California Democrats want to make it harder, slower, and more expensive for you to find out what your government is doing. And they've got a bill to prove it.
Assembly Bill 1821, introduced by Assembly member Blanca Pacheco (D-Downey), would slap new fees on public records requests, let agencies drag citizens into court over requests they deem "malicious," and give bureaucrats even more time to stonewall the people paying their salaries.
Critics lined up against it. Then Pacheco rewrote major portions after it cleared the Assembly, blindsiding colleagues and infuriating transparency advocates. The June 10 amendments added hourly fees, a new court process, and longer response timelines. Sacramento Democrats pushed it through anyway.
Under the new version, agencies could charge up to $22.35 per hour in administrative fees and $66.26 per hour in professional fees just to search and review records. Both rates adjust automatically for inflation. Currently, agencies can only charge copying costs. A citizen asking about a police shooting, a pension deal, or a no-bid contract could face a bill in the hundreds or thousands before seeing a single page.
The bill also lets agencies go to court and argue that a requester acted with "malicious intent." If a judge agrees, additional fees pile on, and the agency's obligation to respond is suspended while the case plays out:
"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."
An agency that doesn't want to hand over records can now tie up the request in court indefinitely, billing the requester for the wait.
Response deadlines stretch too. Ten calendar days become 10 business days. The 14-day extension converts to business days as well. A request submitted on a Thursday could sit for over a month before a citizen learns whether responsive records even exist.
Supporters say the bill targets frivolous and AI-generated requests. But "commercial" and "malicious" are the agency's call to make, and yours to fight, at your own expense, after the fact. And if you submitted your request by mail, fax, or an online portal rather than the agency's designated method, the timelines don't apply. The agency can ignore it indefinitely.
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. When the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the ACLU are standing shoulder to shoulder, you've either discovered world peace or written a truly terrible bill. Executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, David Snyder, slammed the bill:
"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."
California would be the first state to explicitly put that power into law. Worth noting: the California Supreme Court already ruled in 2020 that search-and-review fees threaten Californians' constitutional right of access. Pacheco is reviving a mechanism that the state's highest court has already flagged as problematic. The threat of a lawsuit, even a meritless one, is enough to make most people drop their questions and go home.
One advocate called it a "virtual horror show of governmental non-transparency." Another said it would make California "the most secretive state in the country." Snyder put it in starker 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."
Read More: More Access, Less Influence: How California Democrats Are Reshaping Local Government
Is California Targeting Investigative Journalists? Assemblyman DeMaio Sounds the Alarm
Public records laws are how taxpayer groups catch pension abuse, how watchdogs track police misconduct, and how ordinary citizens find out what their government is doing with their money. Fees, delays, and the threat of court burden everyone: not just journalists and activists, but ordinary taxpayers trying to hold their government accountable.
Pacheco's own spokesperson told the media that the idea came from one of her sponsored trips. Pacheco reported more than $45,000 in special-interest-funded travel last year, the most of any California lawmaker: a golf tournament at Pebble Beach, a conference in Maui, a study tour in Spain. She can't remember which one inspired the bill.
AB 1821 has passed the Assembly and is moving through the Senate. It could reach Gavin Newsom's desk before the end of the legislative session, where California's Democratic governor will have to decide whether to sign the most anti-transparency public records law in the country.
Editor’s Note: Help us continue to report the truth about corrupt politicians.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member