Did SLO County clerk-recorder violate the Public Records Act? Here’s a Reality Check
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- A lawsuit alleged SLO County failed to meet a Public Records Act request in March.
- The county stated the inquiry lacked clear record requests and was not formal.
- Plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit after receiving data; county maintains legal compliance.
A California man filed a lawsuit against San Luis Obispo County and Clerk-Recorder Elaina Cano, alleging the two violated the Public Records Act when he asked for voter registration statistics.
But the lawsuit went nowhere quickly, because the county says it didn’t violate state law seeing as the man’s request didn’t qualify as a Public Records Act in the first place.
The lawsuit, filed on June 24 by Shiloh Marx, claims Cano did not respond to his request for information on March 11 or his follow-up email on June 17 that requested voter registration statistics “to assess election integrity and ensure compliance with the National Voter Registration Act.”
Three days later, Cano responded to Marx’s request for information on June 27, and he withdrew his lawsuit the same day, according to a dismissal document obtained by The Tribune.
On Tuesday, however, Cal Coast News reporter Karen Velie published a story about the lawsuit and its accusations against the clerk-recorder.
But Velie originally failed to include the county’s position that there was never an actual Public Records Act request, nor the fact that the lawsuit was dismissed.
The Tribune looked into the matter as part of its Reality Check series.
How clerk-recorder responded to request
Cano told The Tribune that her office provided Marx with the information he was looking for and explained why it fell outside the parameters of the Public Records Act.
“While the initial inquiry received from Mr. Shiloh Marx in March 2025 did not constitute a formal request under the California Public Records Act, our office nonetheless compiled and provided the voter registration data he requested as a professional courtesy,” Cano told The Tribune.
In its response, the SLO County Counsel’s Office explained to Marx that his initial inquiry was not treated as a public records request “due to both the subject matter, which made no reference to the (California Public Records Act) and, more significantly, because your request did not make any request for inspection or copying of a ‘record’ or ‘records,’ but instead posed a series of questions to the (Registrar of Voters).”
In other words, Marx did not frame his initial inquiry as a request for records, but rather a request for “information.” He asked for various statistics on inactive voter registrations, which are not considered records.
Cano said that Velie did not attempt to reach her for comment before publishing her story on Cal Coast News on Tuesday.
After seeing the story, Cano gave Velie what she called a “courtesy email” to clarify the county’s position and provide its formal response to Marx.
“Given these facts, the article’s implication that records were ‘withheld’ or that no response was provided is inaccurate,” Cano told Velie over email. “As always, I’m happy to provide information that ensures public confidence in our elections process.”
As of Thursday morning, Velie updated her story to include Cano’s response to Marx that there was no public records request made. She did not include the fact that the case had been dismissed. The headline remains “SLO County clerk-recorder accused of violating Public Records Act.”
Velie did not immediately respond to The Tribune’s request for comment.
What qualifies as a Public Records Act request?
The California Public Records Act grants the public the right to access and obtain copies of public records held by state and local agencies. This law ensures transparency and allows the public to monitor government activities.
The Public Records Act requires government agencies to respond to requests within 10 days to confirm the request’s receipt, though it does not necessarily require documents to be produced by then, especially if the request is voluminous.
If Marx’s request were made under the Public Records Act, the county’s failure to respond within 10 days may have put it in violation of the law. However, Marx never mentioned the Public Records Act in his initial request, which he instead framed as a “formal request for information.”
He asked Cano four questions about SLO County’s voter registrar, including the number of active and inactive registered voters, how many voters were labeled as inactive in the past year and how many voters hadn’t voted in the last two, three, four and five or more elections.
Marx, an “election integrity” advocate according to his website, said he made similar requests to all California counties except for Los Angeles County. He has also filed nearly identical lawsuits in many. He posted on X that he used Grok, Elon Musk’s AI chatbot, to draft his lawsuits.
“I am not a lawyer,” he wrote on X and told The Tribune.
The Tribune spoke to Marx on June 27. When asked about the county’s position that his initial request was not a formal records request, Marx said he “can see the interpretation of that.”
He also told The Tribune that if he received a response from Cano, it would be satisfactory to end his complaint.
The county responded later that day, and Marx filed to dismiss his lawsuit that same day, too.
“The San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder’s Office is committed to transparency, accuracy and compliance with both state and federal election laws,” Cano told The Tribune. “We encourage all members of the public and the press to review the full context of such matters and to reach out directly with questions. As always, maintaining public trust in our elections is, and will always be, one of our highest priorities.”
