SB2170 amends the Illinois Freedom of Information Act to change how the law treats “recurrent requesters,” meaning people who submit a high volume of FOIA requests to the same public body within a 12-month period. The bill lowers the threshold for being classified as a recurrent requester by reducing the number of requests needed in each time window, including the annual, 30-day, and 7-day measures. It also extends the time public bodies have to respond to recurrent requester FOIA requests from 21 business days to 30 business days, and limits how often a public body must give notice that it is treating requests under the recurrent-requester rules.
The bill also adds a new violation: a person designated as a recurrent requester would violate the Act if they knowingly obtain a public record without disclosing that status. In practical terms, the measure would make the recurrent-requester category broader and the associated FOIA process slower and more formal for affected requesters, while giving public bodies more time to respond and manage repeated requests. The bill does not change the general FOIA framework for all requesters, but it specifically tightens and expands the special rules that apply to frequent requesters.
Impact
SB2170 would amend Sections 2 and 3.2 of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, changing the statutory definition of “recurrent requester” and the procedures public bodies must follow when handling those requests. It would reduce the request thresholds from 50 to 40 annual requests, from 15 to 10 requests in 30 days, and from 7 to 5 requests in 7 days, thereby bringing more requesters under the recurrent-requester rules. It would also lengthen the response deadline for those requests to 30 business days and require notice of recurrent-requester treatment only once every 30 days. The bill would affect public bodies statewide and any individuals or organizations that frequently use FOIA, while preserving existing exemptions for news media and certain nonprofit, scientific, academic, and research requests.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available context suggests a neutral-to-supportive policy approach focused on administrative management of FOIA workloads. The bill’s sponsor appears to be seeking to give public bodies more time and structure for handling high-volume requesters. Because there are no transcripts or voting records provided, there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in committee or on the floor.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between government efficiency and public access to records. Supporters would likely argue that lower thresholds and longer deadlines help public bodies manage repetitive or burdensome FOIA activity and reduce administrative strain. Opponents would likely view the bill as making it easier to label requesters as recurrent and slower to receive records, potentially discouraging transparency and burdening watchdogs, journalists, and frequent public-interest requesters. The bill preserves exemptions for news media and certain nonprofit or academic requests, which may reduce concern for those groups, but frequent requesters outside those categories would be most affected.