State lawmakers are considering erecting new hurdles to the public’s right to know what officials do in the people’s name. Assembly member Blanca Pacheco, a Democrat from Downey, has introduced a bill that would increase fees, allow government agencies to drag their feet longer responding to requests and enable the government to sue anyone for suspicion of “malicious intent” underlying a request.

The First Amendment Coalition calls Assembly Bill 1821 “a direct attack on government transparency in California.” They are not exaggerating. It would undermine the basic principle of the California Public Records Act — that anyone, for whatever reason, can request copies of public records at minimal cost and receive a timely response.

The bill passed the Assembly in late May with support from North Bay Democratic Assembly members Damon Connolly, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry and Chris Rogers. Longtime GOP leader James Gallagher — prior to his election to Congress — voted against the bill. It now awaits action in the Senate.

Under AB 1821, government agencies that decide someone has requested records for commercial use could jack up their rates to $22 or, in some cases, $66 an hour to gather and review the records. News outlets and some other organizations would be exempt.

Commercial uses are not the only target. If the bill becomes law, agencies could haul into court any records requester they suspect of “malicious intent.”

If the court agrees, the agency could charge higher hourly rates. Just the possibility of having to go to court and face exorbitant fees would intimidate members of the public from asking in the first place.

Pacheco’s spokesperson said the bill was inspired by one of the legislator’s trips sponsored last year by special interest groups, including a study tour in Spain, a golf tournament in Pebble Beach and a conference in Maui. The cost for her travel was more than $45,000. How do we know that? Because financial disclosure forms are public records. Sharing the truth about government officials is not malicious.

The bill’s backers argue that the higher fees would both dissuade burdensome public records requests and prevent taxpayers from having to subsidize them. But it should not matter what someone wants to do with public records. Government records, with some exceptions, belong to the people, and the people can do whatever they want with them. That is why the Public Records Act does not include a requirement that requesters specify the reason for their request. It is irrelevant.

AB 1821 also would increase how long people must wait for records. Right now, agencies have 10 calendar days to provide an initial response. That need not be delivering the record, just an update on whether the records even exist. In some cases they can extend that by two more weeks.

If AB 1821 becomes law, the timeline would switch to business days and could stretch to more than a month.

In time-sensitive situations, those extra weeks could make a big difference. Imagine, for example, someone gets wind of shenanigans in October before an election. Savvy elected officials might put off release of the evidence until after votes are cast.

The government’s business is the people’s business, and it should remain transparent quickly, without probing questions about intent and at an affordable price. At a time when so many California officials condemn secrecy and abuse of power at the federal level, it is unfortunate that some choose to emulate it.