N.J. Gov. Corzine E-mails to Remain Private

By Chloe Sommers
Both photos © 2008 Associated Press (photos by Mel Evans)


The Associated Press article, N.J appeals court rules governor's e-mails are private, from the firstamendmentcenter.org is an example of how an appeals court can work as a last resort for a defendant.


In New Jersey, a lower court ruled that certain e-mails between New Jersey Gov. John Corzine and his labor leader ex-girlfriend, Carla Katz, be made public.

A judge read over the emailed communications before the ruling. But on January 12th, 2009 the state appeals panel reversed the decision, keeping the e-mails private. But more importantly, the Associated Press reports, "the appeals court was swayed by Corzine’s contention that the e-mails are covered by executive privilege, a concept that allows officials to withhold certain information in the interest of governing."

The Republican Sate Committee says the e-mails could show what, if any, influence Katz had in Gov. Corzine’s decision to stop the Legislature from tackling state worker pension and health-care reforms in 2007, reports the Associated Press.

Katz argued that the e-mails should remain private because they involved contract talks, which are exempt from Open Public Records Act requests. The Open Public Records Act comes from the Right to Know Law, stating “government records shall be readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination by the citizens of this State, with certain exceptions, for the protection of the public interest…” You can read more about the law from the Rutgers website .

There are a few reasons, under the law, the Gov. Corzine could keep his e-mails private. Are one of these points for him.

• Most state laws have an exception for communication that is “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

• Most laws except negotiations because publicity about them could harm the process. (How would one argue that they qualify as contract talks.)

• The law also allows for executives to have some privilege over their work – otherwise people might not be candid in communication with them, or material that is still in deliberation might get out before it is fully decided. Does this situation qualify?