Group 3: Civil Rights & Public Records
The Application of Public Records Laws in Higher Education
Jennifer Safstrom, Vanderbilt
This project will assess how public records laws have been applied to requests pertaining to public colleges and universities. The balance between transparency and privacy has become a critical issue for public entities generally, but especially for colleges and universities. Public records laws are designed to ensure transparency and accountability in government operations by granting public access to certain records. However, when applied to public colleges and universities, these laws raise unique complexities and challenges. Because of the intricacies associated with public records requests to public higher education institutions, it is important to maintain a balanced approach to public records laws that respects both the need for transparency and the protection of competing interests, such as privacy and academic freedom. This article aims to contribute to legal scholarship by providing a nuanced analysis of the use of public records laws in the context of public higher education. It seeks to offer valuable insights for policymakers, legal practitioners, and higher education administrators in navigating the complex interplay between transparency, privacy, and academic freedom.
Using Judicial Review to Gain Access to Redistricting Records
What may state legislators do to circumvent judicial review of redistricting maps? Some legislators are making it harder for plaintiffs to bring claims against redistricting maps by explicitly exempting redistricting records from their state public records law. More importantly, the public has a right to access these records and their withholding creates an access to justice issue for those unable to litigate to seek the records in discovery. Citizens seeking redistricting records should use the constitutional norm of judicial review of state legislature’s law-making power, recently affirmed in Moore v. Harper, as an enforcement mechanism to gain access to these records.
Only six states provide public access to redistricting records. Four states deny public access to redistricting records. The other forty states are somewhere in between. This paper argues that forty-four states are frustrating courts’ ability to review redistricting maps and plaintiffs can use the principle affirmed in Moore to get related redistricting records. Not only will this benefit those already seeking to bring redistricting lawsuits in building the evidence they need to bring a claim, but providing public access to these records will serve a justice-based purpose in transparency for those unable to afford to bring litigation.