Texas Senate Bill SB 370

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 11/14/24
• Out of Senate Committee: 3/4/25
• Voted on by Senate: 3/11/25
• Out of House Committee: 5/16/25
• Voted on by House: 5/23/25
• Governor Action: 6/20/25

Caption

Relating to the availability of certain personal information of a child, spouse, or surviving spouse of a current or former employee of the office of the attorney general or of a public defender's office.

Summary

SB 370 expands and clarifies Texas confidentiality protections for personal information tied to certain public servants and justice-system personnel. The bill amends Government Code provisions governing public information to make home addresses, home telephone numbers, emergency contact information, Social Security numbers, and family-member status confidential for a broader set of employees and officials, including current and former employees of the Office of the Attorney General and public defender’s offices. It also updates the definition of “family member” for these protections to mean a minor child, adult child, spouse, or surviving spouse. The bill also revises related confidentiality procedures under Section 552.1175 of the Government Code, adding public defender’s office employees to the list of covered individuals and making information submitted on the confidentiality form, and any supplemental information, confidential. It authorizes governmental bodies to redact protected information without seeking an attorney general ruling. In addition, SB 370 amends Tax Code Section 25.025 to extend property tax confidentiality protections to current or former public defender’s office employees, aligning them with other covered public safety, judicial, and law-enforcement-related personnel. The changes apply only to information requests received on or after the effective date, September 1, 2025.

Impact

SB 370 changes the Public Information Act and property tax confidentiality law by expanding the categories of people whose personal identifying information may be withheld from public disclosure. It directly affects governmental bodies responding to open records requests, county appraisal districts handling confidential property records, and the current and former employees and family members of the attorney general’s office and public defender’s offices. The bill also streamlines redaction authority by allowing agencies to withhold protected information without first requesting an attorney general decision.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad support and little visible opposition. It passed the House with unanimous recorded votes on second and third reading, and the available legislative history shows no recorded dissent. The lack of committee transcript material suggests the measure was not especially controversial and was treated as a targeted privacy-and-safety bill for justice-system personnel.

Contention

The main policy issue is the scope of confidentiality protections: SB 370 extends them beyond the attorney general’s office to public defender’s office employees and their family members, and it broadens the definition of family member for these purposes. Supporters are likely to view the bill as a safety and privacy measure for employees who may face heightened risk because of their work. Any potential concern would center on the balance between personal privacy and public access to government records, but no specific opposition or disputed amendments are reflected in the available record.