[Update]

Monday, March 17, Freedom of Information Oklahoma awarded the Oklahoma Supreme Court its inaugural Black Hole award for its new rules.

The justices received the award for roadblocking freedom of information by establishing new rules addressing content on the Internet.

[Original Post Below]

Today begins what is known as Sunshine Week. From the Sunshine Week website:

Sunshine Week is a national initiative to open a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. Participants include print, broadcast and online news media, civic groups, libraries, non-profits, schools and others interested in the public’s right to know.

Sunshine Week is led by the American Society of Newspaper Editors and is funded primarily by a challenge grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation of Miami.

Though spearheaded by journalists, Sunshine Week is about the public’s right to know what its government is doing, and why. Sunshine Week seeks to enlighten and empower people to play an active role in their government at all levels, and to give them access to information that makes their lives better and their communities stronger.

Sunshine Week is a non-partisan initiative whose supporters are conservative, liberal and everything in between.

If you live in Oklahoma, and have been awake the last week, you are sure to have heard by now that the Oklahoma Supreme Court has issued new rules ordering the redaction of some personal information from court filings (which most folks, myself included, don’t object to, though it might be well for us to revisit just what information should be redacted at a later time) and eliminating the availability of court filings online. This was regarded by the WynnBlog, journalists, bloggers, politicians, and even some members of the Supreme Court as huge blow for public records and open government.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Marion Opala did not even vote (for or against) in the new rules decision. Knowing Opala to be a great supporter of First Amendment rights, I wondered why he had not participated. The answer seems to indicate his continued disdain for the rest of the Court:

Five justices voted for the rules. Two agreed with part of the policy and disagreed with the rest. Justice Steven Taylor voted against the new policy and Opala chose not to vote even though he opposes it.

“I decided not to participate in that brouhaha because I’ve been in enough controversies with the court,” Opala said.

(You may remember Opala as the justice who sued the rest of the Supremes because they changed their long-standing rules of order to deny him the position of Chief Justice. He succeeded in the district court, but the federal court, saying it had no power to remedy the situation, remanded the case and ordered the district court to dismiss it with prejudice, and the U.S. Supremes refused to hear Opala’s appeal. I think it goes without saying that there is likely a little tension between Opala and his colleagues.)

Opala was also quoted in the NewsOK article as saying:

“How can you keep public records from public knowledge?”… “I don’t understand how anybody who is a lawyer can say that a government can ration, censor or screen public records from the public. There’s just no way.”

In a NewsOK.com Sunshine Week interview with Oklahoma Attorney Drew Edmondson, with whom I have more than a few differences, the AG stated that he believes the new rules go too far, and that he agrees more with the dissent than the majority opinion. Interestingly, that appears to be an opinion he shares with his brother, Vice Chief Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, James Edmondson, who joined in Justice Yvonne Kauger’s opinion concurring in part (redaction) and dissenting in part (online access). In pertinent part, the article states:

[Bryan Dean, NewsOK staff writer]: Are you troubled by the state Supreme Court’s recent decision to take many court records off the Internet and limit identifying information in court documents?

[Drew Edmondson]: I would tend to agree more with the dissent than the majority. I’ve read the rules that have been handed down. I think some of them are prudent in an effort to avoid identity theft. Some of them may have gone too far. The section which deals with Internet access says at the end that this may be subject to further review, and it doesn’t go into effect until June. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Supreme Court didn’t take a second look at that particular provision. It’s hard to justify a record that is otherwise open that anyone can go down to the courthouse and see not being available on the Internet. I don’t see the rationale for that and I think the court would be well-advised to take another look at it.

The article quoting Opala further states that the Court is welcoming public comment:

The chief justice also is welcoming public comments. Comments can be e-mailed to Michael Evans, the administrative director of the courts, at michael.evans@oscn.net.

So fire up those email clients and let the court know what you think about this drastic new change. But, don’t hold your breath for changes. The article concludes with Opala responding as to whether the Court will actually revisit the rule change:

“It’s difficult to predict. At times, they dig in when there is a public outcry,” he said. “To me, it was shocking that they took the position to begin with. In the face of the First Amendment, there just isn’t any question.”

I know five justices who look pretty tempting as “No” votes on the Oklahoma judiciary retention ballot later this year.

—————————————

For more open records info, visit:

• Freedom of Information Oklahoma
• Sunshine Week Website
• NewsOK.com’s Right to Know Page (lots of great links for Oklahoma)