Respondents surely acknowledge that electronic mails (emails) are documents just like any other communication, per HB 1408 (read below) and they admit that FOIA governs this matter (see Respondents' Motion to Dismiss at pp 8-9). Therefore, Respondents' arguments that individual Representatives are not subject to FOIA is incorrect and Petitioner is entitled to the requested emails with appropriate redaction under Kidd v. Department of Justice 362 F.Supp.2d 291 D.D.C.,2005.
 Headnote Citing References The second and third documents for which Kidd seeks to compel full disclosure are two constituent letters written by third parties to then-Senator Strom Thurmond and Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher regarding the “We the People Foundation.” Def.'s Mot. at 18. The agency released both letters to Kidd, redacting only the names and home addresses of the letter writers. Id. DOJ argues that it withheld the names and addresses of the constituents because “[w]hen communicating with their Senator or Congressperson, these individuals did not expect that their names or home addresses would be subject to public scrutiny.” Id. at 19. Providing personal identifying information commonly found in constituent letters does not advance the purposes of FOIA and, as such, may be withheld from FOIA requests.
We're done here. Game over Martha, insert coin.
91-A:1-a Definitions. In this chapter:
III. “Governmental records” means any information created, accepted, or obtained by, or on behalf of, any public body, or a quorum or majority thereof, or any public agency in furtherance of its official function. Without limiting the foregoing, the term “governmental records” includes any written communication or other information, whether in paper, electronic, or other physical form, received by a quorum or majority of a public body in furtherance of its official function, whether at a meeting or outside a meeting of the body. The term “governmental records” shall also include the term “public records.”
.....Respondents attempted to pull the wool over the Court's eyes by focusing on the "quorum" and "agency" but the cold hard truth is that the legislature had better be a "public body" or the future of this Democracy (or Republic, however you view it) is severely imperiled. Has privatization gone that far? Thus, the emails "accepted, or obtained by, or on behalf" of a State Representative are part of the public body and Respondents ought be sanctioned for arguing otherwise.
Respectfully submitted, The KingCaster.