Courts modifying some open records
Personal information on marriage licenses and domestic cases in which people seek protection from possible physical abuse or stalking has not been made public in recent months by district courts in Jackson and some other counties across Kansas.
One reason for closing such information to the public, according to Lisa Taylor, public information officer for the Kansas Supreme Court, is privacy.
“Kansas courts keep all manner of records, some of which may contain personally identifiable information about the people involved,” Taylor said. “The Supreme Court is invested in protecting that information and will make and modify rules to that end.”
Newspapers such as The Holton Recorder are questioning whether basic information in such records that has been published for many years should now be considered “personally identifiable information.”
Jackson County District Court Clerk Colleen Reamer has stated that, in the case of marriage licenses, basic information about applicants for the licenses will again be made available by request here. As a result, publication of that information in The Recorder will resume.
In the case of filings for protection from abuse (PFA) or protection from stalking (PFS), Reamer said that all information in those filings — past, present and future — is now deemed confidential by order of the Kansas Office of Judicial Administration. However, Max Kautsch, a Lawrence-based attorney working for the Kansas Press Association, disagrees.
“As it stands, PFAs and PFSs are court records, and thus subject to disclosure under (the Kansas Open Records Act) absent an exemption,” Kautsch said.
The Recorder will continue to seek to open PFAs and PFSs and report the basic information in those records as it has in the past.
Concerning marriage license records, the Kansas Supreme Court issued a ruling earlier this year establishing a new limited public record that provides basic information about marriage license applications and providing protection for personally identifiable information provided by license applicants, Taylor said. The ruling also established criteria that courts must follow when handling documents used to apply for a marriage license, as well as the license itself.
According to the ruling, courts “must make publicly available a limited marriage license record” that contains the application for licenses, with information limited to names, ages and cities of residence of each party. That information “must not include” the Social Security numbers, dates or cities of birth, mothers’ maiden names or other confidential information, the ruling stated.
The Recorder has always listed only the names, ages and cities of residence of those to whom marriage licenses were issued, while other information that could be deemed personal and private was never published. The last set of marriage licenses available to The Recorder was published in October.
The closing of such records has received criticism not only from media outlets, but also from groups and organizations dedicated to genealogical research. Earlier this year, the Kansas Council of Genealogical Societies issued a letter to the state supreme court to protest the closing of marriage licenses while noting that some information, such as Social Security numbers, could be redacted.
“These documents, along with birth and death records, are essential components of genealogical research. They have always been treated as public information,” the KCGS protest letter stated.
KCGS officials also contended that genealogical research “is often necessary to resolve serious and sometimes legal issues,” including but not limited to estate settlements, family health records and identifying the remains of persons killed in acts of war.
Regarding PFA and PFS filings, those records also contain personally identifiable information that must not be disclosed, Taylor said. The names of individuals seeking protective orders are not identified as confidential.
The last set of PFA and PFS filings and dispositions to appear in The Recorder was printed in June. Those filings and dispositions had always previously included only the names of involved parties and the nature of the filing and disposition, but not information that would be deemed personal and private to the involved parties, such as addresses and telephone numbers.
