AN ACT Relating to eliminating any legislative privilege exemption from the public records act;
HB1885 would amend Washington’s Public Records Act definitions to remove the special exemption for legislative records that currently limits public access to certain internal legislative materials. The bill expands the definition of “public record” to include writings relating to internal deliberations on bills contemplated or introduced in either house, including preliminary drafts, recommendations, and internal legislative and interbranch communications where opinions are expressed or policies are formulated or recommended. It also clarifies that records held by the offices of the Secretary of the Senate and Chief Clerk of the House are public records, and it specifies additional categories of legislative administrative records such as budget, financial, personnel, leave, travel, payroll, session reports, and other records designated public by official action.
The measure also revises related definitions in the chapter, including “agency,” “state agency,” “local agency,” “person in interest,” and “writing,” to align with the broader disclosure framework. It preserves an exception for certain records held by volunteers who do not serve in an administrative capacity, are not appointed to boards or internships, and have no supervisory or delegated authority. Overall, the bill is aimed at increasing transparency by making more legislative records subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.
If enacted, HB1885 would significantly narrow the Legislature’s existing privilege-based exemption from public disclosure and bring more legislative materials within the scope of Washington’s Public Records Act. It would affect the Senate and House administrative offices, and potentially lawmakers and legislative staff, by subjecting internal drafts, recommendations, and communications to public inspection unless another exemption applies. The bill would also codify that a broader set of legislative administrative records are public records, which could increase recordkeeping and disclosure obligations for legislative offices.
Based on the bill title and text, the measure appears to be framed as a government transparency and open-records reform proposal. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action. The bill’s language suggests a pro-disclosure posture, and its purpose is presented as eliminating a legislative privilege exemption rather than creating a new restriction.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between transparency and legislative confidentiality. Supporters would likely favor public access to internal legislative drafts, deliberations, and communications as necessary for accountability, while opponents may argue that removing the exemption could chill candid policy discussion, complicate the legislative process, or expose sensitive working materials before decisions are finalized. Another likely issue is the practical burden on legislative offices that would need to identify, manage, and disclose a broader range of records.