White's failure to respond to the request for clarification excused the County from
trying to explain more specifically why the "metadata and Properties" were
exempt.
Because the counties did not violate the Public Records Act, there is no
basis to assess penalties or attorney fees against them.
REQUEST TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
White requests that this court consider a declaration that Pierce County
made ballot images public in connection with a past election. Under RAP 9.11,
this court may consider evidence that was not before the trial court if, among
other things, additional proof of facts is "needed to fairly resolve the issues on
15
No. 72028-7-1/16
review" and the additional evidence would probably change the decision being
reviewed. White contends the evidence is necessary to show that "the kinds of
records at issue in this case are already made public in Washington, despite the
counties' claims to the contrary." The counties oppose the motion. They have
submitted a declaration that the information posted by Pierce County in
connection with a ranked choice or "instant runoff' election conducted in 2008
consisted only of a series of numbers containing information pulled from the
ranked choice voting ballot cards by optical scan voting equipment.
The declaration submitted by White does not prove that Pierce County has
ever posted digital images of ballots. But even if that had happened, evidence of
the occurrence is not needed to fairly resolve the issue on review. Our decision
that copies of electronic and digital image files of ballots are exempt from the
Public Records Act is rooted in the constitutional mandate for ballot secrecy and