Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified under state or federal law. In general, pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0300, subpart 2, access to public data shall be provided to any person, without regard to the nature of that person's interest in the data.

An exception to that general Rule is found at section 201.091, subdivision 4, which provides that an individual may neither inspect nor get a copy of the voter registration list unless s/he first states in writing that the data will be used only for certain purposes, none of which is applicable to MCE. In relevant part, that subdivision provides:

The secretary of state may provide copies of the public information lists and other information from the statewide registration system for uses related to elections, political activities, or in response to a law enforcement inquiry from a public official concerning a failure to comply with any criminal statute or any state or local tax statute.

Before inspecting the public information list or obtaining a list of voters or other information from the list, the individual shall provide identification to the public official having custody of the public information list and shall state in writing that any information obtained from the list will not be used for purposes unrelated to elections, political activities, or law enforcement. Requests to examine or obtain information from the public information lists or the statewide registration system must be made and processed in the manner provided in the rules of the secretary of state. [Emphasis added.]

However, MCE has broad authority to gain access to not public or restricted data. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 16D.06, subdivision 1:

Notwithstanding chapter 13 or any other state law classifying or restricting access to government data, upon request from the commissioner [of the Department of Revenue] or the attorney general, state agencies, political subdivisions, and statewide systems shall disseminate not public data to the commissioner or the attorney general for the sole purpose of collecting debt. Not public data disseminated under this subdivision is limited to financial data of the debtor or data related to the location of the debtor or the assets of the debtor. [Emphasis added.]

In order to determine whether MCE may gain access to data in the voter registration file is dependent upon whether section 201.091, subdivision 4, constitutes a state law restricting access to government data. The Commissioner is of the opinion that it is. While on its face, section 201.092, subdivision 4, appears to place restrictions upon use of the data, not access, it is also the case that an individual may not even inspect a voter registration file without first stating, in writing, that the data will not be used for any purpose other than those authorized. Therefore, the Commissioner believes that section 201.091, subdivision 4, is a law restricting access to data, within the meaning of section 16D.06, subdivision 1.

Accordingly, MCE may gain access to data in the voter registration file which are data related to the location of the debtor. Secretary Kiffmeyer stated that she agrees that section 16D.06, subdivision 1, provides authority for her Office to disseminate voter registration data to MCE. The extent of the data allowed to be disseminated is at question.

MCE has requested access to the entire voter registration file. The Commissioner does not believe that MCE's authority to gain access to data under section 16D.06 extends to the entire voter registration file. The statutory authority given to MCE is authority to gain access to data in the voter registration file to locate a debtor. As provided by statute, MCE may gain access only to the data in the file that are related to the location of the debtor. The Commissioner does not believe that MCE requires data about every registered voter in the State in order to locate certain debtors. Further, the Commissioner is of the opinion that MCE may gain access only to those data in the file that could aid in locating a debtor. Clearly, the debtor's address and telephone number are data that potentially could help to locate her/him. Date of birth data are more problematic in terms of relating to location of a debtor. However, the Commissioner reasonably concludes that the debtor's date of birth could help MCE in some circumstances identify and locate the debtor. MCE should not gain access to other data in the voter registration file, such as voting history, which are not data that relate to the location of a debtor.

Secretary Kiffmeyer and MCE have also asked the Commissioner to address whether, for example, data in the file about all the John Does in Hennepin County, qualify as data related to the location of the debtor John Doe. If so, then MCE would be entitled to gain access to data about individuals with the same name as a debtor MCE is trying to locate.

In his comments to the Commissioner on that point, Commissioner Smith wrote: [t]hus, the issue is whether the phrase in question - related to' - is broad enough to authorize disclosure of data on the names that are the same as the debtor in that county when MCE cannot locate its debtor? MCE's view is yes, and that view is supported by the language of the law, the common usage and definition of the term, and by court case law.

Commissioner Smith provided common usage definitions of related, pursuant to section 645.08 (canons of statutory construction), and stated:

Applying these definitions into section 16D.06, subdivision 1, data related to the location of the debtor' means data connected or associated with locating the debtor. Or it means data connected by reason of established or discoverable relation. Thus, data that provides MCE some connection or association with the location of the debtor, is data that may be disclosed to MCE. Accordingly, when the other will connect MCE to its data, or help MCE locate the right debtor for MCE, that is data related to' the location of the debtor, and thus authorized to be disclosed.

Commissioner Smith continued:

It must be emphasized that MCE is not proposing it has the right to see anything and everything so long as it is remotely or kind of' related to its work. Of course not. However, based on the guidance of the plain definition of the terms, MCE's working guideline is that it would have the right to see data that connects, associates, or helps MCE locate the debtor, meaning the right debtor, for MCE. Applying the common definition to the factual situation before us, if there is more than one John Doe in Hennepin County, and there is not a match with an address, MCE would have the right to access the data on the other John Does in that county to locate the right debtor.

The Commissioner disagrees with Commissioner Smith's position. In enacting the limiting language of section 16D.06, subdivision 1, the Legislature clearly intended, given the extremely broad authority given to MCE, to impose some reasonable limitations on that authority. The Legislature accomplished that limitation by stating that while MCE can gain access to virtually all data maintained by the State and its political subdivisions, the access must be . . . limited to financial data of the debtor or data related to the location of the debtor or the assets of the debtor. To accept MCE's position would be to accept the proposition, in the example presented, that because MCE is entitled to access to data about debtors, it is also entitled to access to data about individuals who are not debtors, simply because it would facilitate access to information about the debtor.

The Legislature had the opportunity to include such language in section 16D.06. It chose not to do so. Instead, it limited access in every instance to data relating to the debtor and not to any and all data that could facilitate MCE's access to data about the debtor. The Commissioner cannot conclude that the grant of authority to MCE extends to any and all data as suggested by MCE.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Secretary Kiffmeyer is as follows:

Signed:

David F. Fisher
Commissioner

Dated: October 26, 1999