Can I speak anonymously at a public meeting?
The Texas Open Meetings Act doesn’t address whether a governmental body can require the public to provide identification in order to attend an open meeting or speak at the meeting, so it’s up to each governmental body to establish its own policies. A governmental body may adopt rules requiring speakers to provide their name before addressing the governing body, but such rules must be reasonable and can’t discriminate among speakers on the basis of the particular views expressed.
The Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) requires that “[e]very regular, special, or called meeting of a governmental body shall be open to the public,” with limited exceptions.[1]
TOMA also provides that a governmental body “shall allow each member of the public who desires to address the body regarding an [agenda item] . . . to address the body regarding the item at the meeting[.]” The governmental body “may adopt reasonable rules regarding the public’s right to address the body,” such as setting time limits.[2]
Some states expressly prohibit governmental bodies from requiring identification in order to attend an open meeting or speak at the meeting. For example, under Nebraska law, “No public body shall require members of the public to identify themselves as a condition for admission to the meeting nor shall such body require that the name of any member of the public be placed on the agenda prior to such meeting in order to speak about items on the agenda.”[3]
And under Michigan law, “A person must not be required as a condition of attendance at a meeting of a public body to register or otherwise provide his or her name or other information or otherwise to fulfill a condition precedent to attendance.”[4]
Unlike open meetings laws in other states, TOMA doesn’t prohibit governmental bodies from requiring identification in order to attend an open meeting or speak at the meeting. Some governmental bodies in Texas ask members of public to provide their name on a sign-in sheet or to state their name before making a public comment, for example.
The Texas Attorney General has construed TOMA to mean that an open meeting must be “physically accessible to the public.”[5] In considering the accessibility of an open meeting, the Texas Attorney General noted that requiring identification for admittance to the meeting “could have a chilling effect on the public’s willingness to attend.”[6]
However, asked whether TOMA prohibited a governmental body from holding meetings at a particular location that required presentation of a government-issued photo ID, the Texas Attorney General refused to decide the question. As stated in the opinion, “Whether a specific meeting location is accessible to the public for purposes of the Act is ultimately a question of fact, however, and may depend upon, for example, the type of governmental body, the nature of the interested public, the available alternative meeting locations, and the specific procedures used in requiring photo identification.”[7]
Since TOMA doesn’t expressly address whether a governmental body can require the public to provide identification in order to attend an open meeting or speak at the meeting, it’s up to each governmental body to establish its own policies. A governmental body may adopt rules requiring speakers to provide their name before addressing the governing body, but such rules must be reasonable and cannot discriminate among speakers on the basis of the particular views expressed.[8] Under section 551.142 of TOMA, an interested person (including a member of the news media), can bring a civil lawsuit to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation or threatened violation of open meetings law by members of a governmental body.
[1] Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.002.
[2] Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.107.
[3] Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 84-1412(3).
[4] Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.263(4).
[5] Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. GA-1079 (2014); Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. JC-0053 (1999).
[6] Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. JC-0487 (2002).
[7] Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. KP-0020 (2015).
[8] Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. KP-0300 (2020) (“a rule capping the total amount of time a speaker has to address all agenda items is permissible only if the rule is reasonable”); Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. LO-96-111 (1996) (commissioners court “may not discriminate on the basis of the particular views expressed, nor arbitrarily deny citizens their right to apply to the government for redress of grievances”); Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. H-188 (1973) (commissioners court may not “unfairly discriminate among views seeking expression”).