You do not have to answer, but if you do not, I presume the state, under the interpretation it has made of the law, can use your refusal as a basis for refusing your request for public records.
Then again, I still let the TSA and customs perform intrusive searches and ask intrusive questions (that have no bearing on safety) when I travel, because I want to get on with my life. For example, when I return to the US (as a natural born US citizen), immigration will ask me what the purpose of my trip was, where I went, etc. They have no legitimate reason for this, I legally don't have to answer any of the questions, and they cannot refuse me re-entry (assuming they accept the validity of my passport), yet I play their game because at the end of a 10-hour flight and a 2-hour queue, I don't feel like sitting in a cell for 72 hours while they process me.
TSA security theatre on the other hand is a whole different ball of wax. Very little of what they do contributes more to security than prior measures or alternative, less intrusive measures. The fact that programs where you can pay to avoid it exist prove this point. They already have the same level of access to every person thorough the dragnet of law enforcement and intelligence databases that every single air traveler gets processed through. When it's trivially easy to spot numerous gaps in security in every single airport I've been to, it's more a statement to the fact that most people are good than it is to the fact that we're good at catching bad guys. An airport just needs to be a less viable target and bad guys will go elsewhere that's easier.