Many public servants have legitimate concerns about safety in a climate of increasing political violence in this country. Some have been harassed, attacked and even killed at home. This is not OK. But while it feels necessary to try to do something about that problem, exempting home addresses from release on public documents does not fully protect people, and can make it harder to hold public servants accountable. Connecticut lawmakers are reviewing proposals that would add several new groups to the growing list of residential addresses exempt from disclosure under the state’s Freedom of Information Act. The proposed exemptions would apply to certified teachers (SB 325), most public employees (HB 5548), as well as state and local elected officials (SB 492). If home addresses are so dangerous, why are we protecting only those in positions of authority? Why not remove the data point from every public record and stop collecting it altogether? The reason: home addresses serve the valuable public needs of tracking property and taxes, confirming residency requirements for elections, and verifying identifications. Particularly concerning is the proposal to exempt elected officials, for whom residency is a matter of important public dialogue. Recent examples in North Carolina, Wisconsin and Virginia showcase the political discussions taking place around candidate residency in the runup to elections. Even when it’s not a requirement for serving, voters often debate whether candidates from outside their districts can fully understand and properly represent them. While there is no district requirement to run for Congress, many news outlets report when candidates live in different parts of the state than the districts they hope to represent, to give voters context before heading to the polls. Recent examples include an Arizona special election and the race for the 48th district in California. SB 492 applies to officials who are already elected, theoretically shielding incumbents. Candidates for statewide office often start on elected municipal boards, meaning their information would be private under the proposal. Home addresses also help the public hold officials accountable to the laws they implement and oversee. One example: In Connecticut, officials have come under fire for car tax avoidance, information that came to light through reporting on public records tied to home addresses. In 2024, a Bridgeport city councilman was called out for registering his car in nearby Shelton, which has a much lower tax rate. In 2012, my own reporting revealed that some Ansonia officials were not paying car taxes at all, but were receiving tax clearance notices from the city’s tax collector in order to keep registering their cars. Journalists routinely use home addresses in public service reporting. In a survey I conducted in 2023, journalists said they used home addresses in fact checking identities, locating sources, and telling location-based stories. More than 85% of the journalists reported using home addresses in routine fact checking of identities. In Louisiana, for example, if a Mike Johnson is arrested, the address will very much help journalists identify if that’s U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, the Speaker Pro Tempore of the Louisiana State Legislature Mike Johnson, or just your regular old Mike Johnson – an important distinction. One reporter I surveyed was able to track campaign finance contributions coming from a single address to identify bundling of donations to a single candidate. Another outlined the geographic diversity of an at-large board of education in her state, which had concentrations in one neighborhood. Another interviewed homeowners who had bought federal properties, which turned out to be in flood zones. Because most journalists are not publishing these addresses, this important work happens in the background and is not always apparent to the public. While well intentioned, these home address proposals might provide a false sense of security. Public records exemptions would limit one, but not all, of the avenues to access that information. Data brokers routinely sell such information. The more we use location-based services, the more companies have access to that information. When my family recently purchased a used car, the previous owner (a police officer who would qualify for home address protections) left his home address programmed into the car’s GPS system. Even this opinion column submission form asked for my address. The information is everywhere. As a result, other approaches – such as applying an existing safety and security exemption under FOI, strengthening harassment laws and increasing penalties for offenses against public officials – could actually provide more protection for those with safety concerns. Lawmakers should consider these alternate approaches before shielding more important public information from the public. Jodie Gil is a member of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information board of directors.   ...read more read less