WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 1357

Conflict of Interests Act, State and Local Government, etc.; personal interest in a transaction.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Adam Ebbin

Prohibits elected officials from using aliases or deceptive identities to file FOIA requests if the aim is to impose unreasonable costs on local governments, with penalties and cos

Left in General Laws
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 1357

Summary — SB 1357: FOIA — Abusive Requests by Elected Officials

Status (from file): Introduced Jan 28, 2025 by Sen. Michael E. Hastings; Co‑sponsor added: Sen. Paul Faraci (Feb 26, 2025). Document includes committee actions, floor actions and a chronology that concludes with “SIGNED BY GOVERNOR 2025‑06‑24” and “PUBLIC ACT 25‑111.” (The provided materials combine text and actions from more than one source; below focuses on the FOIA text included in the file.)

Purpose / Intent

Create a new statutory prohibition (added as 5 ILCS 140/10.5 in the supplied text) that targets elected officials who use aliases, false identities, or other deceptive means to submit public‑records requests when the apparent intent is to impose unreasonable or excessive costs on a unit of local government. The provision aims to deter abusive FOIA requests made for the purpose of imposing high processing/legal costs on public bodies.

Key provisions

  • Definition of “unreasonable or excessive costs”: aggregate costs to a unit of local government in responding to a request (or series of requests) that exceed $100,000. This includes copying fees, labor, legal fees, and other associated costs.
  • Prohibition: An elected official of a unit of local government may not use an alias, false identity, or other deceptive means to submit a public‑records request if the intent is to cause the unit to incur “unreasonable or excessive” costs.
  • Criminal penalty: Violation is a Class A misdemeanor — fine up to $10,000, imprisonment up to 1 year, or both.
  • Rebuttable presumption: If an elected official submits requests that result in unreasonable/excessive costs and the use of an alias/false identity is discovered, there is a rebuttable presumption the requests were made with the prohibited intent.
  • Cost recovery: If an elected official is found guilty, the unit of local government may seek reimbursement from that official for the full amount of unreasonable/excessive costs incurred, including direct (copying, labor) and indirect (legal) costs.
  • Enforcement and investigation: The Attorney General, coordinating with units of local government, may investigate alleged violations and bring appropriate legal action.

Who is affected

  • Primary targets: elected officials of units of local government who make FOIA requests.
  • Affected entities: units of local government (towns, cities, counties, school districts, etc.) that respond to public records requests — they may recover costs and request AG involvement.
  • Public records staff and legal counsel: new procedures, potential for criminal referral, and documentation requirements when an alias or excessive cost occurs.
  • General public: may be affected if anonymous or pseudonymous requests are chilled by criminalization or if legitimate high‑cost requests are subject to closer scrutiny.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Text in the file is drafted for the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140/10.5).
  • The file also contains unrelated legislative text about continuation/termination of an Arizona Department of Housing statute; that material is separate and not part of the FOIA amendment summarized here.
  • The supplied legislative history shows multiple readings, committee referrals, amendments, and dates through mid‑2025, including an entry indicating final enactment (“PUBLIC ACT 25‑111” / signed by governor 2025‑06‑24). Verify the enactment status with the official state legislative website for the jurisdiction of interest before relying on final status.

Potential impacts / considerations

  • Intended deterrent against abusive, costly FOIA tactics by officials.
  • Burden of proving “intent” remains significant; the rebuttable presumption shifts evidentiary burden if alias use and high costs are shown.
  • Risk of chilling legitimate anonymous or pseudonymous requests (e.g., whistleblowers, safety concerns).
  • Local governments could recover large processing/legal costs, but pursuing reimbursement or criminal prosecution also creates resource demands.
  • Constitutional and due‑process questions may arise if enforcement affects speech or access rights; practical application will hinge on how courts interpret intent, scope, and constitutionality.

For legal research or policy analysis, confirm the bill text and final status with the official legislative records for the relevant state (the text provided cites Illinois statute numbering).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.