Less than a year ago, the governor of New Jersey, Philip D. Murphy, signed legislation that weakened the power of a watchdog agency set up to police election campaigns. Now, lawmakers are moving to limit another good-government effort, a public records law established to limit corruption by encouraging government transparency.
Mr. Murphy, a Democrat, has not addressed the proposal publicly, and his spokesman refused to comment on whether he would sign the bill if it reached his desk. But it comes at a critical time in his second term, and as his wife, Tammy Murphy, is running for U.S. Senate and relying on the support of some of the same Democratic lawmakers who are pushing the legislation.
The public records law, known as the Open Public Records Act, was adopted 21 years ago, well before the explosion of digital communications magnified the volume of information covered by the act — and expanded the universe of people seeking to obtain the data.
For-profit companies now use government records laws to obtain data central to their business models, at times burdening taxpayer-funded agencies, and there has been a bipartisan push across the country to evaluate public records laws.
States including Arkansas, Colorado and Kentucky are considering restricting records access, while California is moving in the opposite direction, with activists pressing for a November ballot question to win more disclosure.
The New Jersey legislation, if signed by Mr. Murphy, would represent the most significant change ever to the Open Public Records Act.
The bill would affect access to many different kinds of information, including real estate transactions, dog licenses and court proceedings. Information that currently must be furnished immediately upon request — such as government contracts and payroll details — could be subject to delay if the material is more than a year old. Home and email addresses, telephone numbers and other identifying information, now available, would be redacted, or hidden. And one broad swath of people — representatives of the estimated $300 billion data-broker industry, which bundles and sells records — would be barred from acquiring anything at all.
The effort to narrow access to public records is pitting municipal and county officials against supporters of government transparency.
Proponents say the legislation will relieve the burden on government offices and protect citizens’ personal information in an age of identity theft and other high-tech crime.
The effort is backed by some of the State House’s most influential forces, among them local-government lobbying groups that say city hall staffers can’t keep pace with soaring records requests.
In recent years, for instance, some agencies have been flooded with requests for video and audio files of arrests and other law enforcement interactions, according to Lori Buckelew, deputy executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities.
“One hour of body cam footage takes three hours to redact,” Ms. Buckelew said by telephone.
John Donnadio, executive director of the New Jersey Association of Counties, said commercial requests for government records had become especially burdensome. “There are counties that get 3,000 or 4,000 public records requests a year,” he said.
Some of the best-known companies collecting data from government records provide subscription access to lawyers, researchers and scholars. Other companies offer contact information about former classmates or potential romantic interests.
Critics of the bill, including the New Jersey Press Association, a newspaper industry lobbying group, call it an assault on democracy. They argue that limiting access to government records would open the door to more corruption in a state that is no stranger to political scandal.
“We’re living in a moment where there is significant distrust of government and public institutions,” Amol Sinha, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s New Jersey chapter, said in a telephone interview. “The worst thing that we can do is limit government accountability and limit access to records.”
The League of Women Voters of New Jersey called the legislation an “anti-transparency bill” in a social media post and said that more than 700 people had joined an email protest.
On Sunday, Ms. Murphy, the first lady, declared her opposition to the legislation, which she characterized as an effort to “gut” the state’s open records law. “Both the public and the press must be able to ask questions — and receive answers,” she said on social media. Her main opponent in the Democratic Senate primary, Representative Andy Kim, has also expressed concern about the proposal.
The legislation is on an unusually fast track. A prime sponsor, Senator Paul Sarlo, will preside over a Senate Budget Committee hearing on the matter on Monday, while the Assembly’s State and Local Government Committee examines it in a hearing of its own.
In coming weeks, Mr. Murphy will need Senator Sarlo’s support on major initiatives. One is the Transportation Trust Fund reauthorization for rail and highway projects, which relies on a gasoline tax increase of almost 10 cents per gallon and an electric vehicle fee. Another is the $55.9 billion state spending plan, which calls for an 11.5 percent tax on the most profitable corporations, to help fund public transportation, and $2.3 billion in residential property-tax relief.
Senator Sarlo did not return a phone call to a spokesman for comment.
