Investigation
The Sunshine Fade
Florida wrote the gold standard for open government. This is a running, sourced count of the exemptions carving it away, what each one hides, and who voted for it.
Pending review
Layer 1, the record
This page is being built in public, module by module. Each section below is a self-contained piece of the story with its own verification state. A section publishes when every claim inside it has been independently checked against the primary document it cites, and not before. How that pipeline works is documented on the methodology page.
The baseline
The baseline is what every later section on this page measures against.
Every person has the right under Article I, Section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, and the section specifically includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.[1]
Article I, Section 24(c) of the Florida Constitution permits the Legislature to exempt records or meetings only by general law passed by a two-thirds vote of each house, and such a law must state with specificity the public necessity justifying the exemption and be no broader than necessary to accomplish the stated purpose. Laws enacted under the subsection may contain only exemptions from the access requirements and provisions governing enforcement of the section, and must relate to one subject.[1]
Section 119.01(1), Florida Statutes, states the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person.[2]
The Florida Attorney General has concluded that Chapter 119 contains no requirement that the name of the requestor of public records be revealed, or the identity of any other individual on whose behalf the requestor is acting.[3] The Florida Attorney General has concluded that Chapter 119 has no requirement that a person requesting a public record show a purpose or special interest before he or she may have access, and that a requester may not be required to disclose his or her name, address, telephone number, or the like to the custodian unless the custodian is required by law to obtain this information before releasing the records.[3]
A case: the travel records exemption
What the travel records law exempts, in the law's own words rather than anyone's summary of it: the text of the exemption, who it reaches, its retroactive application, the recorded votes, and the Legislature's own statement of why it found secrecy necessary, quoted in full.
In verification, 11 claims pending, 1 held on a logged conflict
- The text and scope of the exemption (C5 to C9)
- Both chamber vote rolls (C10, C11)
- The chapter law and companion bill record (C12, C15)
- The signing date, where two official records disagree (C13, held)
- The full public necessity statement, verbatim (C14)
- A cost-of-travel context figure from news reporting (C16)
Each unchecked box is a claim sitting in the verification queue. Checking one means a person reads the claim against the primary document it cites, at the snapshot we archived, and either clears it, corrects it, or rejects it. That takes real time per claim, and it is the step that makes the rest of this site worth trusting, so it does not get skipped to make a page look finished.
A case: the state parks proposal
How the Great Outdoors Initiative surfaced, what the agency's own draft plan amendments proposed and where, what the notice and meeting record shows, and what the Legislature then wrote into the State Park Preservation Act by unanimous vote.
In verification, 18 claims pending
- The announcement and how the park-specific plans surfaced (C17 to C19)
- The notice and meeting record, from the agency's own pages (C20, C21)
- What the draft plan amendments proposed, park by park (C22, C23)
- The council that was to vote, per the statute (C24)
- What the governor said afterward (C25, C26)
- The State Park Preservation Act: votes, signing, and what it prohibits and requires (C27 to C34)
Each unchecked box is a claim sitting in the verification queue. Checking one means a person reads the claim against the primary document it cites, at the snapshot we archived, and either clears it, corrects it, or rejects it. That takes real time per claim, and it is the step that makes the rest of this site worth trusting, so it does not get skipped to make a page look finished.
A case: the detention facility cost figures
Blocked
- This module is waiting on its claims. The underlying cost records production from the Florida Division of Emergency Management is in hand, obtained July 27, 2026, from the court-ordered production in the Friends of the Everglades public records suit. What has not happened is the verification pass that would connect that fight to this story: who sued, what the court ordered and when, and when the figures became public. Until those claims are constructed and cleared, nothing about what the records show renders here.
What is not here yet
The running exemption count, the year-by-year series, the sunset review record, and the enforcement story are documented in the research corpus but not yet distilled into claims. They join the page as modules when they clear the same pipeline.
Sources
- Constitution of the State of Florida, Article I, Section 24, full text as published by the Florida Senate. The Florida Senate. Facts as of 2026-07-30. Retrieved 2026-08-01. Live source / Archived copy
- Florida Statutes (2025), Chapter 119, Public Records, full chapter text. The Florida Senate. Facts as of 2025-01-01. Retrieved 2026-08-01. Live source / Archived copy
- Attorney General Opinion 92-38, issued May 6, 1992, an advisory opinion whose authority rests on Chapter 119 itself. Florida Attorney General. Facts as of 1992-05-06. Retrieved 2026-08-01. Live source / Archived copy
Corrections
No corrections logged. When we get something wrong we say so here, with the original claim, the corrected claim, the date, and what changed in verification. Tell us if we have.