S0721 creates the “Legislative Personal Privacy Protection Act,” a new article in Title 30 of the South Carolina Code that allows current and former members of the General Assembly to request that certain personal contact information be restricted from public display in disclosed records on publicly available state or local government websites. The protected information includes a legislator’s home address, personal cellular telephone number, and, where applicable, tax map number. To invoke the protection, the legislator must submit a designated form and a notarized affidavit verifying current or former service.
The bill sets out how the restriction works and when it does not apply. It preserves the underlying official records but bars the restricted information from appearing in online indexes or images of records. It also allows disclosure in limited circumstances, such as by subpoena, court order, written consent, or to another governmental agency, and it preserves access for certain professionals including title insurers, attorneys, and surveyors. The bill also requires the Legislative Services Agency to create the request form and specifies that the form is agency-specific and does not automatically carry over to other entities or later changes in contact information.
Impact
The bill would add a new statutory privacy mechanism for legislators, requiring state and local agencies to suppress specified personal contact information from publicly available online records upon request. It would affect records maintained by registers of deeds and other governmental websites, while leaving the official records themselves intact and preserving other public information not specifically covered by the act. It also creates a court-enforcement remedy for eligible legislators and provides immunity from liability for state and local governmental employees and their agents for claims arising from the presence of personal contact information in public records.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the overall sentiment appears protective and administrative rather than controversial on its face. The measure is framed as a privacy and safety provision for current and former legislators, with detailed procedures intended to make compliance straightforward for agencies. No formal vote history or transcript comments are provided, so there is no documented support or opposition in the supplied materials.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are the scope of the privacy exemption and the burden it places on public-record systems. Critics could question why current and former legislators receive a special restriction not broadly available to other public officials or citizens, while supporters would likely argue that elected officials face heightened privacy and security concerns. Another possible issue is implementation: agencies must manage redaction in indexes and images, track subsequent address changes, and handle exceptions for title work, legal practice, and surveying, which may create administrative complexity.