It’s #SunshineWeek, a week that celebrates and promotes access to information and open government nationwide.
This #FOIAFriday, we’re highlighting the power of #FOIA with a thread about its past, present, and future.
President Lyndon B. Johnson signed FOIA into law on July 4, 1966. Records show LBJ personally removed strong language supporting open government from the press statement. He only agreed to sign it after DOJ suggested he include a signing statement. nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/…
In his signing statement, LBJ praised the importance of openness to democracy and said the legislation affirmed American principles. But he also wrote that he felt some documents shouldn’t be available to the public. nsarchive2.gwu.edu//nsa/foia/FOIA…
White House Press Secretary Bill Moyers later said that “LBJ had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the signing.”
Nevertheless, FOIA has become an important part of LBJ’s legacy.
After the Watergate scandal, President Gerald R. Ford wanted to approve amendments in the Privacy Act of 1974 to strengthen FOIA. Donald Rumsfeld, then-White House Chief of Staff, and his deputy Dick Cheney were worried it could allow leaks.
Future Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, then Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, said the bill was unconstitutional and even asked the CIA to lobby one White House staffer against it.
So Ford vetoed it but Congress overrode his veto, creating the core of FOIA that’s still in place today.
FOIA has been amended many times over the decades, but let’s fast forward to the most recent FOIA update: the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.
The bill strengthened the FOIA ombuds, put a time limit on the use of the deliberative process exemption, mandated more proactive openness, wrote into law a specific presumption of openness, and more.
There are also significant issues with enforcing the reforms. FOIA ombuds offices have little actual authority to ensure agencies adhere to FOIA laws. Often, this results in arduous delays.
FOIA also requires “prompt” production of records, but many agencies continue to underfund their FOIA operations and as a result develop significant backlogs that delay responses.
The lack of timely responses undermines FOIA’s ability to inform citizens about what the government is up to when that information is still pertinent rather than stale.
#SunshineWeek is an important opportunity to celebrate the principle that the government should be open and that the public has a right to know what our leaders are doing on our behalf.
In case you missed it and want to learn more about the Freedom of Information Act, check out our helpful guide here:
We recently launched an investigation into efforts to undermine direct democracy and sabotage abortion access ballot measures, which will be considered by voters in ten states this November. #FoiaFriday americanoversight.org/investigation/…
Since 2022, 7 states have protected abortion rights through ballot initiatives.
In November, 10 states will have initiatives related to abortion rights on their ballots: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, and South Dakota.
In addition to a litany of lawsuits from conservative activists challenging the qualifying status of abortion-related ballot measures, legislators in many states have proposed laws that would change the requirements for ballot initiatives to make passage more difficult.
Records we obtained from Missouri show how state Sen. Mike Moon — a staunchly anti-abortion rights legislator — has sought to subvert the state’s measure related to abortion rights by trying to amend the ballot initiative process. americanoversight.org/document/recor…
Earlier this year, 380,000 Missourians signed a petition to put an abortion rights constitutional amendment on the ballot. In response, conservatives in the state pushed a bill that would have made it much harder to pass any constitutional amendment via a ballot initiative.
The documents show that Moon’s policy director directly tied Moon’s support for adding a concurrent majority measure to initiative petitions to his desire to defeat the measure. His chief of staff suggested collaborating with an anti-abortion rights group to defeat the amendment.
Floridians will vote in November on a ballot measure that would overturn the state’s six-week abortion ban.
Conservative lawmakers and interest groups have been working to make it harder for the measure and citizen initiatives like it to pass. americanoversight.org/investigation/…
Republican officials drafted a financial statement to accompany the measure. The statement argues that the measure’s passage would lead to fewer births, which would hurt the state’s growth and revenue over time. nbcmiami.com/news/local/fin…
The financial statement speculates that the measure’s passage would result in expensive litigation.
Abortion rights groups have filed lawsuits to prevent this language from appearing on the ballot.
LITIGATION UPDATE: We reached a settlement in our lawsuit against Ohio Sec. of State Frank LaRose for records related to the 2023 decision to withdraw Ohio from the Electronic Registration Information Center, a nonpartisan voter-roll maintenance tool. americanoversight.org/american-overs…
ERIC was a non-controversial nonprofit that quietly helped states clean up their voter rolls by securely comparing voter data. A cascade of misinformation coordinated by anti-democratic activists, eventually led several states to withdraw.
Our investigation and the documents obtained as part of it show how election officials defended ERIC behind the scenes while publicly caving to a pressure campaign led by some of the same people who sought to keep former President Trump in power in 2020. americanoversight.org/the-campaign-t…
NEW: Today, the Georgia State Election Board withdrew rules it approved in a recent illegal meeting, which was held without proper notice of a quorum. We’d sued the Board for violating the state’s Open Meetings Act. americanoversight.org/georgia-electi…
We’re pleased that our lawsuit, along with pressure from partner organizations on the ground in Georgia, has prompted the Board to withdraw the illegally approved rules from its sham July 12 meeting.
The board also announced plans to reconsider the rules at its Aug. 6 meeting. We remain deeply concerned by the Board’s decision to promptly revisit these problematic measures that serve to intimidate election workers and grant partisan advantage to preferred candidates.
NEW: We sued the Georgia State Election Board for violating the state’s Open Meetings Act after it held a meeting on July 12 — in which it pushed forward controversial new election rules — without legally required public notice or a quorum. americanoversight.org/american-overs…
Georgia’s Open Meetings Act and others like it are vital to a functioning democracy by helping ensure official actions are conducted in full view of the public. Attempts to maneuver around it to advance changes to Georgia’s election rules are a clear violation of this law.
Any proposals voted upon during this meeting are null and void, and we ask the court to prevent them from moving ahead with the proposed rules and to declare their actions at last week’s meeting invalid.