Deliberative process exemption
Explanation
A deliberative process exemption to open records requests is one that shields from public scrutiny that papers and materials that elected officials use in the course of reaching a decision. There are two clear arguments for this exemption. The first argument for the exemption centers on the notion that public officials should be able to conceal much of the thought process behind making a decision in order to protect the free flow of opinions and information. The courts and legislatures have traditionally argued that without the exemption in place, the ability of public officials to receive opinions from their constituents would be hampered. In addition, the exemption is in place to protect the internal thought processes and notes of public officials from public scrutiny, as predecisional material is typically considered work product and is thus exempt. Various states approach this exemption differently, with some enforcing a broad definition while others reject it outright.
Among the states
This is a small graph which quickly breaks down the deliberative process exemption amongst all 50 states.
| Justifications: | Applications: | Origin: |
| Rating | State | Working Papers | Free flow of information | Separation of Powers | Executive | Legislative | Judicial | Local | Law | Court |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | ||||||||||
| Alaska | ||||||||||
| Arizona | ||||||||||
| Arkansas | ||||||||||
| California | ||||||||||
| Colorado | n/a | |||||||||
| Connecticut | ||||||||||
| Delaware | ||||||||||
| Florida | ||||||||||
| Georgia | ||||||||||
| Hawaii | ||||||||||
| Idaho | ||||||||||
| Illinois | ||||||||||
| Indiana | ||||||||||
| Iowa | ||||||||||
| Kansas | ||||||||||
| Kentucky | ||||||||||
| Louisiana | ||||||||||
| Maine | ||||||||||
| Maryland | ||||||||||
| Massachusetts | ||||||||||
| Michigan | ||||||||||
| Minnesota | ||||||||||
| Mississippi | ||||||||||
| Missouri | ||||||||||
| Montana | ||||||||||
| Nebraska | ||||||||||
| Nevada | ||||||||||
| New Hampshire | ||||||||||
| New Jersey | ||||||||||
| New Mexico | ||||||||||
| New York | ||||||||||
| North Carolina | ||||||||||
| North Dakota | ||||||||||
| Ohio | ||||||||||
| Oklahoma | ||||||||||
| Oregon | ||||||||||
| Pennsylvania | ||||||||||
| Rhode Island | ||||||||||
| South Carolina | ||||||||||
| South Dakota | ||||||||||
| Tennessee | ||||||||||
| Texas | ||||||||||
| Utah | ||||||||||
| Vermont | ||||||||||
| Virginia | ||||||||||
| Washington | ||||||||||
| West Virginia | ||||||||||
| Wisconsin | ||||||||||
| Wyoming |
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Gwich'in Steering Committee v. Office of the Governor
- ↑ Doe v. Superior Court
- ↑ Fuller v. City of Homer
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Ark. Code. 25-10-105(b)(7)
- ↑ Includes the Governor and the entire office of the Attorney General per Bryant v. Mars.
- ↑ Includes only actual legislators and not legislative committees per Legislative Joint Auditing Committee v. Woosley
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 CA GOVT. 54954.(a) (2009)
- ↑ Citizens for a Better Environment v. Dept. of Food & Agriculture, 171 Cal.App.3d 704, 217 Cal. Rptr. 504 (Cal.App.3d 1985).
- ↑ CA GOVT. 54954.(l) (2009)
- ↑ CA GOVT. 9075.(a) (2009)
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Colo. Rev. Stat. 24-72-202(6)(a)((II)(A and C)
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 Conn. Gen. Stat. Chapter 14, Sec. 1-210.(b)(1)
- ↑ Wilson v. Freedom of Information Commission
- ↑ Legislature only per Delaware Revised Statutes, §10002.g.16.
- ↑ Legislature per Delaware Revised Statutes, §10002.g.16. Executive per Guy v. Judicial Nominating Commission, nominations only.
- ↑ Executive per Guy v. Judicial Nominating Commission
- ↑ Guy v. Judicial Nominating Commission
- ↑ Delaware Revised Statutes, §10002.g.16
- ↑ Delaware Revised Statutes, §10002.g.16
- ↑ Guy v. Judicial Nominating Commission
Please select a state from the map or list below to learn about how it handles the Deliberative process exemption.








