Opinion editor's note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Energy Policy Advocates, a conservative activist group, requested data from the Minnesota Attorney General's Office in 2021. The AG refused to provide most of the data, and Energy Policy Advocates sued.

In a 2022 Minnesota Supreme Court decision — described by one of the dissenting justices as "somewhat Orwellian" — the majority of the court turned a critical definition upside down and upheld the AG's position. The decision reversed 40 years of interpretation of the relevant section of the Data Practices Act, as well as an authoritative opinion by the commissioner of administration.

The practical and legal effects of the court's decision are that virtually all of the data held by the AG's office is not available to the public. No other government entity in Minnesota enjoys near-total control over public access to its data.

Beginning in 2024, lawmakers introduced bills to overturn the Supreme Court decision. These bills would still allow the AG to protect much public data from public disclosure. But they would open to the public data about the AG's administrative and policy actions and decisions, consistent with what's required of other state and local government entities.

These bills quickly fell into the extreme partisanship that in recent years has afflicted the Minnesota Legislature. Even minimal discussion about the bills was characterized as attacks on the AG. In times past, there would have been thoughtful discussion about the pros and cons of allowing the AG to hold virtually all data in secrecy.

The media has barely covered the issue.

Recent news reports about a meeting the AG had with some of the participants in the Feeding our Future fiasco have not touched on the fact that, if there are records related to the meeting, the AG's office is in total control of what the public can learn about what happened.

An example of why this is a critical concern is a recent commentary by Attorney General Keith Ellison ("My meeting before Feeding Our Future raid was routine," April 22), which includes almost a dozen assertions that we're not able to check because his office's data is not accessible to the public.

Minnesotans for Open Government has tried — since the Supreme Court decision — to offer information and possible legislative fixes to the appropriate committees and to legislators. (Our organization is absolutely nonpartisan.)

Lawmakers have conducted hearings in both the House and Senate. Before the recent legislative break, Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, asked some Republican and DFL senators to work on a possible compromise. We have offered our expertise to them. Hopefully, their work will be successful.

The House version of the legislation is currently trapped in the 67-67 partisan gridlock. The chances of success may increase if the public and the media play a role in both disseminating information and advocacy. Contact Minnesotans for Open Government (mncogi.org) for more information.

Don Gemberling is spokesperson for Minnesotans for Open Government.