WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 2127

Judicial official real property records classified as private, and access limited to judicial official real property.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Brion Curran and 3 co-sponsors

HF 2127 would privatize judicial official real property records, restricting access to judicial officials only.

Committee report, to adopt as amended and re-refer to Ways and Means
#courts #datapracticesandprivacy
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 2127

Summary of HF 2127 (Minnesota, 2025-2026)

Overview

HF 2127 proposes to classify judicial official real property records as private and restrict access to these records to judicial officials. The bill is sponsored by multiple members and has undergone committee action to adopt as amended and re-refer to Ways and Means.

Key details

  • Jurisdiction: Minnesota
  • Bill number: HF 2127
  • Session: 2025-2026
  • Current status (as of action history):
    • Introduced and referred to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law (March 10, 2025)
    • Committee report to adopt as amended and re-refer to Ways and Means (April 3, 2025)
  • Sponsors:
    • Co-sponsors: Natalie Zeleznikar, Brion Curran, Greg Davids, Tina Liebling
    • (Note: Davids’ addition as co-sponsor occurred March 20, 2025)

Purpose and intent

The core intent of HF 2127 is to protect the privacy of judicial official real property records by making them private and limiting access to the records exclusively to judicial officials. The bill aims to reduce public visibility of certain real estate information tied to judicial officials, potentially addressing concerns about safety, privacy, or sensitive personal data.

Main provisions (as implied by title and action history)

  • Classification of records: Judicial official real property records would be designated as private rather than public.
  • Access restriction: Access to these records would be limited to judicial officials. This implies that non-judicial members of the public, journalists, researchers, and other government officials outside the judiciary would not have the right to view these records.
  • Scope of records: The term “judicial official real property records” likely covers documents related to property owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by individuals serving in judicial official capacities. The precise definitions and scope would be established in the bill’s text (definitions section), which is typical for privacy/classification changes.

Affected parties and impact

  • Judicial officials: The primary beneficiaries, gaining privacy protections for their real property records and restricted access.
  • Public and researchers: Faces reduced access to restricted records; potential impacts on transparency, investigative reporting, and property research.
  • County recorders/clerks: May need to adjust record-keeping and access control processes to implement privacy classifications and limit disclosures accordingly.
  • Other government entities: Access to these records would be constrained, affecting inter-agency information sharing unless explicitly permitted by the bill.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduction and referral: March 10, 2025 – referred to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law.
  • Committee action: April 3, 2025 – Committee report to adopt as amended and re-refer to Ways and Means. This indicates the committee supported moving the bill forward with potential amendments and a change in referral.
  • Next steps (anticipated): If passed by the committee, HF 2127 would proceed to floor debate and potential passage by the Minnesota Legislature, followed by any Senate consideration and, if enacted, signature by the governor or veto override processes as applicable.

Potential considerations and questions

  • How broadly “judicial official” and “real property records” are defined in the bill (definitions drive scope).
  • Balancing privacy with public interest in property records, including any exemptions or alternative access provisions for law enforcement, researchers, or journalists.
  • Fiscal impact on county offices implementing new privacy classifications and access controls.
  • Any transition timeline or phasing to allow affected agencies to adapt.

If you would like, I can pull the official bill text to extract precise definitions, exemptions, and effective dates for a more detailed, line-item summary.

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

Sign in to ask a question.