Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court heard argument in a case—McDonald v. Chicago—about whether the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms extends to the states and local governments.  Specifically, the McDonald case will decide whether Chicago’s ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.  The Court will issue its decision no later than the end of June or early July.

Of course, the United States Supreme Court is the final authority on this issue and what they decide will apply throughout the United States—including the State of Washington.  Nonetheless, last Thursday the Washington Supreme Court took it upon itself to decide the question in a case challenging Washington’s limited ban on a minor’s possession of a firearm. Instead of deferring its decision for three to four months, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does apply to the States.

Why did the Washington Court choose to issue its decision now and not wait until after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled?  What was the point of analyzing United States constitutional law in this case?  In the words of Washington Justice Debra Stephens, the State Supreme Court’s “opinion is likely to be eclipsed before the ink it takes to print it is dry.”

Read more…

[Editor's Note: Commenter Insideago wanted to hear LawNerd's take on Erica's story about public disclosure law and text messages. And so, here's LawNerd.]

The Public Records Act (PRA) was originally enacted by public initiative in 1973, long before personal computers were a twinkle in our eyes. Now, almost all public records are created and kept electronically. In 1973, written communication was by letter. Today, most written communications are email. In 1973, a draft letter or report went into the wastebasket. Now, the final version of a document contains metadata that reveals information about changes from prior drafts, the number of revisions, and the various authors of those revisions.

One largely untested area of public disclosure is the realm of text messages. Last week, when Erica tried to obtain copies of City Council member Tim Burgess’ text messages through a public records request, she was told that those records no longer existed because they’d been destroyed by AT&T, Burgess’ cell carrier.

One thing is clear:  Electronic documents are subject to the public records act.  Thus, an email or a text message that otherwise meets the definition of a public record has to be disclosed upon request—something City Attorney Pete Holmes acknowledged in a follow-up to Erica’s story.

Therefore, the fact that Burgess’ text messages were deleted raises some serious issues about retention and disclosure of these public records. Read more…

Josh posted about the U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding corporate expenditures and political campaigns when it came down few weeks ago.

However, I’m the LawNerd around here. And I actually read all 186 pages of the decision—my excuse for this late, but more in-depth post on the historic decision.

Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down campaign finance restrictions on corporate independent expenditures, caused much consternation including the President’s dress-down of the Supreme Court during the State of the Union and an unprecedented visible reaction from one of the majority justices (Alito). Much has been written about the potential impact of the decision on the integrity of our democratic process.  Such speculation is best left to the pundits and political nerds. But, the 186 page set of opinions makes for fascinating reading at least to law nerds and others interested in the inner workings and debates at the Supreme Court.

Here are some observations:

First, as to the merits, despite the torrent of criticism from the left, the decision is a victory for free speech.

Read more…

The United States Supreme Court last week granted certiorari (the legal term for the Supreme Court agreeing to accept an appeal for review) to review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that the names and addresses of Referendum 71 signatories could be released under the Washington Public Records Act consistent with the First Amendment. Read more…

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that the State of Washington’s Constitutional disqualification of convicted felons from voting, who have not had their civil rights restored, violates the federalVoting Rights Act.  In a 2-1 decision, the Court found that voting rights in Washington were being denied as a result of racial discrimination within Read more…

Seattle has a new city attorney—Pete Holmes. In a contentious under–the-radar race, Holmes defeated incumbent Tom Carr by a surprisingly large margin. While one can debate what specific issues underlie the result, one theme stands out: The urge for change. But change from what? Or should we ask change to what?
City Read more…

Seattle has a new city attorney—Pete Holmes.  In a contentious under–the-radar race, Holmes defeated incumbent Tom Carr by a surprisingly large margin.  While one can debate what specific issues underlie the result, one theme stands out:  The urge for change.  But change from what?  Or should we ask change to what?
City Read more…

One of the more controversial Washington Supreme Court decisions of the past five years is the 2004 Hangartner v. City of Seattle ruling. There, the Court, among other rulings, determined that the Washington Public Records Act (“PRA”) exempted attorney-client communications between government entities and its lawyers (i.e. state, county, city attorneys) from public disclosure. The Read more…

The election may be over, but important issues stemming from the election have yet to be resolved.  Two lawsuits filed by opponents of the “everything but marriage” law, the subject of Referendum 71, are pending in federal court.  The first involves the scope of the right to anonymous speech when signing initiative and referendum petitions.  Read more…

Today a coalition of gun rights advocacy groups, both national and from Washington, along with several allegedly aggrieved Washington citizens sued the City of Seattle, Mayor Nickels and the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation over the City’s firearm rule prohibiting the possession or display of firearms at certain park facilities where children and youth Read more…

THE DISCLOSURE OF IDENTITY CONTROVERSY – PART I
The controversy surrounding first amendment rights associated with initiatives and referendums in Washington took a new and potentially significant turn Thursday when a group called Pacer Family PAC sued in federal court to enjoin the State from enforcing its Public Disclosure law that requires the disclosure of Read more…