Public Records Update for 2026 – Where We Are So Far

Here we are three-fourths of the way through 2026, and it has been an interesting year in Washington, so I wanted to share some trends and update on public-records-related issues we are following.

Relatively Quiet Legislative Session

Historically, we publish a single blog on all the legislative changes to the Public Record Act (PRA) itself and PRA exemptions in a given legislative session.

This year, there were only three noteworthy bills relevant for many local governments, and we ended up covering them in separate blogs. Specifically, we covered three new exemptions for use-of-force investigations, automated license plate reader data, and voter registration information in the following blogs:

• HB 2508: Key Public Safety Laws from the 2026 Legislative Session
• SB 6002: Closing the Blinds: New Public Records Act Exemption Limits Disclosure of ALPR Data
• SB 5892: New Elections Laws Passed in 2026

If you are interested in watching a free recording of Legislative Update on 2026 Public Records Bills, check our webpage for On-Demand Webinars.

Complex Electronic Records Requests

Over the last few years, we have seen an increasing trend in records requests for what I would call “behind the scenes data”—information and digital records that might not be immediately viewable by the typical computer user, but which information technology (IT) professionals can access and produce. Often this data reflects the day-to-day business of public employees and their use of public facilities and resources.

There are a lot of challenges associated with responding to these types of requests, especially for smaller agencies that may not have the same access to IT expertise that larger jurisdictions may have.

My caution here is that the courts have clearly indicated they expect agencies to “sufficiently” fund their compliance with PRA obligations. What this looks like varies greatly between agencies, especially as we approach difficult budget shortfalls and decisions.

That said, agencies should keep in mind that they can charge a customized service charge if IT expertise is required to prepare data compilations when such work or access is not already used by the agency for other agency purposes (RCW 42.56.120(3)).

Like charging for the redaction of body worn camera footage, charging for customized IT service is in addition to any charges for the provision of electronic copies of the data.

Electronic Copy Costs—Revisited

Speaking of electronic copy costs, in 2017, the legislature amended the “statutory default” copy charges in RCW 42.56.120 to explicitly allow for agencies to charge for the provision of electronic records.

The statutory defaults allow an agency to adopt copy charges without conducting an individualized actual copy cost study (See our webpage on Copying Charges for Public Records for more information).

Electronic copy costs are supposed to take into account:

• the labor costs of providing the copy,
• the use of cloud-based storage and processing, and
• the cost of transmitting the records.

Nine years later, and Washington agencies are grappling with the fact that many of these cost considerations have changed significantly. In 2017, legislative staff estimated agencies spent over $60 million per year responding to records requests. In 2024, 236 agencies (of more than 2,300 across the state) reported spending more than $128 million responding to requests.

We have seen an uptick in jurisdictions interested in conducting actual cost studies and adopting copy fee schedules higher than the statutory defaults to reflect this more than doubling of agency costs. At the very least, agencies that previously conducted an actual cost study are updating their numbers based on changes in labor costs.

Model Rules Update—Still Waiting

As covered in the blog AGO Releases More Proposed PRA Model Rules Amendments – Another Chance to Comment!, the latest round of public comment on proposed changes to the PRA Model Rules was closed on June 30, 2026. If interested, you can watch the public hearing held on the same date on the Attorney General’s Office (AGO’s) Rulemaking Activity webpage.

We are still waiting for final action by the AGO on the proposed rule changes, and the office has not provided an estimate of when that action may occur.

To stay informed of the rulemaking process, interested folks should sign-up to receive the AGO's emails on the process.

Eye on the Horizon

In addition to the model rules update, I am also keeping an eye on developments in artificial intelligence (AI) technology. As I wrote back in January, ChatGPT, AI notetaking, and other “auto-on” features continue to cause public records challenges.

However, I am starting to see more use of AI-redaction tools by local governments and, as I’ve expected for at least five years, the first commercially available AI-indexing of public records. (See, e.g., How Kofile modernizes county records with AI on AWS.)

These technologies have a lot of promise for streamlining the often-time-consuming process of reviewing and redacting exempt information from public records responses and helping agencies provide prompt and timely access to records.

However, I still must caution against what experts call “cognitive surrender” which is “adopting AI outputs with minimal scrutiny, overriding intuition and deliberation.” (See Thinking—Fast, Slow, and Artificial: How AI is Reshaping Human Reasoning and the Rise of Cognitive Surrender.) This means there is a strong human impulse to trust the AI outputs, even if a human is double-checking the work.

We have seen the courts take a dim view of overreliance on AI. I am concerned what the use of such tools means for proving to a court that an agency conducted an adequate search for responsive records and properly withheld exempt information.

But, as always, we will do our best to keep you informed on developments as they impact Washington public agencies.