Eye On Illinois: Some legislation inevitably invites followup litigation

The spring General Assembly session just ended, which means you can’t toss a pebble without landing on a new law awaiting the governor’s signature.

As a reminder, every piece of approved legislation – in addition to whatever sponsors or detractors promise and predict – is potential fodder for a lawsuit.

Sometimes the challenges to the law itself are on deck even before the chief executive puts pen to paper. Occasionally the legal beef is more about the legislative schedule and rules than the actual bill contents.

But today we’re talking about the kind of litigation a new law might portend: a civil lawsuit seeking to ask a court to impose penalties for something newly made illegal.

There are many provisions under House Bill 4488, originally introduced as “Crohn’s and Colitis Awareness” before being gutted and rebranded as the Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act. Capitol News Illinois has an excellent summary of the overall package, but I’d like to focus narrowly on a provision clarifying public access to the state voter registration list:

“Except during the 27 days immediately preceding any election, the State Board of Elections shall make available to the public the statewide voter registration list, allowing for redaction of telephone numbers, Social Security numbers, street numbers of home addresses, birth dates, identifiable portions of email addresses and other highly sensitive personal information.”

According to CNI, a 2020 lawsuit challenged the policy of limiting access to the voter registration database to government bodies and registered political committees. That led to a court order requiring public access to the digital files, for a fee, along with in-person inspection in Springfield.

Rather than stipulate the conditions under how data could be used, the plan addresses what is forbidden: “any personal, private, or commercial purpose, including, but not limited to, the intimidation, threat, or deception of any person or the advertising, solicitation, sale or marketing of products or services.”

That description seems to invite a lawsuit in which a judge or jury will decide if someone was deceptive, threatening or intimidating, or the line between “personal” use and a “government” function (as in, when does a citizen become a politician?)

The only real penalty for violation seems to be allowing the State Board of Elections to deny requests for data access to people or entities already subject to a court order finding them in violation. As a result, a plausible inference is that anyone can abuse the system at least once until the aggrieved party gets the justice system to intervene.

I generally support as much government data being made public as possible. This law moves the state in that direction, with practical safeguards, but the road is likely paved with a few speed bumps.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. Follow him on X @sth749. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.