Skip to main content

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

Full Text

1,780 chars
11
             
No. 72028-7-1/12

disclosure. Compare, RCW 29A.60.230, providing a special
protection for aggregating public election results when the number
of voters is so low in a precinct that separate reporting of precinct
results may reveal identity).

We agree with the trial court's reasoning. Redaction will not eliminate the

risk that disclosing copies of ballots will reveal the identity of individual voters.

Ballots are exempt in their entirety.

ADEQUACY OF COUNTY RESPONSES

White argues that even ifthe ballot images are exempt, he is entitled to an

award of attorney fees and a daily penalty under the Public Records Act because

the counties' responses were insufficient.

Agency responses refusing inspection of any public record must include a

statement of the specific exemption authorizing the withholding of the record and

"a brief explanation" of how the exemption applies to the record withheld. RCW

42.56.210(3). In order to satisfy the exemption requirements, the public agency

must identity the specified record, cite statutory exemptions, and briefly explain

how the exemptions apply to the requested records. PAWS, 125 Wn.2d at 271

n.18. Claims of exemption should contain enough details to (1) enable a

requestor to make a threshold decision about whether the exemption was proper

and (2) enable judicial review of the decision to withhold. Rental Hous. Ass'n of

Puget Sound v. City of Pes Moines. 165 Wn.2d 525, 540-41, 199 P.3d 393

(2009); Sanders v. State, 169 Wn.2d 827, 845-49, 240 P.3d 120 (2010).

Skagit County provided White with a 2,111-page exemption log. The log

listed each ballot withheld by its serial number and gave, for each, the same brief

explanation.