Judge Rules Washington State Lawmakers Covered Under Public Records Act 

0
Judge Rules Washington State Lawmakers Covered Under Public Records Act 

In a historic judgement, a U.S. county judge has ruled that Washington state lawmakers are covered under the state’s Public Records Act.

The lawsuit filed by several news outlets including the Associated Press, The News Tribune challenged the exemption claimed by state representatives and senators to keep their emails, calendars and other records, including complaints of personal misconduct from disclosure under the law.

Thurston County judge Chris Lanese dismissed their arguments, stating that  state lawmakers, “have violated the Public Records Act” by refusing to disclose records sought by media outlets.

Huge Victory For News Outlets

The case is likely to be appealed and will reach the state Supreme Court in coming days.

Nonetheless the decision has been seen as a seismic moment in the history of state public records law. For several decades, state legislators have refused to comply with disclosure laws that currently apply to all elected officials.

Michelle Earl-Hubbard, attorney for the media organizations called it “a huge victory,” adding that the news outlets had been asserting that “individual legislators were subject to the (Public Records) Act” for over 20 years.

Paul Lawrence, one of the attorneys representing the state House and Senate leaders, stated his clients are likely to meet soon to discuss a potential appeal.

In his judgement, Lanese has set aside the key argument provided by legislators which claimed that their offices don’t fall under the legal definition of “agencies” under state law.

His ruling calls such an assertion, “without merit,” and notes that all State legislative offices including the defendants “are ‘agencies’ under the plain and unambiguous meaning of the Public Records Act.”

Change Law If Disagree With Verdict

Lanese also tackled in his judgement the dispute that arose in the case regarding state Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

Initially, lawmakers decided to hire outside attorneys to defend the case, rather than utilizing Ferguson’s office.

In a December hearing, Lanese asked Ferguson’s office to submit a friend-of-court brief addressing the disclosure issue which is a common practice. The response filed by Ferguson’s office stated that state lawmakers were in fact subject to the disclosure law, going against the representatives’ stand.

This led to a disagreement between legislators and Ferguson although there was a subsequent effort to add AG staff to the legislators’ legal team . Ferguson however said it was not possible any longer.

Attorneys for the lawmakers followed this with briefs suggesting that Ferguson’s office was facing a conflict of interest.

However Lanese dismissed the argument, calling it “wholly without merit.”

He has further stated that if the lawmakers disagreed with the judgement, they can change the law.

No immediate changes is likely to take place in regards to the disclosure laws. Lanese has scheduled a status conference with all parties on March 9, wherein next steps will be discussed.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here