HB 1964
In CommitteeHouse
Lists of individuals/PRA
Concerning persons requesting disclosure of lists of individuals under the public records act.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill tightens rules for requesting lists of individuals under Washington’s Public Records Act by requiring a sworn noncommercial-purpose declaration, and clarifies when overly broad or automated requests can be denied. It also specifies that school districts must only search for board meeting recordings using the date or date range provided by the requester.
- Clarifies that public records requests must be for 'identifiable records'—requests for 'all records' are not valid, though requests for all records on a specific topic or with a keyword/name are allowed.
- Requires school districts to only provide recordings of board meetings if the requester specifies a date or date range; agencies cannot use other search criteria (e.g., topic, speaker) to locate them.
- Mandates that anyone requesting a list of individuals (e.g., names, addresses) must sign a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury stating the request is not for commercial use and explaining its purpose.
- Prohibits agencies from denying requests solely because they are 'overbroad'—but allows denial of 'bot requests' (automated requests) if multiple requests in 24 hours would disrupt agency operations.
- Reaffirms that agencies must provide records promptly, allow inspection/copying during normal hours, and cannot ask why someone is requesting records unless disclosure would violate specific legal exemptions.
Who is affected
- Members of the public requesting lists of individuals (e.g., names, addresses) from government agencies — Must now sign a sworn declaration stating their request for a list of individuals is not for commercial use and explaining the purpose of the request.
- Public records requesters (including journalists, researchers, advocacy groups, and others) — Must follow new rules about what constitutes a valid public records request and may be denied if their request is overly broad, lacks specificity (e.g., no date range for recordings), or is part of multiple automated ("bot") requests in 24 hours.
- State and local government agencies (including school districts) — Must update policies and staff training to implement new requirements—especially verifying noncommercial purpose declarations and rejecting overly broad or bot requests.
- School district boards of directors and their staff — May be affected if their recordings (e.g., board meetings) are requested without a specified date or date range, which agencies are now allowed to deny under the new rules.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (3)
The clarification that agencies need not respond to requests for 'all records' (e.g., 'all emails') helps prevent abusive or unduly burdensome requests, allowing agencies to allocate limited resources more efficiently—especially beneficial for small agencies with minimal staff.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)Requiring a date or date range for school board meeting recordings simplifies agency search efforts and reduces the risk of overburdening staff with vague or unfocused requests, improving operational efficiency without sacrificing core transparency.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(1)(b)The sworn declaration requirement for list requests may reduce spam and commercial exploitation of personal data, offering modest protection against data harvesting—though enforcement may be limited.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
The requirement that public records requests must be for 'identifiable records' and the prohibition on requests for 'all records' (even if on a specific topic) may unduly restrict access to information, especially for journalists, researchers, and advocates who need to aggregate data across time or topics to expose patterns of government misconduct or inefficiency.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)The new requirement that individuals requesting lists of names/addresses must sign a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury—stating the request is not for commercial use and explaining its purpose—creates a chilling effect on legitimate public oversight, especially for sensitive investigations (e.g., housing discrimination, voter suppression, or environmental violations) where anonymity or strategic ambiguity may be necessary for safety or effectiveness.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)Requiring school districts to only search for board meeting recordings by date (not by speaker or topic) may prevent journalists, parents, or watchdogs from identifying patterns of misconduct—e.g., repeated discussions about disciplining a specific administrator—without knowing exact meeting dates, reducing transparency and accountability in school governance.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b)The new declaration requirement imposes administrative burdens on agencies—especially small or under-resourced local governments and school districts—requiring staff time to verify declarations, train personnel, and develop templates, diverting resources from core services.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)The 'bot request' denial provision, while targeting automated scraping, may inadvertently suppress legitimate coordinated advocacy—e.g., multiple requests from different community members using similar templates to document agency responsiveness—undermining grassroots civic engagement.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3)
Who Is Most Affected
Journalists and investigative researchers may face increased barriers to uncovering systemic issues in government, especially when they need to aggregate data across time or identify patterns without knowing exact dates.
Advocacy organizations (e.g., civil rights, housing, environmental) may be deterred or slowed in efforts to document discrimination or policy failures due to the declaration requirement and narrowed search criteria.
School district staff and boards may benefit from reduced administrative burden on meeting recording requests, but may face increased scrutiny if recordings are obtained—potentially exposing misconduct.
Local governments (counties, cities, special districts) may gain clarity on handling requests but will incur modest costs in staff training and policy updates, especially in smaller jurisdictions.
Everyday Washingtonians who rely on public records to hold government accountable (e.g., tenants, parents, voters) may find it harder to obtain lists of individuals (e.g., for organizing, research, or legal claims) due to the sworn declaration requirement.