposal would help prevent tragedies like the Minnesota shootings, where the alleged suspect appeared to have obtained the lawmakers’ home addresses via “people search” sites instead of the voter roll.

They argue that state law lays out a rigorous request process, where those qualified to receive the voter registration information must submit their names and contact information, explain the reason for their request and attest to their honesty under penalty of perjury.

“It seems highly unlikely at best that reporters or others able to take advantage of that carve out under those strict conditions are going to commit crimes with that information,” Loy said.

Loy said the information not only helps journalists fact check officials’ residency claims, but also allows reporters to identify politicians if they did things such as receiving a home as a gift from special interests, or leasing to or renting property from their major donors.

A check on data brokers

Another proposal inspired by the Minnesota tragedy, AB302 by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan of San Ramon, sought to allow politicians to request businesses, including data brokers and media outlets, to take down or refrain from publishing their personal information, opening the organizations up to lawsuits and fines if they do not comply.

An earlier version of the measure risked violating the First Amendment since it could chill and censor legitimate speech, according to a Senate Judiciary Committee analysis. The First Amendment Coalition and the Freedom of the Press Foundation opposed the effort, citing similar concerns, adding that newsrooms could be exposed to frivolous lawsuits simply because politicians do not like stories they publish.

“These demands and lawsuits will chill news outlets from reporting on matters of public concern,” the groups said in a joint letter. “The fact that news outlets will have to defend their reporting as relating to a matter of public concern, potentially through multiple appeals, will cause some to self-censor.”

Bauer-Kahan told CalMatters Monday that her intention was to discourage data brokers from selling politicians’ personal information. She has agreed to amend the measure to instead require the California Privacy Protection Agency to compile a list of politicians and request data brokers to delete their personal information.

“That's not nearly as troubling as giving them … a tool to be weaponized to silence legitimate reporting,” Loy said.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.