Wisconsin’s new judicial privacy law protections “apply only when a judge issues a written request” to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, according to a new opinion issued by Max Lenz, attorney for the Wisconsin Newspaper Association.
Lenz, an attorney with Godfrey Kahn SC, issued the opinion for WNA in response to a request from a WNA member for guidance on the new judicial privacy law, known in official language as Wis. Stat 757.07.
The member also critiqued the suggestion in WEC’s guidance that the agency may remove access to a judge’s election files completely rather than redact private information.
“Nothing in the statute removes an agencies’ duty to redact and produce otherwise public records pursuant to Wisconsin’s Public Records Law,” Lenz wrote.
As Lenz pointed out in his opinion, the new law that offers privacy protections for judicial officers, was enacted in 2023 and amended in 2025.
“Given the recent enactment of that law, it has not been construed by a Wisconsin appellate court. The law states the a ‘government agency’ may not ‘publicly post or display’ ‘publicly available content’ that includes a ‘judicial officer’s’ ‘personal information,’ provided that the ‘governmental agency’ has received a ‘written request’ that the agency refrain from posting the ‘judicial officer’s’ ‘personal information’,” Lenz wrote.
The new law also closely defines the terms “government agency,” “judicial officer” (which includes a current or former Supreme Court justice, circuit, municipal or tribal judge, temporary or permanent reserve judge, or a circuit, supplemental or municipal court commissioner), “personal information”, “immediate family” and more.
For example, the term “personal information” includes: “a home address; a home or mobile phone number; a personal email address; a social security number, driver’s license number, federal tax identification number, or a state tax identification number; bank account or credit or debit card information; a license plate number of a vehicle owned, leased, or regularly used by a judicial officer or immediate family member; the names of children under the age of 18 of a judicial officer or an immediate family member of a judicial officer; the full date of birth; and marital status,” Lenz observed.
“Personal information” does not include information regarding employment with a government agency or addresses without owner or occupant names on public land records websites, according to Lenz’s opinion.
“Again, these protections only apply when the judicial officer makes a written request to the government agency. Moreover, the written request from the judicial officer must identify with reasonable specificity the personal information to be protected, including the disclosure of the identity of the judicial officer’s immediate family and the personal information of the family members to be excluded,” Lenz wrote.
Lenz also addressed the WNA member’s question about whether the judicial privacy law allows government agencies to refuse to disclose the birthdates of judges and their spouses and the identity of judges’ minor children.
“The answer is yes, assuming the judge has submitted a written request to the government entity identifying those categories of personal information,” Lenz wrote.
The member also asked about WEC’s guidance to judicial officers stating that when protection is requested, WEC will change voter records to “protected” status — removing publicly available information including posted nomination papers, declarations of candidacy and any other website content.
“The member questioned whether this means the WEC may completely remove all documents that contain personal information of judges, rather than simply redacting personal information and allowing the documents to remain public,” Lenz wrote.
“As written, the WEC guidance suggests it would wholesale remove all documents that contain personal information,” Lenz wrote. “We believe that would be unlawful. Wisconsin law is clear that records custodians are required to redact information that is exempt from disclosure and produce the otherwise public record.”
While the new law’s judicial protections are broad, Lenz added, the new law’s breadth “applies both to the categories of judicial officers and family members afforded protection and to the categories of personal information that can be protected. Still, government agencies are only required to keep personal information of judicial officers confidential upon a specific, notarized request from the judicial officer.”
“Moreover,” Lenz concluded, “nothing in the law removes government agencies’ duty to redact protected information and otherwise produce public records.”
Lenz said the opinion will be updated if the law is amended by the Wisconsin Legislature or addressed by the courts.
