WASHINGTON (TNND) — A California bill that is working through the state Senate after it passed the state Assembly includes steep fees for public records requests and would allow lawsuits against requesters to determine “malicious intent.”

Assembly Bill 1821 was introduced by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco (D) and initially just sought to extend the timeline for when government entities had to respond to a public records request, the New York Post reported Thursday.

However, Pacheco changed her bill to allow steep fees to be charged for the time that staff spends to find public records. Government entities would be permitted to charge an administrative fee of $22.35 per hour and a “professional fee” of $66.26 per hour, both subject to cost-of-living increases.

Also, if a government believes the person requesting the records has “malicious intent,” it can ask a court to make that determination and pause the request pending a decision.

A spokesperson for Pacheco told the Post that the bill intends to help small government entities — such as city and county governments, which support the legislation — respond to unreasonable records requests.

The counties have noted a case from four years ago in which a requester sought records between El Dorado County and four email domains over a five-year period. The request produced more than 42,000 potential records, but the county could not get the requester to narrow the request even after going to court.

“The malicious-intent provision is intended to address the rare circumstances in which the Public Records Act is being used to disrupt agency operations, harass staff, or consume disproportionate public resources without a corresponding public benefit,” Pacheco’s office said.

The court determination process is a “safeguard,” and the bill “does not authorize punitive damages, penalties, or damages actions against requesters,” according to Pacheco.

News outlets and other First Amendment supporters have already opposed the bill, such as the First Amendment Coalition nonprofit, which claimed that the measure will make obtaining government records much more costly.

Government agencies currently can only charge for copying costs.

First Amendment Coalition Executive Director David Snyder said that the “malicious intent” provision is particularly dangerous.

“It would be easily weaponized by agencies seeking to thwart transparency and accountability, as has already happened elsewhere in the country,” Snyder said. “For decades, California law has been clear that state and local agencies cannot sue records requesters.”

He added that the bill could put a “chill” on general access to government information, which does not help California Democrats who have attacked President Donald Trump for non-transparency.

“The fundamentals of democracy are being tested now in America. It is exactly the wrong time for California to take the serious backward step toward unaccountability,” Snyder said.

The bill’s supporters note that the fees mainly target commercial requesters, such as those making records requests for a company to make a profit, and not those in education or the news media.

California State Association of Counties CEO Graham Knaus told the Post that going to court for “malicious intent” determinations would only be used in very rare cases. He noted that the purpose is to have an impartial court, rather than the government agency itself, be the adjudicator.

Also, artificial intelligence has made it easier to draft records requests, and unreasonable requests can inflict huge costs that ultimately hurt the public, Knaus said.

“We believe that taxpayers should not be forced to bear the cost of an AI business model for those that are attempting to overwhelm the ability of local governments to provide services to our residents,” he said.

The state legislature has until the end of August to send bills to the governor.