Privacy protections for judicial officers

What it would have done

Summary by the Legislative Reference Bureau, the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

2023 Wisconsin Act 235 , effective April 1, 2025, established certain privacy protections for judicial officers upon submission of a written request. A “written request,” under Act 235, is a written notice signed by a judicial officer or a representative of the judicial officer’s employer requesting a government agency, business, association, or other person to refrain from publicly posting or displaying publicly available content that includes the personal information of the judicial officer or the judicial officer’s immediate family. The bill modifies the definition of a “written request” to include a requirement for notarization. Under the bill, a “written request” means a notarized written notice signed by a judicial officer or a representative of the judicial officer’s employer completed and filed under the procedures established by Act 235 and amended under the bill. The bill adds a requirement that a judicial officer describe with reasonable particularity in a written request the records the judicial officer believes to contain personal information.

Act 235 provides that a written request is valid if the judicial officer sends the request to the director of state courts and the director of state courts has a policy and procedure for filing the requests, or if the judicial officer sends the request directly to a government agency, person, data broker, business, or association. The bill modifies the latter option, specifying that the judicial officer must send the request directly to the designated officer of a government agency. The bill defines a “designated officer” to mean the officer or employee of a government agency, the register of deeds, or a provider of a land records website designated in writing to the director of state courts, or, in the absence of a written designation, the highest ranking officer or employee for any of these entities. The bill also changes a requirement that the director of state courts must, each quarter, provide to the appropriate officer with ultimate supervisory authority for a government agency a list of judicial officers who have submitted a written request for privacy protections to instead require that the director of state courts provide the designated officer for a government agency with such a list.

Who's behind it

9 representatives are its authors⁠. 8 are Republicans and 1 is a Democrat.

3 more lawmakers signed on in support⁠.

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

• Amendment Histories
• LC Amendment Memo