California judges want to keep financial reports off the Web

California judges want to keep financial reports off the Web


By Howard Mintz

hmintz@mercurynews.com

mercurynews.com

Posted: 03/10/2012 02:26:40 PM PST

March 11, 2012 6:27 AM GMT Updated: 03/10/2012 10:27:48 PM PST

For the past two years, California has required elected public officials -- from county supervisors to state senators -- to post their financial disclosure information on the Web.

But one group has avoided the requirement and is now resisting the regulation: California's more than 1,700 judges. They say flinging their personal financial statements through cyberspace poses worrisome privacy and security risks that outweigh the public's right to easy access to the records.

The issue will come to a head this week when the Fair Political Practices Commission considers whether to impose its 2010 regulation on the judiciary. The commission is expected to hear testimony from members of the California Judges Association, which has taken the lead in raising concerns about disclosing the data online.

Specifically, judges worry that angry litigants or families of those sentenced to prison may look to retaliate against them -- and will turn to the Web for quick information that might make them easier targets.

"There is a concern about safety," said San Diego Superior Court Judge David Rubin, president of the judges' association. "Judges see people, typically half the courtroom, on a very bad day. Obviously, posting even a sanitized version of these (forms) significantly compromises the safety of judges and judges' families."

The judges, however, may have an uphill battle, as the information is already public and readily available to anyone at the local courthouse who asks for the forms, known as statements of economic interests. They contain everything from a judge's financial holdings to a spouse's stock investments and employment.

Federal judges have refused to post such reports online, but they've wound up on websites anyway. Judicial Watch, a conservative group, obtains them each year on every federal judge in the country and posts them on its website.

Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch's president, calls it "ridiculous" that judges try to keep the information off the Internet, saying any sensitive information, such as home addresses, can be blacked out to protect a judge's safety.

"There has to be a regular way or process that makes this material available online while addressing the security concerns of judges," he said. "There doesn't have to be a conflict."

San Jose U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel, director of the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C., and a former state court judge, understands the California's bench's security worries. But he said it's inevitable the records will wind up on the Web.

"To think it's not going to get out there is really an illusion," Fogel said. "That's where we are, technologically."

The Fair Political Practices Commission, which has the authority to mandate the disclosure, could decide by Thursday whether to start requiring judges to put the reports online along with the rest of the state's elected officials'.

"It will be interesting to hear if there is any information they can provide that would show they are so uniquely situated that special consideration should be made for them," said commission Chairwoman Ann Ravel.

Trial judges hope whatever the outcome, the commission ensures that sensitive information is not released online.

"We would like this to be really thoughtful as to whether this necessarily needs to be posted on a website," said Richard Loftus, Santa Clara County's presiding judge. "We're constantly dealing with access to us. You get angry parties that want to do something. And that makes us vulnerable."

Howard Mintz covers legal affairs. Contact him at 408-286-0236 or follow him at Twitter.com/hmintz