House Bill 923 creates a new process for certain judicial personnel to request removal of personal identifying information from public-facing websites, databases, and geographic information systems maintained by state, county, and city agencies. The bill applies to a defined group of “judicial officials,” including judges, magistrates, prosecutors, public defenders, assistant attorneys general, federal prosecutors, federal judges, clerks of superior court, and resource prosecutors. Covered information includes residential addresses, personal phone numbers, certain identifying information, and copies of birth and marriage certificates, while the person’s name remains excluded from the removal definition.
Under the bill, public agencies must establish a process to receive written requests, remove the specified information, keep the request confidential, and refrain from reposting the information unless the requester later revokes the request. The bill also clarifies that the removed information remains a public record if it would otherwise be subject to disclosure, and it provides immunity for agencies and their personnel acting in good faith to implement the law. The act would take effect January 1, 2027.
HB923 would amend North Carolina public records and local government information-disclosure laws, including Chapter 132 and related provisions governing computer databases, GIS systems, and personnel-file protections for sworn law enforcement officers. It requires state, county, and city agencies that publish public records online to honor removal requests from qualifying judicial officials and to maintain confidentiality around those requests. It also extends similar privacy protections to GIS databases and reinforces existing limits on disclosure of certain law-enforcement-officer information in county and municipal personnel records.
The available legislative history shows no recorded committee transcript or roll-call vote, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the materials provided. The bill’s title and structure suggest a generally protective, security-oriented purpose aimed at reducing public exposure of sensitive personal information for judicial personnel and related officials. The absence of recorded votes or discussion makes the overall sentiment difficult to measure, but the committee substitute favorable action indicates at least some support at the committee stage.
The main policy tension in HB923 is between privacy and transparency. Supporters are likely to view the bill as a targeted safety measure for judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and other justice-system personnel whose home addresses and contact information can create security risks. Potential concerns could come from open-government advocates or public-records stakeholders worried that the bill adds another carve-out to public access laws, especially because it applies to online databases and GIS systems maintained by public agencies. Another possible point of contention is the breadth of the covered officials and the inclusion of spouses’ information, as well as the requirement that agencies remove information upon request while still preserving its status as a public record.