Wash. Rev. Code » Title 2 · Chapter 2.36
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.055 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The superior court at least annually shall cause a jury source list to be compiled from a list of all registered voters and a list of licensed drivers and identicard holders residing in the county.
In a county with more than one superior court facility and a separate case assignment area for each court facility, the jury source list may be divided into jury assignment areas that consist of registered voters and licensed drivers and identicard holders residing in each jury assignment area. Jury assignment area boundaries may be designated and adjusted by the administrative office of the courts based on the most current United States census data at the request of the majority of the judges of the superior court when required for the efficient and fair administration of justice.
The superior court upon receipt of the jury source list shall compile a master jury list. The master jury list shall be certified by the superior court and filed with the county clerk. All previous jury source lists and master jury lists shall be superseded. In the event that, for any reason, a county's jury source list is not timely created and available for use at least annually, the most recent previously compiled jury source list for that county shall be used by the courts of that county on an emergency basis only for the shortest period of time until a current jury source list is created and available for use.
Upon receipt of amendments to the list of registered voters and licensed drivers and identicard holders residing in the county the superior court may update the jury source list and master jury list as maintained by the county clerk accordingly.
[ 2005 c 199 s 2; 1993 c 408 s 5; 1988 c 188 s 4.]

Notes:

Findings—Intent—2005 c 199: "The legislature finds that superior courts with more than one superior court facility are asking some jurors to travel excessively long distances to attend court proceedings. In these cases, the legislature further finds that consideration of a juror's proximity to a particular courthouse can be accommodated while continuing to provide proportionate jury source list representation from distinctive groups within the community. The legislature intends to lessen the burdens borne by jurors fulfilling their civic duties by providing a mechanism that narrows the geographic area from which the jurors are drawn while maintaining a random and proportionate jury pool." [ 2005 c 199 s 1.]
Severability—Effective dates—1993 c 408: See notes following RCW 2.36.054.
Legislative findings—Severability—Effective date—1988 c 188: See notes following RCW 2.36.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: State v. Lanciloti, 201 P.3d 323 (Wash. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Lanciloti, 201 P.3d 323 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 7× “RCW 2.36.055. 1 Now, in counties “with more than one superior *665 court facility.”
Carrick v. Locke, 882 P.2d 173 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “RCW 2.36.055. However, district court juries "may be selected at random from the population of the area served by the court.”
State v. Lord, 165 P.3d 1251 (Wash. 2007). “NOTES [1] See RCW 2.36.055 ("The superior court at least annually shall cause a jury source list to be compiled from a list of all registered voters and a list of licensed drivers and indenticard holders residing in the county.”
State v. Lord, 161 Wash. 2d 276 (Wash. 2007). “See RCW 2.36.055 (“The superior court at least annually shall cause a jury source list to be compiled from a list of all registered voters and a list of licensed drivers and indenticard holders residing in the county.”
State v. Rivers, 533 P.3d 410 (Wash. 2023). · cites it 2× “199, codified as RCW 2.36.055. The express purpose of this legislative 5 For the current opinion, go to https://www.”
State v. Cienfuegos, 25 P.3d 1011 (Wash. 2001). “See GR 18(b); 1 RCW 2.36.055. Cienfuegos contends that it was error not to provide the names and addresses of the 700 people on the jury panel list and, alternatively, that GR 18 is unconstitutional because it does not identify jurors by race, which would allow defendants to…”
State v. Lanciloti, 201 P.3d 323 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 7× “RCW 2.36.055. [1] Now, in counties "with more than one superior court facility .”
State v. Flett, 992 P.2d 1028 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Flett contends, for the first time on appeal, that LCR 47 produces a master list based solely on voter registration contrary to the requirements of GR 18 and *804 RCW 2.36.055. Even though, Mr. Flett, a Native-American, argues a master list based on voter registration…”
State Of Washington, V. Cody Terrell Wade, 534 P.3d 1221 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “” RCW 2.36.055 (emphasis added). And RCW 2.”
City of Bothell v. Barnhart, 257 P.3d 648 (Wash. 2011). “2d at 671 (upholding constitutionality of RCW 2.36.055 where King County Superior Court is divided into two districts with a superior court in each district drawing jurors exclusively from its district because all selected jurors in the pool still reside in the county where the…”
State Of Washington, V. Robert M. Fleeks, Jr., 523 P.3d 220 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “” RCW 2.36.055. This legislation was enacted based on data compiled by King County Superior Court judges working with the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, which showed that “lower income and racial minority citizens were less likely .”
City of Bothell v. Barnhart, 234 P.3d 264 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Lanciloti addressed a unique statutory regime that does not apply in this context.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.