Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/720287.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 720287.pdf
Full Text
629 charsdisclosure is possible, then it is required." Ameriquest Mortg. Co. v. Office of
Attorney Gen.. 177 Wn.2d 467, 487, 300 P.3d 799 (2013). White contends that
redaction of potentially identifying marks from the electronic or digital copies of
ballots will adequately serve the public interest in ballot secrecy protected by Title
29A RCW, while also accommodating the public interest in government
transparency that is protected by the Public Records Act.
10
No. 72028-7-1/11
The trial court ruled that redaction would not make disclosure possible: