Kate Uyeda v. Worcester County Sheriff's Office (SPR 20242871)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 1, 2024 SPR24/2871 Kevin M. Gould, Esq. General Counsel Worcester County Sheriff’s Office 5 Paul X. Tivnan Drive West Boylston, MA 01583 Dear Attorney Gould: I have received the petition of Attorney Kate Uyeda, of Campaign Legal Center, appealing the response of the Worcester County Sheriff’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 25, 2024, Attorney Uyeda requested the following: [C]opies of records, from the time period of June 21, 2022 to the present, sufficient to show: [1.] Copies of any policies and procedures governing the facilitation of voting and voter registration for eligible voters in your facility or individuals within your custody who may be housed in another county, as required by G. L. c. 54, § 25C(b). [2.] Copies of any policies for collaboration with local election officials, civil engagement community groups or any other organization, agencies or stakeholder as required by G. L. c. 54, § 25C(b)(v). [3.] Copies of any posters or written notices displayed within your facility and/or provided to incarcerated people, including individuals within your custody who may be housed in another county, regarding voting or elections as required by G. L. c. 54, § 25C(b)(i), (c)(i); and any record describing where said posters or notices were displayed or the manner in which they were disseminated. [4.] Copies of any voter information packets provided to individuals in your facility, or individuals within your custody who may be housed in another county, as required by G. L. c. 54, § 25C(b)(ii)(D). [5.] Copies of any records, including communications, indicating or reflecting how your facility provides assistance to incarcerated people in registering to vote and/or applying for an early voting by mail or absent voting ballot, One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Kevin M. Gould, Esq. SPR24/2871 Page 2 November 1, 2024 including to individuals within your custody who may be housed in another county. [6.] Copies of any records tracking complaints, formal or informal, by individuals in your facility or within your custody related to voting or voter registration, the number of individuals in your facility or in your custody seeking to vote, and your facility’s response and/or the outcome of such complaints as required by G. L. c. 54, § 25C(b)(iv). [7.] Copies of any communications between your office and any local or state elections office regarding voting by eligible, incarcerated individuals at your facility. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR24/2649 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 3, 2024). In my October 3rd determination, I found that the Office did not meet its burden to redact responsive records under the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, and under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c). Subsequently, the Office responded on October 8, 2024. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Attorney Uyeda petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR24/2871, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Office’s October 8th Response In its October 8, 2024 response, the Office cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for redacting “the names and other personal identifying information of inmates.” See G. L.

Kevin M. Gould, Esq. SPR24/2871 Page 3 November 1, 2024 c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Attorney Uyeda states the following: [W]e note that we seek very little of the information which the Sheriff’s Office objects to disclosing, such as “personal details about inmates convictions, eligibility to vote and housing, including references to homelessness.” Rather, we seek only the names of such individuals, which is very clearly public information under Massachusetts law. . . . Given that we are requesting only the names of the individuals -- a small portion of the redacted data that is clearly covered by public records disclosure laws -- the analysis provided in the Sheriff’s office overestimates and misconstrues the privacy interest at issue. Even if there were a privacy interest, it is substantially outweighed by the public interest in understanding implementation of the VOTES Act and protecting individuals’ constitutional right to vote. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Analysis under Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This exemption does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). When analyzing a privacy claim, there is a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477

Kevin M. Gould, Esq. SPR24/2871 Page 4 November 1, 2024 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. In its October 8th response, under Exemption (c), the Office argues the following: As previously noted, the WCSO provided ... a spreadsheet of those who have taken steps to register to vote while in custody at the Worcester County Jail and House of Correction. This spreadsheet redacted the names and other personal identifying information of inmates in accordance with exemption (c) of the public records statute. Moreover, the spreadsheet included intimate personal details about inmates convictions, eligibility to vote and housing, including references to homelessness. . . . With respect to the requested redacted record, the WCSO has considered the factors set forth above in light of the unique circumstances surrounding requests to vote and the personal information contained in the redacted list. Here, the list contains information that an individual of normal sensibilities may find embarrassing, including references to convictions, eligibility to vote and lack of housing options. As such, the public dissemination of the unredacted list may cause substantial harm to an individual’s reputation and/or embarrassment to these individuals. As previously noted, the dissemination of this information could also potentially chill the efforts of inmates to register to vote to the extent they become aware their personal information is being requested through the public records process. Here, the public interest in obtaining the information is substantially outweighed by the invasion of the privacy from the dissemination of personal information of those who are incarcerated and seeking to vote. Accordingly, for the above-referenced reasons, we are unable to provide you with an unredacted list of inmates seeking to exercise their right to vote. In this case, the Office has not met its burden to redact the names of individuals “who have taken steps to register to vote.” In particular, the Office has not demonstrated that the names of those who have taken steps to register to vote constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature nor that disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, the Office has not demonstrated that the seriousness of any invasion of privacy outweighs the public interest in obtaining the requested information. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Ms. Uyeda with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us.

Kevin M. Gould, Esq. SPR24/2871 Page 5 November 1, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kate Uyeda, Esq.