How much access to government documents does the public deserve?

Less than a year ago, New Jersey Governor Philip D. Murphy signed legislation that weakened the power of a watchdog agency set up to monitor election campaigns. Now lawmakers are moving to limit another good-governance effort, a public records law introduced to limit corruption by encouraging government transparency.

Mr. Murphy, a Democrat, has not publicly discussed the proposal, and his spokesman declined to comment on whether he would sign the bill if it reached his desk. But it comes at a critical time in his second term, with his wife, Tammy Murphy, running for the U.S. Senate and relying on support from some of the same Democratic lawmakers pushing the legislation.

The public records law, known as the Open Public Records Act, was passed 21 years ago, long before the explosion of digital communications increased the amount of information covered by the law — and expanded the universe of people trying to access the data. to acquire.

For-profit companies are now using government laws to obtain data central to their business models, sometimes burdening taxpayer-funded agencies, and there has been a bipartisan push across the country for public records laws to evaluate.

States including Arkansas, Colorado and Kentucky are considering restricting access to documents, while California is moving in the opposite direction, with activists pushing for a November ballot question to seek more disclosure.

The New Jersey legislation, if signed by Mr. Murphy, would represent the most significant change yet to the Open Public Records Act.

The bill would affect access to many different types of information, including real estate transactions, dog licenses and legal proceedings. Information that currently must be provided immediately upon request – such as government contracts and payroll information – may be delayed if the material is more than a year old. Home and email addresses, phone numbers and other identifying information now available would be redacted or hidden. And a broad group of people—representatives of the estimated $300 billion data broker industry, which bundles and sells records—would be denied access to anything at all.

The efforts to restrict access to public records pit municipal and county officials against advocates of government transparency.

Supporters say the legislation will ease burdens on government offices and protect citizens’ personal information in an era of identity theft and other high-tech crimes.

The effort is backed by some of the State House’s most influential forces, including local government lobby groups that say City Hall staff cannot keep up with rising data requests.

In recent years, for example, some agencies have been inundated with requests for video and audio files of arrests and other law enforcement interactions, said Lori Buckelew, deputy director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities.

“Editing one hour of bodycam footage takes three hours,” Ms. Buckelew said by phone.

John Donnadio, executive director of the New Jersey Association of Counties, said commercial requests for government documents have become particularly difficult. “There are counties that receive 3,000 or 4,000 public records requests a year,” he said.

Some of the best-known companies that collect data from government archives offer lawyers, researchers and scientists access to subscriptions. Other companies offer contact information about former classmates or potential romantic interests.

Critics of the bill, including the New Jersey Press Association, a newspaper industry lobbying group, call it an attack on democracy. They argue that restricting access to government documents would open the door to more corruption in a state that is no stranger to political scandals.

“We are living in a moment where there is significant distrust of government and public institutions,” Amol Sinha, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a telephone interview. “The worst thing we can do is limit government liability and limit access to documents.”

The League of Women Voters of New Jersey called the legislation an “anti-transparency bill” in a social media post and said more than 700 people had joined an email protest.

On Sunday, Ms. Murphy, the first lady, said she opposed the legislation, which she characterized as an attempt to “undermine” the state’s public records law. “Both the public and the press should be able to ask questions – and get answers,” she said on social media. Her leading opponent in the Democratic Senate primary, Rep. Andy Kim, has also expressed concerns about the proposal.

The legislation is moving unusually quickly. A lead sponsor, Sen. Paul Sarlo, will chair a Senate Budget Committee hearing on the issue on Monday, while the Assembly’s State and Local Government Committee will examine the issue in its own hearing.

In the coming weeks, Mr. Murphy will need Senator Sarlo’s support on important initiatives. One of those is the reauthorization of the Transportation Trust Fund for rail and highway projects, which is contingent on a gasoline tax increase of nearly 10 cents per gallon and a fee for electric vehicles. Another example is the $55.9 billion state spending plan, which calls for an 11.5 percent tax on the most profitable companies to help fund public transportation, and $2.3 billion in housing tax credits.

Senator Sarlo did not return a spokesperson’s call for comment.