Legislator with court record put veil on court records. This can’t stand.

We can’t think of a single good reason why a new Missouri law would require redacting the names of all victims and witnesses from all public court documents and shielding all dates of birth for everyone involved in any court case.

But of all the bad reasons imaginable, one of the worst would be if the provision was created by a state legislator whose bid for higher office was being complicated by an old attempted assault allegation against himself.

Because Missouri state Rep. Justin Hicks won’t talk to us, we can’t say what actually motivated him to slip those unusual redaction requirements into a broader bill last year, apparently with little if any discussion in Jefferson City.

What we can say with certainty is that Hicks and his colleagues should either publicly explain why Missourians shouldn’t have the right to even the most basic information about the parties in court cases — or else take this bizarre provision out of the statutes immediately.

The backstory is complicated, but stay with us:

A political rival says that Hicks, a Republican from Lake Saint Louis, is suing him for publicly disclosing that Hicks was the subject of an order of protection in 2010 from a former girlfriend who claims he tried to choke her.

Max Calfo publicized the order of protection on a campaign website last year, as he was challenging Hicks for the GOP nomination to his legislative seat. (Hicks later decided to run for Congress instead.)

Details about the documents are murky because, Calfo says, both the 2010 order of protection and the December lawsuit have been sealed by a judge at Hicks’ request. Calfo has said he obtained a copy of the order of protection from a third party.

The suit apparently is not a slander action claiming there was no order of protection. Instead, as the Post-Dispatch’s Jack Suntrup reported last week, Calfo says Hicks’ suit accuses him and one of his campaign volunteers of “public disclosure of private facts.”

If in fact that’s the suit’s claim — that a judicial order of protection filed in the court system alleging violence is no one else’s business — it’s a galling legal action from a sitting legislator and congressional candidate who is asking for people’s votes.

Cutting off court information from the public was also the stated goal of language that Hicks last year added to an omnibus bill (SB 103) that addressed various issues regarding the court system.

Hicks’ amendment mostly flew under the media radar as it was added to the large bill last year. It requires that the names of all victims and witnesses be redacted from publicly available court files. It also redacts dates of birth of all parties — which would include alleged perpetrators.

For those who don’t usually interact with the court system, suffice to say this is a truly unheard-of veil over the generally open world of court records.

“In court opinions, Missouri has become the ‘State of Unnamed Persons,’” attorney Mark Sableman wrote in Gateway Journalism Review last fall, in reference to the unusual new redaction law. “…The public will learn less about what the courts do, the media will find it harder to report meaningfully on court cases, and the courts themselves may lose some of the respect and legitimacy that has developed from their historic openness.”

Yes, minors’ information must be protected and, yes, judges should have discretion to seal other records under specific circumstances. But hiding the names of all victims and witnesses would seem to be a roundabout way of improperly shielding the perpetrators themselves from legitimate public scrutiny.

A key way that journalists are able to report the stories behind court cases is to talk to the victims and witnesses — which is now inherently more difficult because their names are redacted from court documents.

Journalists also routinely use dates of birth on documents to confirm the identities of people who might have common names. But those dates of birth, even for alleged perpetrators, are now unavailable on court documents.

Though the order of protection against Hicks is currently sealed by a judge’s order, Calfo says he has sought to have it unsealed and made public.

Were that to happen, the new law that Hicks himself ushered in would presumably require redacting the name of his alleged victim and redacting his own date of birth. Both of which would make any media reporting on the issue significantly more difficult.

Whether that was Hicks’ intent when he filed the amendment last year or just happy (for him) coincidence is anyone’s guess.

Either way, the Legislature should revisit these redaction requirements, right now, and give them the thorough public debate they didn’t get last year.

And voters in Missouri’s 3rd Congressional district — where Hicks is one of a wide field of candidates for an open seat — should think hard about whether they want a congressman whose first instinct regarding public information about the court system is to shut it down.