The nation’s least populous state may become the next battleground pitting a citizen’s right to privacy against the public right to access information.
At issue is a debate over whether to amend the Wyoming state constitution. The new language would provide that “the right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.”
Here’s how Democratic state senator Chris Rothfuss put it to the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle last week, when a legislative committee advanced the proposal:
“As we look toward the brave new world, recognizing that there has been a lot of federal intrusion of privacy rights recently, it would be incumbent on us to step forward and start protecting those rights or at least show they are a high priority.”
Only 10 other states expressly recognize the right to privacy in their constitutions, the Tribune-Eagle reported. But in these fraught post-Snowden days, there’s greater interest in curbing what law enforcement or even private companies can get a hold of when it comes to citizens’ data in government hands.
But as Jonathan Peters recently wrote for CJR, commitments to personal privacy and open government can be in tension. While the Wyoming proposal faces a long road ahead—the amendment would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority in both houses of the state legislature, and then by voters in a 2016 referendum—media representatives are already starting to push back.
“I’m worried that a constitutional right to privacy may result in a lot of … documents being locked up,” Jim Angell, director of the state press association, told me. “Everybody has a right to privacy, right? And what about crime reports involving public officials? Will they ever see the light of day? There’s a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy — I see a lot of trips to court over this.”
Take inaccuracies in Lynn Cheney’s fishing license application that bubbled up during her aborted US Senate run. “Reporters hopped all over the information,” Angell says. He worries the proposed amendment — a “dumb-ass idea,” in his words — might cut off future access to certain information on public records.
He added:
In Montana, when officials try to pull this crap, there’s [a state] constitutional requirement that the public be given access to public documents to balance it out. Without that language, if this thing is put on the ballot, I can see voters going for it because “right to privacy” is sexy. And then I expect public officials will try to use it all over the damn place.
The proposed amendment is part of a package of bills advanced by a digital privacy task force last week. According to the Tribune-Eagle, they include prohibiting employers from requiring or asking for access to a worker or prospective employee’s social media or email accounts, and expanding and broadening what Wyoming considers “personal identifying information.”
Corey Hutchins is CJR’s correspondent based in Colorado, where he teaches journalism at Colorado College. A former alt-weekly reporter in South Carolina, he was twice named journalist of the year in the weekly division by the SC Press Association. Hutchins writes about politics and media for the Colorado Independent and worked on the State Integrity Investigation at the Center for Public Integrity; he has contributed to Slate, The Nation, the Washington Post, and others. Follow him on Twitter @coreyhutchins or email him at coreyhutchins@gmail.com.