Can a Texas governmental body hold an open meeting at a place that requires photo ID to get in?

Plain-English summary

Kim Wyatt, who chaired the board of the Trinity River Authority of Texas, asked the Attorney General a practical question about the Open Meetings Act: can a governmental body hold its open meetings at a building where visitors must show government-issued photo identification to get in? The Authority wanted to hold regular meetings at its Central Regional Wastewater System Plant, which, since the September 11, 2001 attacks, had required visitors to give security personnel a government-issued photo ID before being admitted.

The Open Meetings Act requires that every regular, special, or called meeting of a governmental body be open to the public, and defines "open" as "open to the public." But the AG noted that nothing in the Act says anything about whether an identification requirement at the door violates that openness rule. (The AG pointed out that some other states' open-meetings laws do expressly forbid requiring ID to attend, but Texas's does not.)

Prior AG opinions had read the Act to require that an open meeting be "physically accessible to the public," concluding, for example, that holding a meeting in New York City or Mexico would likely violate the Act because of how hard it would be for the public to get there. One earlier opinion had suggested that requiring ID "could have a chilling effect on the public's willingness to attend." But the AG also observed that many facilities open to the public now require photo ID for security, including most federal courthouses and airports, and that those requirements are generally meant to protect the public rather than to keep it out.

Weighing those considerations, the AG concluded that, without direct language from the Legislature prohibiting identification requirements, a court is unlikely to hold as a matter of law that the Act bars a governmental body from meeting at a location requiring photo ID. At the same time, the AG limited the answer: whether a specific meeting location is actually accessible to the public is a question of fact, which can turn on things like the type of governmental body, the nature of the interested public, the alternative meeting locations available, and the specific ID procedures used. The AG said those fact-intensive determinations are not appropriate for the opinion process, so it did not decide whether the Authority's particular plant would pass.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later Attorney General opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

Governmental bodies choosing a meeting place (as the opinion described it): The opinion described a photo-ID-at-the-door requirement as not, by itself, a violation of the Open Meetings Act as a matter of law. It framed the analysis as weighing the security purpose of the requirement against the public's right of access.

Special districts and authorities with secured facilities (as the opinion described it): The opinion treated the Trinity River Authority's post-9/11 ID requirement at its wastewater plant as the kind of security measure that does not automatically close a venue to the public, analogizing to federal courthouses and airports that require photo ID.

Members of the public who want to attend (as the opinion described it): The opinion described "physically accessible to the public" as the governing standard and noted a prior opinion's concern that an ID requirement "could have a chilling effect on the public's willingness to attend." Whether any given location is truly accessible, it said, depends on the facts.

Where the AG declined to opine: The opinion expressly did not decide whether the Authority's specific plant location was accessible to the public. It described that as a question of fact, turning on the type of body, the interested public, available alternatives, and the ID procedures used, and said such fact-intensive determinations are not appropriate for the attorney general opinion process. The page does not answer that fact question, because the AG did not.

Common questions

Does the Open Meetings Act ban requiring photo ID to attend a Texas public meeting?
The AG said a court is unlikely to find such a ban as a matter of law. The Act requires meetings to be open to the public but says nothing about identification requirements, and the AG would not read in an automatic prohibition.

Why does it matter that courthouses and airports require ID?
The AG used those as examples of facilities that are open to the public yet require photo ID for security. It treated that as evidence that an ID requirement is generally a security measure, not a way to shut the public out.

So a governmental body can always require ID at its meetings?
Not necessarily. The AG said whether a specific location is actually accessible to the public is a question of fact. It can depend on the type of body, the interested public, the alternatives available, and the ID procedures used. The opinion did not bless any particular setup.

Do other states handle this differently?
The AG noted that some other states' open-meetings laws expressly prohibit requiring people to identify themselves to attend a meeting, and pointed to Kentucky, Michigan, and Nebraska as examples. Texas law has no such express prohibition.

Did the AG decide whether the Trinity River Authority could meet at its plant?
No. The AG said that fact-specific accessibility question was not appropriate for the opinion process and left it undecided.

Background and statutory framework

The Open Meetings Act requires that every regular, special, or called meeting of a governmental body be open to the public, with limited exceptions, and defines "open" to mean "open to the public" (Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 551.002; § 551.001(5)). The AG noted the Act contains no language addressing whether an identification requirement at a meeting location affects that openness. By contrast, the AG observed, some other states' open-meetings statutes expressly bar requiring identification to attend (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.840; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.263(4); Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 84-1412(3)).

The AG drew on prior opinions reading the Act to require that a meeting be "physically accessible to the public," which had concluded that meetings in distant locations like New York City or Mexico would likely violate the Act, and one of which suggested an ID requirement "could have a chilling effect on the public's willingness to attend" (Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-1079 (2014), JC-0487 (2002), JC-0053 (1999)). Against that, the AG noted that many public facilities require photo ID for security, citing a federal appellate decision that a photo-ID requirement for courthouse access did not violate a defendant's right to a public trial (United States v. Smith, 426 F.3d 567, 572-74 (2d Cir. 2005)). The AG concluded that, absent direct legislative language prohibiting ID requirements, a court would weigh the security need against the public's right of access and would be unlikely to find a per se violation. Because whether a particular location is accessible is a fact question, the AG said it was not a determination appropriate for the opinion process (Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0756 (2010)).

Citations

Statutory provisions:

• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 551.002 (open meetings requirement)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 551.001(5) (definition of "open")
• Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.840; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.263(4); Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 84-1412(3) (other states' express bars on requiring identification to attend, cited for contrast)

Cases:

• United States v. Smith, 426 F.3d 567, 572-74 (2d Cir. 2005)

Prior Attorney General opinions referenced:

• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-1079 (2014), JC-0487 (2002), JC-0053 (1999), GA-0756 (2010)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0020
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2015/kp0020.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official PDF. Minor extraction artifacts were corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

KEN PAXTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

May 11, 2015

Mr. Kim C. Wyatt Opinion No. KP-0020
President and Chairman, Board of Directors
Trinity River Authority of Texas Re: Whether the Open Meetings Act prohibits a
Post Office Box 60 governmental body from holding a meeting at
Arlington, Texas 76004 a location that requires the presentation of
photo identification (RQ-1232-GA)

Dear Mr. Wyatt:

You ask whether the Open Meetings Act prohibits a governmental body from holding open meetings at a location that requires the presentation of government-issued photo identification for admittance. [1] You explain that the Trinity River Authority ("the Authority") would like to hold regular meetings at its Central Regional Wastewater System Plant ("System Plant"). Request Letter at 1-2. You further explain that "in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Authority began requiring visitors to the [System] Plant to furnish security personnel with government-issued photo identification." Id. at 1.

The Open Meetings Act (the "Act") requires that "[e]very regular, special, or called meeting of a governmental body shall be open to the public," with limited exceptions articulated in the Act. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 551.002 (West 2012). The Act further defines "open" to mean "open to the public." Id. § 551.001(5) (West Supp. 2014). No language in the Act, however, addresses whether an identification requirement at a meeting location would violate the statutory requirement of openness. [2]

Prior opinions from this office have construed the Act to mean that an open meeting must be "physically accessible to the public." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-1079 (2014) at 2, JC-0487 (2002) at 2-3, JC-0053 (1999) at 5. Those opinions conclude that meetings held in New York City or Mexico would likely violate the Act due to the difficulty that members of the public would face in attempting to access the meeting locations. No Texas court cases or attorney general opinions directly address the legality of an identification requirement under the Act, although Opinion JC-0487 suggests that requiring identification for admittance to a meeting "could have a chilling effect on the public's willingness to attend." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0487 (2002) at 4 (quotation marks omitted).

However, a number of facilities that are open to the public now require photo identification for security purposes. Most federal courthouses require visitors to produce photo identification before entry. [3] See United States v. Smith, 426 F.3d 567, 572-74 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that a photo identification requirement for access to a courthouse did not violate a defendant's right to a public trial). Adult passengers must provide identification at an airport in order to travel. [4] These identification requirements are likely intended as a security measure to provide protection to the general public and not to otherwise limit the public's access to these venues.

A court addressing your question would likely weigh the need for the identification requirement as a security measure against the public's right of access guaranteed under the Act. Absent direct language from the Legislature prohibiting identification requirements, a court is unlikely to conclude as a matter of law that the Act prohibits a governmental body from holding open meetings at a location that requires the presentation of government-issued photo identification for admittance. Whether a specific meeting location is accessible to the public for purposes of the Act is ultimately a question of fact, however, and may depend upon, for example, the type of governmental body, the nature of the interested public, the available alternative meeting locations, and the specific procedures used in requiring photo identification. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-1079 (2014) at 2, JC-0053 (1999) at 6. Such fact-intensive determinations are not appropriate for the opinion process of this office. Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0756 (2010) at 4.

SUMMARY

A court is unlikely to conclude as a matter of law that the Open Meetings Act prohibits a governmental body from holding meetings at a location that requires the presentation of photo identification for admittance. Whether a specific meeting location is accessible to the public for purposes of the Act, however, is a question of fact and is not a determination appropriate for the attorney general opinion process.

Very truly yours,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

CHARLES E. ROY
First Assistant Attorney General

BRANTLEY STARR
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

Assistant Attorney General

[1] See Letter from Mr. Kim C. Wyatt, President & Chairman, Bd. of Dirs., Trinity River Auth., to Honorable Greg Abbott, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1 (Nov. 20, 2014), https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinion/requests-for-opinion-rqs ("Request Letter").

[2] In contrast, other states' open meetings laws expressly prohibit governmental bodies from requiring identification in order to attend an open meeting. See, e.g., KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 61.840 (West, Westlaw through 2015 reg. sess.) ("No person may be required to identify himself in order to attend any" meeting of a public agency.); MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 15.263(4) (West, Westlaw through 2015 reg. sess.) ("A person shall not be required as a condition of attendance at a meeting of a public body to register or otherwise provide his or her name or other information ...."); NEB. REV. STAT. ANN. § 84-1412(3) (West, Westlaw through 2014 reg. sess.) ("No public body shall require members of the public to identify themselves as a condition for admission to the meeting ....").

[3] See, e.g., U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT, Visitors Guide to the Historic John Minor Wisdom Court of Appeals Building at 1, http://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/Documents/VisitorsGuide.pdf.

[4] U.S. DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY, TRANSP. SEC. ADMIN., Acceptable IDs, http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/acceptable-ids#main-content.