WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 4397

Courts: judges; personal information and physical safety protections for judges, their families, and household members; enhance. Creates new act.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Sarah Lightner

The bill creates a process to restrict and remove public posting of specific personal identifying information for certain elected officials and their households.

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS, JUDICIARY, AND PUBLIC SAFETY
#civilrights:publicrecords #courts:judges
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 4397

Summary — HB 4397 (Judicial / Elected Official Protection Act)

Status: Passed House (substitute H‑8), transmitted to Senate (Nov. 13, 2025). Primary sponsor: Rep. Sarah Lightner.

Purpose

HB 4397 creates a new statutory process allowing certain public officials (originally drafted as a Judicial Protection Act) to limit public posting or display of specified personal identifying information for themselves and household family members, and to require removal of such information already publicly posted. Later substitutes broadened the scope from judges to a wider class of “protected individuals” and the bill as passed by the House is captioned the “Elected Official Protection Act.”

Who is protected (as passed House, H‑8)

  • Legislators (current state legislators and currently serving U.S. Senators/Representatives from Michigan)
  • Current or former governors
  • Current lieutenant governor, attorney general, and secretary of state (Previous versions focused on judges; substitutes changed scope. The judiciary remains excluded from the statute’s definition of “public body” unless the Supreme Court approves.)

Key definitions / protected data

The bill defines “personal identifying information” to include one or more of:
- Date of birth (with narrow exceptions for constitutional eligibility)
- Permanent residential address (city/township may be disclosed)
- Addresses of other real property used as a dwelling/recreation
- Home or cell phone numbers
- Driver license / state ID numbers
- Social Security number
- Personal email address
- Federal/state tax ID
- Credit/debit card and bank account info (including PINs)
- License plate or unique vehicle identifiers
- Current or future school/day care info (name/address, schedule, routes)
- Employment location info (other than official office), schedules, routes

“Immediate family member” = spouse, child, parent or other familial relative who shares the protected individual’s permanent residence.

Request and administrative process

  • A protected individual may request that a public body or other person not publicly post/display specified personal identifying information, or may submit a written request to remove such public postings.
  • The written request must be on a form prescribed by the protected individual’s designated contact (Department of Technology, Management & Budget for governors/etc.; legislative council for legislators; earlier/different drafts referenced SCAO for judges) and must include proof of office/identity and the information to be protected.
  • Delegation: the designated contact may submit requests on behalf of the protected individual.

Duties of recipients

  • Public bodies and other persons who receive a valid request must not publicly post/display the specified information and must remove it no later than 5 business days after receiving the request if it had been publicly posted.
  • Public bodies may comply by redaction or masking; they are not required to permanently delete information that is not otherwise publicly accessible.
  • “Transfer” (sell, license, trade or exchange for consideration) of the specified information by persons is prohibited while a request is in effect.

Duration and rescission

  • A written request remains in effect until the protected individual signs and delivers a written rescission or modification, or until the protected individual dies (per H‑6/H‑8 language).

Exemptions & access

  • The bill preserves exceptions for: information displayed as part of news reporting/commentary on a matter of public concern (and other limited public-interest exceptions).
  • Narrow provisions allow access to dates of birth when required to comply with constitutional eligibility/qualification provisions.

Remedies / enforcement

  • If a recipient fails to comply (e.g., does not remove posted information within 5 business days), the protected individual may seek judicial relief to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance. (The bill summaries state judicial remedies; specific damages/penalties text is truncated in available excerpts.)

Who is affected / likely impacts

  • Protected individuals and their household family members — increased privacy protections for specified personal data.
  • Public bodies (state and local agencies, school districts, registers of deeds, etc.) — operational duties to accept, process, and act on protection requests and to redact/remove public postings within 5 business days.
  • Private persons and entities (news organizations are excepted in certain contexts; data brokers, websites, and other private publishers) — required to remove or not publicly post protected information and prohibited from transferring it for consideration.
  • County registers of deeds: written requests must list specific instruments by liber/page or other unique identifier to be protected.

Procedural timeline / status

  • Filed: March 11, 2025; introduced Apr. 29, 2025 (Rep. Lightner).
  • Committee substitutes and revisions across 2025 (H‑6, H‑7, H‑8).
  • Passed House (substitute H‑8) Nov. 13, 2025 — Roll Call #304: Yeas 84, Nays 17; given immediate effect and transmitted to the Senate.

Considerations

  • Interaction with FOIA: the bill states it does not alter public bodies’ FOIA obligations; public-body compliance may require redaction rather than deletion.
  • Administrative burden: implementation requires forms, verification processes, and staff resources for public bodies and designated contacts.
  • Public interest vs. privacy: the law balances privacy for certain officials/families against transparency and journalistic/public‑interest exceptions; courts will likely adjudicate specific conflicts.

If you want, I can produce a one‑page legislative digest comparing the original judge‑focused draft and the elected‑official substitutes (H‑6, H‑7, H‑8), highlighting textual changes and practical differences.

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

Sign in to ask a question.