CHEYENNE — A bill draft concerning data privacy for government entities advanced this week in a Wyoming Legislature committee.
Concerns regarding administrative costs, conflicts with public records laws and the exclusion of corporate data were discussed Tuesday during a meeting of the Legislature’s Select Committee on Blockchain, Financial Technology and Digital Innovation Technology.
A brief summary of the bill, titled “Data privacy-government entities,” was presented by TaLise Hansen of Wyoming’s Legislative Service Office, who noted that the bill draft was the same version considered during the committee’s May meeting. The core provision of the draft prohibits government entities from purchasing, selling, trading or transferring personal data without the “express consent of the natural person” referenced.
The bill also mandates that government entities collecting or retaining personal data must adopt policies concerning collection, retention, security and use consistent with all applicable laws. Government entities are prohibited from maintaining personal data for longer than three years without a written policy providing a “reasonable justification for the extended retention period.”
Public testimony
Some members of the public objected to the bill draft as it is currently written. Andrew Wood, executive director for TechNet’s central region, thanked the committee for their work and supported the bill’s goals of “strengthening resident trust.” TechNet is a national network of tech leaders, which has an office in Denver.
However, Wood urged the committee not to move forward with the bill in its current form.
“In the absence of a federal standard, state lawmakers should look to interoperable, comprehensive legislation already passed in other states to build on the unified standard that already provides a strong privacy protection to more than 100 million Americans,” he said. “Additionally, the current bill draft limitations with exemptions on a government entity’s ability to purchase, sell or transfer personal data could create confusion about access to public records information for legitimate purposes.”
For example, he said that government records are an important source of information for identity and fraud protection, adding that this bill could have “unintended consequences.”
Mike Smith, vice president of governmental affairs and community engagement for the University of Wyoming, addressed some of the administrative financial concerns that were unanswered when the governing body last discussed this item in May.
He said the impact would be fairly significant, saying the current data information system used by UW isn’t designed and focused on the regular deletion of data, but rather the opposite. Smith estimated a revision of the system would cost around $800,000.
David Roland, a system engineer representing Advanced Intelligent Networks, presented testimony expressing concerns with how the bill draft addresses data protections for people, but neglects businesses and organizations.
“This (bill) is very specific about preserving people, not necessarily businesses,” he said.
Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, noted that this piece of legislation is written for protections of people intentionally, as legislation would get too complex if the elected officials ventured to include corporations in this draft of the bill.
Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie (2025)
Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie
“We’ve had that discussion quite a few times on this committee of ‘how can we provide protections for corporations?’ So, this is a slice of what probably is a bigger necessary policy,” Rothfuss said.
Voter data and public records debate
A key point of discussion arose regarding existing government functions, specifically the handling of election information.
Joey Correnti IV, former chairman of the Carbon County Republican Party, argued that the language prohibiting the transfer or sale of personal data would include voter data. He noted that the Secretary of State’s office already provides transfer or sale of statewide voter rolls for $165. He also voiced concern that the three-year deletion requirement could undermine the historical archive of individual voters.
Rep. Mike Yin, D-Jackson, clarified that the three-year requirement is merely a default, and government entities could retain data longer if they adopted a policy that justifies doing so.
Rep. Mike Yin, D-Jackson (2025)
Rep. Mike Yin, D-Jackson
Sen. Rothfuss later reiterated that if information is already a public record, the bill does nothing due to language that states the bill yields to other statutes providing specific rights.
Rothfuss stressed the underlying policy intent: forcing transparency. He said it is important to ensure there are no circumstances where someone working for the state could come up with a workaround to release private data without justifying the reason publicly.
“The beauty of that is now they have to justify why they’re releasing data if they don’t have statutory authority to already do it. And that’s pretty darn good public policy,” Rothfuss said.
During the working session, the committee adopted several key amendments to clarify applicability:
• The language granting access rights was amended to include any “current or former Wyoming resident.”
• The committee also added language allowing “their legally authorized representative” to act on behalf of the resident.
• Sen. Barry Crago, R-Buffalo, moved for a conceptual amendment to ensure the bill does not apply to documents that are otherwise considered public records, clarifying that the article shall not apply to documents subject to the Public Records Act.
Sen. Barry Crago, R-Buffalo (2025)
Sen. Barry Crago, R-Buffalo
Crago stated he wanted it very clear to public records custodians that the bill is not intended to apply to records that always have been considered public records.
The committee voted unanimously to pass the bill draft (with Sen. Tara Nethercott, R-Cheyenne, being excused), which will make it a committee-sponsored bill during the 2026 budget session.
“This is to be a piece of public transparency so people know how governments are using their data,” Yin said, “especially in places where it’s not public record.”