The Washington Supreme Court’s decision finding that the state’s Public Records Act applies to members of the Legislature is an important victory for government transparency and yes, democracy.
The 7-2 decision, announced Dec. 19, strongly asserts that the same public disclosure rules that apply to other elected officials and agencies apply to state senators and representatives, too.
The state’s high court ruled on a lawsuit brought by a media coalition led by The Associated Press. The coalition’s attorney, Michele Earl-Hubbard, called the decision a “huge win.”
“We have been hitting a brick wall for more than a decade where lawmakers have been arguing that somehow different rules applied to them,” she said in an Associated Press story. “We have now proven that’s not true. It was never true.”
Indeed. And it’s a potent reminder that the saying “no one is above the law” applies here just as much as it does in the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Text messages and email may have been futuristic ideas in 1972 when voters passed the Public Records Act, but they are important facets today of not just life but governance, and residents have a right to know who’s contacting their lawmakers and why. This was one of the fundamental aspects of the lawsuit; lawmakers sought to specifically shield their daily schedules, texts, emails and other material related to their work from disclosure requirements. The high court rightfully and wisely said no.
“We conclude that under the plain meaning of the PRA (Public Records Act), individual legislators’ offices are ‘agencies’ subject to the PRA’s general public records disclosure mandate. Legislative history confirms rather than contradicts our conclusion,” Justice Susan Owens wrote for the majority.
The court did, however, also find that the Legislature’s administrative offices are not “agencies” and thus more narrowly subject to the Public Records Act, The Seattle Times reported. According to online news site Crosscut, Earl-Hubbard is troubled by that finding. “That’s not recognizing the will of the people that passed this law, and, I believe, not recognizing the state of the law as it stands today,” Earl-Hubbard said.
We think her concerns are valid; several of the Supreme Court justices seemed to agree, too. In a partial dissent, Justices Debra Stephens, Mary Yu and Charles Johnson argued the Legislature’s administrative offices should also be fully included under public disclosure laws. The Seattle Times reported they quoted James Madison: “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.”
We hope that after years of trying to dodge the Public Records Act, legislators will embrace and champion it. According to news reports, in a statement, state Rep. Laurie Jinkins, a Tacoma Democrat who will be the next speaker of the House, said she and her colleagues “believe in open and accountable government.”
We hope they do. And in the meantime, we’ll be watching.
