(The Center Square) – Let’s Go Washington (LGW) has filed a new initiative aimed at expanding public-records requirements to Washington’s judicial branch.
“If elected lawmakers are subject to that standard of public accountability, judges should not be categorically outside of it simply because they serve in a different branch of government,” LGW staff wrote in a news release emailed to The Center Square. “Judges are elected by the people to uphold the laws of the people; PRA requirements can and should apply to judicial offices.”
In 2018, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Lanese applied the public records transparency law to individual legislators, saying the Public Records Act applies to the offices of state senators and representatives.
“Courts and judges should operate under the same statutory transparency framework that applies to other public officials and government agencies,” LGW wrote.
In an interview with The Center Square, LGW founder Brian Heywood said taxpayers should expect transparency in all branches of government.
“Supreme Court, the courts, they are not subject to the PRA. They’ve exempted themselves,” he said. “And this initiative is to make sure that there’s clear access to all the decisions, and how the sausage gets made, on everything both from the judicial, as well as the executive branch as well as the legislative branch.”
The initiative would amend RCW 42.56.010 to expressly include Washington’s trial courts, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, along with justices, judges, clerks and court personnel, within the definition of an “agency” under the Public Records Act.
“They are elected, just like the executive and the legislative branches and subject to the first part of the Constitution, which says that all powers inherent in the people,” Heywood added. “So, it seems to me illogical and inappropriate that the Supreme Court and the courts would somehow be exempt from this oversight requirement.”
The initiative was filed on Thursday and per Washington law, it is then sent to the Code Reviser’s Office to ensure it is written in proper legal code format and to see if there are any technical errors.
The Washington Attorney General’s Office then reviews the measure and drafts an official ballot title and an explanatory summary.
“We’ve got this miserable process in Washington where a very partisan Attorney General’s office gets to write the ballot title,” he said. “So, we’ll see what that is and then how long it takes. There’s been delays in the past on this, and we’ll see if this thing can get through in enough time to get it done this year.”
If the initiative is expedited, LGW and supporters could begin gathering signatures this fall and potentially get the measure qualified in time for the 2027 legislative session, to be considered by lawmakers.
Mike Faulk, spokesman for Attorney General Nick Brown, said they are not delaying the measure.
“We don’t yet have a timeline for a ballot title because it hasn’t been transmitted to our office,” he said. “Right now, it’s still undergoing review by the code reviser. When that’s complete, if the sponsor decides to move forward, the secretary of state will assign a number and transmit it to our office for a ballot title. We’ll then have five business days to prepare a ballot title. That clock hasn’t started yet.”