Over at Minnesota Independent, Jon Collins takes a deep look at a conservative University of Minnesota student paper's numerous Data Practices requests aimed at DFL Auditor Rebecca Otto and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. 

Sean Niemic, who edits Minnesota Republic, has trumpeted press freedom in his quest — which Otto in particular has condemned as so broad as to compromise her office's effectiveness. The journalist's lament has given Republicans (who have made parallel data requests) extra ammo in firing cover-up charges at Otto.

One of the issues is whether Niemic is a journalist or a partisan stalking horse using his editorship as moral gloss. Collins makes a pretty exhaustive case that Niemic is both, noting the editor "was also listed as an officer for Students for Dan Severson for Secretary of State at the University of Minnesota until just a few weeks ago, which would mean Niemic likely held the position, at least on paper, when he dropped nine information requests on Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s office."

The partisan-versus-journalist issue can be interesting — still, even among we scribes who are up-front about our leanings, there's the principle that we don't work for, or coordinate with, partisan entities.

Still — legally at least — Niemic has no special standing, according to media lawyer Mark Anfinson. When Anfinson and I talked a week or so ago, he noted that the state Data Practices Act contains "a completely neutral view of the requestor."

So this isn't so much a press-access issue as a public-access issue.

As for partisan intent, as Anfinson puts it, "One has to be very careful about being judgmental" about who's requesting information. "If you let ideology affect things, you taint the whole system of public access."

That doesn't mean the public can't make its own judgments about the reasonableness of the request and the thoroughness of the response.

Anfinson notes the state Department of Administration has issued non-binding advisory opinions restricting public data in "exceptional cases where the Data Practices Act has been used as a weapon, not a tool" — for example, when those requests put an "extreme burden" on an office's ability to function.

The danger, of course, is that unreasonable requests (whatever they may look like) will create case law and pressure to narrow the Data Practices Act. The public would be the losers, whether or not they carry press cards.