JUDICIAL DISCLOSURE

Financial reports are important to open government

It is perfectly reasonable in these days of international terrorism and
bloodthirsty Colombian drug lords for federal judges to be concerned about
their safety and that of their families.

But it is totally unreasonable for the judges to refuse in the name of
security to release copies of their annual financial disclosure statements
to a company that wants to post them on the Internet.

What physical danger is posed to judges in publicly revealing their stock
purchases and property holdings? That's a lame excuse.

For the past two decades Congress has required federal judges and other
high-ranking federal officials to file yearly financial statements reporting
their stock holdings, family assets, gifts and other income.

There is no requirement that the judges' home addresses or other information
clearly involving matters of security be listed.

The reports, for years routinely made public to the news media and anyone
requesting them, help provide a more open window on the nation's federal
judiciary. They serve also to expose any potential conflicts of interests
that judges may have regarding cases.

Nevertheless, a panel of federal judges this week refused to release the
financial disclosure statements of approximately 1,600 active and
semiretired federal judges and magistrates to a news organization,
APBnews.com. The news operation wants to place them on the Internet. Some
news organizations already have the financial disclosure reports of some
judges online.

It's true that Congress amended the Ethics in Government Act last year to
enable federal courts to withhold any report temporarily for security
reasons. But the operative word is "security."

The court committee is terribly wrong in its decision to sit on these public
reports. Home addresses aren't necessary, if that is what the judges are
worried about.

These financial disclosure reports are meant to be open records for the
public to see -- even on the Internet.