scheme restricting access to ballots is evident from the fact that the legislature
has specified that certain nonballot election records may be disclosed to the
public. See RCW 29A.08.720, .770, .810, .835; RCW29A.40.130; RCW
29A.60.070, .195, .235. As stated by the trial court, it would be superfluous for
the legislature to single out specific types of election records as subject to public
No. 72028-7-1/10
disclosure unless the legislature viewed them as "exceptions in a statutory
scheme that otherwise does not permit public disclosure."
On occasion, courts in other states have allowed ballot images to be
released to the public. White cites Marks v. Koch. 284 P.3d 118 (Colo. App.
2011). cert, dismissed as improvidentlv granted, No. 11SC816 (June 21, 2012),
and Price v. Town of Fairlee, 2011 VT 48, 190 Vt. 66, 26 A.3d 26. These cases
are not persuasive in our interpretation of Washington law, as they were decided
within different statutory frameworks and under different factual circumstances.
We conclude that in Washington, all "ballots," including copies, are exempt
from production under the Public Records Act by Title 29A RCW—an "other
statute." The exemption is necessary to protect the "vital governmental function"
of secret ballot elections. RCW 42.56.210(2). We join our colleagues in Division
Two, who recently reached the same conclusion in White's similar appeal of a
decision dismissing his action in Clark County. White v. Clark County. No.
46081-5-11 (Wash. Ct. App. June 30, 2015).
BALLOTS NOT SUBJECT TO REDACTION
"Ifthere is information in a public record that is exempt and redaction and