Timothy White v. Clark County
199 Wash. App. 929
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Timothy White submitted a PRA request to Clark County for paper ballots and ballot images from the November 2013 election; the County refused, citing secrecy and prior appellate rulings.
- White previously pursued identical PRA requests for pre-tabulation ballot images and lost in this court (White I) and in Division One (White II).
- White filed a PRA complaint and a show-cause motion; the trial court held that voted/tabulated ballots are exempt from disclosure and dismissed his action.
- The court on appeal considered whether statutory and administrative provisions (RCW 29A.60.110 and WAC 434-261-045) create an "other statute" PRA exemption for tabulated ballots more than 60 days after tabulation.
- The court also addressed (1) whether redaction could cure secrecy concerns and (2) whether RCW 42.56.210(2) could compel disclosure despite the exemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 29A.60.110 creates an "other statute" PRA exemption for tabulated ballots beyond 60 days | White: 60-day retention limit means ballots must be producible after that period | County: RCW 29A.60.110 requires sealed storage and limits access to four specific situations, creating an exemption | Held: RCW 29A.60.110 is an "other statute" exemption; ballots must remain sealed or be discarded and are not producible under PRA |
| Whether WAC 434-261-045 supplies an "other statute" exemption | White: Admin rules cannot create PRA exemptions | County: Regulation implements secretary of state's rulemaking to secure ballots and limits access consistent with statutes | Held: WAC 434-261-045 unambiguously requires secure storage and access only per statutes and qualifies as an "other statute" exemption |
| Whether ballots must be produced with redactions to protect voter secrecy | White: County could redact identifying marks and produce ballots | County: Statutory and regulatory exemptions are categorical; redaction would be insufficient/impossible | Held: Exemptions are categorical; redaction is immaterial and cannot transform ballots into a non-exempt record |
| Whether RCW 42.56.210(2) permits court-ordered disclosure despite the exemption | White: Withholding ballots years later is not necessary to protect privacy or vital functions | County: Preserving absolute secrecy of the vote is a vital government function; disclosure would impair that interest | Held: White failed to show withholding is "clearly unnecessary"; the court will not override the statutory/regulatory exemption |
Key Cases Cited
- John Doe A v. Washington State Patrol, 185 Wn.2d 363 (2016) (PRA broad disclosure principle and standards for "other statute" exemptions)
- Sargent v. Seattle Police Dept., 179 Wn.2d 376 (2013) (agency bears burden to prove PRA exemption; show-cause hearing standard)
- Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, 177 Wn.2d 417 (2013) (categorical exemptions limit disclosure and narrow redaction possibilities)
- White v. Clark County, 188 Wn. App. 622 (2015) (Division Two decision finding an "other statute" exemption for pre-tabulated ballot images)
- White v. Skagit County, 188 Wn. App. 886 (2015) (Division One decision reaching similar conclusion for identical PRA requests)