By: Julie O’Donoghue | Louisiana Illuminator
Louisiana clerks of court want to limit a law that allows hundreds of elected officials and their families to remove their personal information from online records, including court and mortgage documents.
The Louisiana Clerks of Court Association supports House Bill 67, which would no longer allow public officials to demand redactions of personal details — such as their birthdates and addresses — from online documents the clerks oversee. The affected documents include divorce proceedings, criminal court records, civil lawsuits, mortgages, deeds, leases and other property records.
“We would be doing nothing but redacting records all day long for these people” if the law remains as it is, said Debbie Hudnall, executive director of the clerks association. “It is going to be costly.”
A 2025 Louisiana law allows current and retired judges and family members who live in the judge’s homes to insist that certain personal information be removed from websites and social media post. At the beginning of this month, the law was expanded to cover several hundred more public officials.
Current legislators, statewide elected officials and public service commissioners as well as current or retired district attorneys, assistant district attorneys and district attorney investigators can now demand the same personal information be removed from the internet. Family members who live with a protected individual are also entitled to these redactions.
The information that must be taken down upon request include their personal email accounts, cellphone numbers, birthdays, school or daycare of a child, marital records, employment location of a spouse or child, and places of worship.
The clerks of court simply don’t have enough staff to respond to these types of requests, Hudnall said. It’s also not clear whether clerks would have to monitor the enforcement of the law personally. For example, the clerks are unclear whether they would be responsible for restoring personal information that had been redacted once an elected official left office.
Hudnall said clerks were initially told their databases would be exempt from redaction requests because their online records are only available through a paid subscription, but the law doesn’t allow for that type of exemption.
U.S. District Court Judge Will Crain used the law to seal his divorce records held by the St. Tammany Parish Clerk of Court. At the time, Crain was a Louisiana Supreme Court associate justice.
The only government entity explicitly excused from complying with the online redaction requests is the Secretary of State’s office, which handles business filings, voter registration and election candidate qualification forms. Clerks of court would like a similar exemption.
“We’re trying to remove the clerks, same as you do the Secretary of State,” said Rep. Tony Bacala, R-Gonzales, who is sponsoring the bill.
The Louisiana Board of Ethics is also interested in a similar exemption but doesn’t have legislation filed on its behalf yet. It handles political campaign finance forms and personal financial disclosure documents for public officials.
The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, which advocates for government transparency, supports Bacala’s legislation.
The hasty way state lawmakers voted on the expansion of the privacy law last year is partly to blame for problems with its implementation, according to the organization.
Legislators amended the existing law to expand the redaction entitlement to themselves, statewide elected officials and public service commissioners during the very last days of the session. Public hearings on the bill had already closed, making it difficult for outside groups to comment on the legislation.
“Laws affecting public records should undergo full hearings so citizens can weigh in,” Public Affairs Research Council executive director Steven Procopio said. “That process can help narrow overly expansive and punitive language and keep legislators from having to propose cleanup bills, as we’re seeing now.”
But Bacala’s bill doesn’t go far enough to fix the problems the original law created, according to Bruce Hamilton, director of Tulane University’s First Amendment Clinic, because it does nothing to address its threats to free speech.
“In my opinion, the proposed bill is a little like putting lipstick on a pig,” Hamilton wrote in an email. “In other words, it would make a deeply flawed law look a little less bad, but it’s still terrible.”
The law applies to more than just government agencies, like clerks of court. Its provisions also allow protected officials to control personal information private citizens and organizations post about them on websites and social media accounts.
Those who refuse to take down information about a covered person could be subject to lawsuits and misdemeanor criminal charges.
This means elected officials can now sue a constituent if they share the officials’ birthday, church or where their spouse works in a personal Facebook or TikTok post. Violators also face up to 90 days in jail or a $1,000 fine for not complying.
“If a reporter publishes a profile of a lawmaker and writes about where the lawmaker goes to church, that violates this ridiculous law,” Hamilton said. “If any person posts on social media that a retired commissioner goes to their church, that violates this ridiculous law.”
“The result is both a chilling effect on free speech and a caste system for privacy rights. Everyone is entitled to privacy, but this law gives special rights to public officials that ordinary citizens like you and me don’t have,” he added.