My two cents' worth: I think election workers should definitely have their addresses private -they have been subjected to abuse and we need them to continue to do their critical work. As for elected officials, I'd be fine with their addresses being private so long as the Secretary of State was officially and formally tasked with confirming the residency of legislators (and was funded to do this additional work). But since I don't get to write legislation, I'm with you (and Melinda Iyer/CEBV in her comment below) on being conflicted.
Sigh... Title 42 is permanent statute, and is not going away this month. To call the Trump-era invention of policy tied to a section of Title 42 by the entire section of federal code is inaccurate. I don't care if various people call it "Title 42." You're not various people; you're journalists.
How dare you mock Arizona's "most beloved . . . journalist"! Methinks I detect some jealousy.
CEBV didn't take a position on SB1061, for many of the same reasons. But you make a compelling point.
My two cents' worth: I think election workers should definitely have their addresses private -they have been subjected to abuse and we need them to continue to do their critical work. As for elected officials, I'd be fine with their addresses being private so long as the Secretary of State was officially and formally tasked with confirming the residency of legislators (and was funded to do this additional work). But since I don't get to write legislation, I'm with you (and Melinda Iyer/CEBV in her comment below) on being conflicted.
Sigh... Title 42 is permanent statute, and is not going away this month. To call the Trump-era invention of policy tied to a section of Title 42 by the entire section of federal code is inaccurate. I don't care if various people call it "Title 42." You're not various people; you're journalists.