[HN Gopher] Arizona legislature changes rules on retaining corre...
___________________________________________________________________
Arizona legislature changes rules on retaining correspondence
Author : anigbrowl
Score : 101 points
Date : 2023-01-26 21:08 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mohavedailynews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (mohavedailynews.com)
| EMM_386 wrote:
| > One of the most well-known of those efforts was a series of
| emails that Virginia Thomas, wife of U.S. Supreme Court Justice
| Clarence Thomas and a supporter of former President Donald Trump,
| sent to a host of state Republican House and Senate members just
| days after Biden won the election. She urged members to throw out
| Biden's delegates to the Electoral College and replace them with
| a GOP slate.
|
| This is serious stuff and the "solution" in this case is to
| prevent people from getting the emails messages via FOIA?
|
| Isn't the entire point of the FOIA to allow for more transparency
| in government?
| bluGill wrote:
| Transparency needs to be balanced with the need for some
| conversations to be easy and transident. If you can get my
| email, that means i have to spend several days writing them -
| following the full process I learned in 3rd grade: rough draft,
| review, final draft... These have to be on different days (just
| look at anything I write here - they often look great when I
| write them, but a day latter I see all the stupid mistakes in
| grammar and spelling). What I didn't learn in 3rd grade but is
| required is a separate lawyer to review everything as well.
|
| The above process needs to apply even for the simple "are you
| free for lunch today".
|
| Or instead I can just quit using email and drop back to phone
| calls (which few people ever record), or face to face
| conversations - which again are never recorded. Just because we
| can save emails forever doesn't mean we should.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| I don't sign in to my work email on my devices so I can tell my
| employer with a straight face that my device isn't their device.
| If legislators are really worried about their personal
| communications being leaked, they should keep those separate from
| their work communications.
| kneebonian wrote:
| [flagged]
| seanw444 wrote:
| Republicans bad, Joe Biden won the election, yada yada...
|
| I just want an open government, man. Why is that too much to ask?
| munificent wrote:
| _> Why is that too much to ask? _
|
| Because corrupt people want to be corrupt.
| AuthorizedCust wrote:
| When party X acts wrongly, it hands a win to party Y.
|
| Here, the Arizona GOP is handing Arizona Democrats an easy moral
| victory.
|
| When you no longer support something as essential as open
| records, you've sunk to despotism. Open records should generally
| be like a ratchet: once clicked, you can't go back.
| duxup wrote:
| I've found, to my disappointment, that important but subtle
| nuances of government don't seem to motivate voters :(
| irrational wrote:
| subtle?
| duxup wrote:
| Yes, my bad.
| tptacek wrote:
| Well then, a surprising number of states are despotic, because
| deliberative process privilege is indeed textbook public
| records law.
| BaseballPhysics wrote:
| > Here, the Arizona GOP is handing the Arizona Democrats an
| easy moral victory.
|
| You're assuming morals play any role in the modern world of
| extreme partisan politics. If the last 6 years has proven
| anything, it's that partisan affiliation is more powerful than
| morals or good governance for at least 40% of the US
| population.
| munk-a wrote:
| > for at least 40% of the US population.
|
| I think the GOP hardline is about 35% of the population -
| those are voters politicians could eat babies in front of
| without losing their votes. I think politics is pretty
| symmetrical (but not fully) so I think it's pretty safe to
| bump your estimate up to 60% of the US population...
| depending on how cynical you are I don't think 80% is out of
| the question.
|
| People who don't just look at D or R on a ballot are in the
| minority of American voters.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| No, it is more like 23+/-5% of population is hard line
| Democrat, 23+/-5% of the population is hard line
| Republican, people in both of those groups will vote the
| party no matter what, "politicians could eat babies in
| front of without losing their votes" from either camp
|
| 54% of the population are combination of Independents or
| Single Issue Voters. That is what sets the outcome of
| national elections
| snarf21 wrote:
| Who will watch the watchers? This should reiterate to everyone
| that the real enemy is not an R or a D but power at any cost
| and the money that enables it.
| Fezzik wrote:
| From the very beginning of the article this resulted from
| "new rules adopted by majority Republicans over vigorous
| opposition from minority Democrats."
|
| Which is not to exempt Democrats from any due criticism, but
| this is in fact a problem from only one side of the aisle.
| bluGill wrote:
| Is it, or is the minority of Democrats only not doing it
| because the Republicans are, but they would be happy to do
| it if they were a majority - and the minority Republicans
| would scream about how bad it was.
|
| I wish the above cynicism wasn't well warranted in many
| cases.
| munk-a wrote:
| I think we're coming up on and partially into a serious issue
| here though - when the partisanship gets to a certain point "X
| acts wrongly" is no longer accepted as fact or viewed important
| by the X voters. At a certain point "X acts wrongly" is viewed
| (either by the voters or by partisan media) as so
| inconsequential compared to the "evils" of Y that X remains the
| correct choice.
|
| There is always some level of this - that's perfectly natural,
| in our minds a lot of things go into decisions. However, we've
| reached the point where corruption, embracing antivax, and
| pursuing underage partners - all amongst a plethora of other
| examples... those are no longer ills strong enough to lower X
| below the level of Y in the eyes of a _very significant_
| portion of the electorship.
| TylerE wrote:
| It's even worse than that. X voters don't think X is wrong,
| and they're being persecuted by Y.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > At a certain point "X acts wrongly" is viewed (either by
| the voters or by partisan media) as so inconsequential
| compared to the "evils" of Y that X remains the correct
| choice.
|
| Surely that can be a valid conclusion of a reasonable person
| though, right? Party X can just actually be better than Party
| Y and that can still be true when Party X does some bad
| things. In my view, this doesn't become problematic
| partisanship until a significant chunk of value someone is
| getting from their party comes from _their own sense of
| identity as a supporter of that party_ , because that sense
| of identity has _nothing_ to do with the policies or other
| actions of the party in question: it 's by definition
| completely divorced from any serious political estimation of
| the virtues and ills of a party.
| munk-a wrote:
| I completely agree with you about it being a valid
| conclusion from a reasonable person. I think we all do that
| to some extent - we're always softer on "our team"... but
| it's also quite rational to look at a minor corruption
| scandal and feel it's outweighed by a politician's view on
| some highly sensitive topic like reproductive rights.
|
| The issue is that we're taking it to extremes.
| humans2 wrote:
| [dead]
| bluGill wrote:
| When someone in party X does bad thing it is okay to party
| X, while party Y screams about it. Then later someone in
| party Y does the same thing and it is okay with party Y,
| while party X screams.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I would still make a distinction between _being more
| personally forgiving or patient with someone who 's part
| of your group_ and _actually thinking that the same
| immortal act is acceptable from someone in your group and
| unacceptable from someone in a competing group_ or
| _thinking the law ought to treat people differently
| depending on their political party_.
| vkou wrote:
| If moral victories could actually turn into political
| victories, this country would have purged the entirety of one
| party, and most of the other party decades ago.
|
| Instead, winning is seen as more important than doing the right
| thing, and, well, we get the exact consequence of those values.
| [deleted]
| Alupis wrote:
| > Here, the Arizona GOP is handing Arizona Democrats an easy
| moral victory.
|
| Right, and just like with the Georgia voting laws, it doesn't
| matter that a bunch of other states already have similar laws
| and/or the new law is a return to the status quo - it only
| matters when it's the "other side" that does it.
|
| Now, that's what motivates people to vote, apparently.
| hcurtiss wrote:
| I've worked with legislators in a variety of capacities. In my
| view, this is a good thing. In order to compromise, politicians
| need to be able to speak freely with one-another and with the
| public about matters that may not on their face be terribly
| politic. I attribute a great deal of the current polarization to
| the fact that politicians cannot have private conversations.
| Personally, I would favor more exemptions. The open
| government/pure democracy types hammer on their right to know
| everything their elected representatives are doing, but I don't
| see it that way. I send them to get the best outcomes they can
| for their constituents. I'll judge them on the end result and
| either send them back, or send somebody else. But the idea that I
| need to see all their texts and emails is, in my view,
| ridiculous. Worse, it means nobody can take nuanced/compromising
| positions. And that's bad for America.
| it_citizen wrote:
| The more opaque, the harder it is to judge on results.
|
| Results are rarely black or white and less transparency makes
| it easier to create fake narratives.
| parentheses wrote:
| Free private speech is naturally protected. Beyond that, if a
| legislature is going to publicly discuss anything, it should be
| part of a record visible to all voters. What you're saying is
| that voters can't handle politicians saying certain things that
| are necessary. Tough conversations are part of the world we
| live in. This is a natural constraint on politics.
|
| The idea that you or anyone judges outcomes is also a tough one
| to argue. Results in politics are complex to the point of being
| opaque. If you figure out a way to judge politicians
| accurately, do tell.
| kneebonian wrote:
| Yes but the problem is that idealistic demagogues start to
| become preferred by the voters over people that are able to
| effectively create change, and suddenly getting things done
| is less effective than roasting your opponent or saying the
| right things.
|
| As long as the votes are still public we know what the
| legislator ultimately did, which in my mind is much for
| valuable than listening to the bluster they said.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _I 'll judge them on the end result_
|
| So your argument basically boil down to: the end justifies the
| means. Do I understand correctly?
| andreareina wrote:
| Consider all the ends (e.g. lost public trust) and there's no
| problem with the sentiment.
| LastTrain wrote:
| In this case, that is the means.
| bmitc wrote:
| Their job is to, in the most literal sense possible, create
| _public documents_ that govern. There isn 't a world where I
| see it as a positive that legislators can further bury their
| actions and communications behind veils of secrecy while the
| government has the utmost access to our communications.
|
| > I attribute a great deal of the current polarization to the
| fact that politicians cannot have private conversations.
|
| This really does not make any sense. You seem to be arguing for
| less polarized discourse, but I cannot see how that is
| accomplished by _hiding_ discourse. By hiding it, you create
| little pockets of extremism, not to mention opening up the
| doors for illegal and traitorous behavior.
|
| Politicians can speak freely right now. What they want to do is
| further game the system, and I'm not sure how you can interpret
| these actions as otherwise.
|
| > I'll judge them on the end result
|
| You can already do that, and in Arizona, the end results don't
| look so good. Arizona, despite having a lot of potential and
| having beautiful natural landscape, seems to be consistently
| listed as one of the worst states to live in. Even the mere
| fact of Arizona being livable in the coming century is
| debatable due to climate change.
| LastTrain wrote:
| There might be a reason for this legislation in particular and
| privacy in government communications in general, but the fact
| that legislators might lack the courage to compromise without
| it isn't one of them. You mention "open government types" in
| the pejorative - which strikes me as very odd indeed. I wonder
| what is the /opposite/ of that in your view?
| thinking4real wrote:
| "The government doesn't respect your privacy, but you should
| respect its privacy"
|
| Seriously?
| ancientworldnow wrote:
| It is in fact possible to communicate outside of email or other
| digitally recorded mediums.
| SamReidHughes wrote:
| That adds another hurdle and is generally just undermining
| ability of legislators to communicate.
| irrational wrote:
| Getting up and walking down the hall is a hurdle?
| miguelazo wrote:
| Public servants should have nothing to hide if they're
| actually representing the public's interests.
| tptacek wrote:
| There are similar exemptions in other states. Illinois has a very
| toothy FOIA law (5 day deadline for responses, few exemptions,
| and fee recovery for court cases, s much so that you can
| sometimes get a FOIA suit done on contingency). But legislative
| deliberation is exempt. (I'm in the middle of a FOIA controversy
| in Illinois about this issue.)
| ibejoeb wrote:
| Thankfully it's toothy. In a place that operates black sites
| for American citizens, it's gotta be.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/19/homan-square...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Deliberation tends to be specifically and broadly exempt.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_process_privilege
| livueta wrote:
| The WA legislature is, unfortunately, trying something similar
| - _again_ : https://archive.is/jY1ba
|
| > When Washington legislators tried to exempt themselves from
| the Public Records Act nearly five years ago, thousands of
| Washingtonians angrily emailed or phoned Gov. Jay Inslee's
| office. Inslee vetoed the measure. We considered SB 6617 a dead
| letter. Forever.
|
| > But now the Washington Legislature is asserting that
| legislators have a previously unknown personal privilege to
| withhold from public disclosure the documents they use in their
| work for the people.
| SamReidHughes wrote:
| This is the correct move -- having their communications publicly
| accessible undermines legislator's ability to do their job.
| hmaxwell wrote:
| how?
| inetknght wrote:
| > _having their communications publicly accessible undermines
| legislator 's ability to do their job._
|
| I find this argument dubious in general (with very limited
| exceptions for safety/security which should be clearly marked).
| Can you provide specific examples?
|
| A legislator's job is specifically to serve the public. Hiding
| their communications from the public undermines public trust.
| kneebonian wrote:
| Actually I've thought about this a lot, and I can see where
| things are coming from.
|
| An important part of representing a pluralistic society is
| compromise, if everyone can criticize every move a politician
| makes it then to populist and idealistic politicians getting
| elected rather than moderate politicians that can achieve
| things.
|
| I think we can see an example of this happening today where
| demoguages are making headway over more rational actors.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Good speech, I have wired the money to your account. Let's just
| avoid being seen together for the next 3 months ;-)
| babypuncher wrote:
| Yes, it makes it way harder for them to get away with corrupt
| activities
| woodruffw wrote:
| The legislators in question are _public_ legislators. I think
| there 's a reasonably strong argument to be made that being
| transparent to the public _is_ a large part of their job.
|
| (Nothing about this seems to indicate that it's meant to
| protect correspondence between legislators and their friends or
| family. It seems aimed primarily at obscuring _political_
| correspondence.)
| hgsgm wrote:
| Their votes are public. Why do you need to see their
| conversations?
| woodruffw wrote:
| Because we generally hold elected officials (and public
| servants, more generally) to a higher standard of behavior.
|
| Apply the Nixon test: should the public have been given
| access to the tapes that conclusively established Nixon's
| involvement in the Watergate break-in? Most people think
| yes, despite them being "just" conversations.
| bluGill wrote:
| What if Nixon hadn't recorded his conversations at all
| though? What if spies had wiretapped his office and
| recorded it?
|
| Those are important nuances to consider as well and
| different people will change their answer with those
| changes even though all 3 cases we have potential access
| to his conversations.
| woodruffw wrote:
| This is a weird tangent: how do spies introduce nuance
| into whether public servants are subject to the public's
| interest?
| jfengel wrote:
| It is remarkable how many HN readers have strong opinions,
| strongly held about how to do a job that they haven't done, nor
| ever seen done.
|
| The job of a legislator is famously sausage-making: something
| that's gross even if the final product is acceptable. If it was
| done the way an outsider demanded it be done, it wouldn't be
| done at all.
|
| There's legitimate disagreement on whether legislators'
| communications are viable public records. But I'd think that
| disagreement would be a lot more meaningful if it were held
| among people who had at least some idea what the job entailed.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| "But I'd think that disagreement would be a lot more
| meaningful if it were held among people who had at least some
| idea what the job entailed."
|
| You know what would help me get such an idea? Access to
| emails, calendars and other records.
| sonotathrowaway wrote:
| Brilliant thinking - sometimes too much sunlight is damaging.
|
| Better to make sure that the people supposedly using the public
| power they were given be allowed to act without accountability.
| nerdponx wrote:
| How so?
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I'll try to steelman it.
|
| Legislation is all about compromise (or at least it was, back
| when legislators worked). There's a lot of give and take, of
| people modifying positions they didn't hold all that tightly
| in order to gain on the positions that they really care
| about. That means that people say one thing on day 1, say
| something differently on day 5, and vote still a third way on
| day 10.
|
| If you're going to "expose" all of that, you can make every
| one of them look like a hypocrite with zero principles. In
| many cases that may be true, but you can make it look far
| worse than it is. And if you do that, then nobody can work
| with any give and take, for fear that the press will destroy
| them.
|
| As I said, I think that's the steelman. That doesn't
| necessarily mean that I believe it...
| dekken_ wrote:
| You may state whatever you like, it doesn't mean it's true
| guelo wrote:
| Only legislators but no other government entity? They are
| supposed to work for us. Your boss has access to your emails.
| SamReidHughes wrote:
| The executive branch needs its records accessible, at least
| to the legislature, so that the legislature can see what it's
| doing. FOIA laws are an extension of this concept to the
| general public. They are the ones carrying the stick, and
| they need visibility.
|
| When we negotiate treaties, private conversations between
| leaders are useful and productive. The same goes when
| negotiating laws. Voters already have the most important
| visibility into legislative output: the laws that get passed
| and how their representative voted.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > When we negotiate treaties, private conversations between
| leaders are useful and productive.
|
| For the most part these aren't truly "private", they become
| part of the public record but at a classification level
| that may or may not permit immediate or easy access.
|
| This is very sharp contrast to what's being discussed in
| this article which is the deliberate exclusion of
| communications from the public record and their
| destruction.
| sonotathrowaway wrote:
| You're missing the one activity that you know it will be
| used for - planning a coup to deny people the freedom to
| choose their government.
| hgsgm wrote:
| Coupers can coup on their private email accounts.
| miguelazo wrote:
| LOL-- did you forget sarcasm tags? Their JOB is to represent
| the PUBLIC. Ensuring that the public can go back and look at
| how decisions were arrived at is critical.
| SamReidHughes wrote:
| Like, no, it actually is not critical. Duh.
|
| Try screeching "public" louder and harder. Put your back into
| it.
|
| You can expect legislators to operate better when every word
| they speak and write is _not_ recorded for the political
| opposition to quote against them.
| guelo wrote:
| [flagged]
| irrational wrote:
| Becoming? I thought we left becoming behind years ago.
| guelo wrote:
| I was flagged. You're not allowed to criticize the GOP on HN
| :(
| lr4444lr wrote:
| This is not an accurate headline. They exempted specific
| communications, for which analogous provisions have long existed
| in other states.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I can revert it to the more anodyne original ('Legislature
| changes rules for retaining correspondence'), but I thought he
| first line of the article better summarized the contested
| nature of the change.
| tptacek wrote:
| It depends on whether you want to perfectly represent the
| article or make the threads less of a debacle. I'd dial the
| title way back if you care more about the latter.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-26 23:02 UTC)