Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.17A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.555 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No elective official nor any employee of his or her office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of a public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency. However, this does not apply to the following activities:
(1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body or by an elected board, council, or commission of a special purpose district including, but not limited to, fire districts, public hospital districts, library districts, park districts, port districts, public utility districts, school districts, sewer districts, and water districts, to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body, members of the board, council, or commission of the special purpose district, or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view;
(2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry;
(3) Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency.
(4) This section does not apply to any person who is a state officer or state employee as defined in RCW 42.52.010.
[ 2010 c 204 s 701; 2006 c 215 s 2; 1979 ex.s. c 265 s 2; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 112 s 6; 1973 c 1 s 13 (Initiative Measure No. 276, approved November 7, 1972). Formerly RCW 42.17.130.]

Notes:

Finding—Intent—2006 c 215: "(1) The legislature finds that the public benefits from an open and inclusive discussion of proposed ballot measures by local elected leaders, and that for twenty-five years these discussions have included the opportunity for elected boards, councils, and commissions of special purpose districts to vote in open public meetings in order to express their support of, or opposition to, ballot propositions affecting their jurisdictions.
(2) The legislature intends to affirm and clarify the state's long-standing policy of promoting informed public discussion and understanding of ballot propositions by allowing elected boards, councils, and commissions of special purpose districts to adopt resolutions supporting or opposing ballot propositions." [ 2006 c 215 s 1.]
Disposition of violations before January 1, 1995: "Any violations occurring prior to January 1, 1995, of any of the following laws shall be disposed of as if chapter 154, Laws of 1994 were not enacted and such laws continued in full force and effect: *RCW 42.17.130, chapter 42.18 RCW, chapter 42.21 RCW, and chapter 42.22 RCW." [ 1994 c 154 s 226.]
*Reviser's note: RCW 42.17.130 was recodified as RCW 42.17A.555 pursuant to 2010 c 204 s 1102, effective January 1, 2012.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2015–2022 · leading case: State v. Econ. Dev. Bd. for Tacoma-Pierce Cnty., 441 P.3d 1269 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Econ. Dev. Bd. for Tacoma-Pierce Cnty., 441 P.3d 1269 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 29× “255, that the Port improperly used public funds to oppose the STW ballot proposition under RCW 42.17A.555, 2 and that the trial court improperly awarded fees and costs to the defendants.”
In re Recall of Sawant, 483 P.3d 752 (Wash. 2021). · cites it 11× “Councilmember Sawant, Kshama (3): Alleged Violations of RCW 42.17A.555 for Misuse of Pub. Facilities To Supp.”
In re Recall of Fortney, 503 P.3d 556 (Wash. 2022). “These actions: (a) constitute a use of public resources to influence a political action in violation of RCW 42.17A.555 and WAC 390-32-010; (b) are retaliatory in nature; (c) constitute the practice of law in violation of RCW 36.”
State Of Washington, V Econ. Dev. Bd. Of Tacoma (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 29× “255, that the Port improperly used public funds to oppose the STW ballot proposition under RCW 42.17A.555,2 and that the trial court improperly awarded fees and costs to the defendants.”
Freedom Found. v. Bethel Sch. Dist., At Al. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Freedom Foundation alleged that the District improperly used public facilities in violation of RCW 42.17A.555 to process employee payroll contributions to WEA-PAC and NEA-FCPE.”
Garfield Cty. Transp. Auth. v. State (Wash. 2020). · cites it 2× “An intervenor also contends that county and municipal plaintiffs who have challenged I-976 have violated RCW 42.17A.555. That statute says in most relevant part: No elective official nor any employee of his or her office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public…”
Arthur West v. City Of Seattle (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “On October 24, 2012, West filed a citizen's action complaint with the Washington Public Disclosure Committee (PDC), alleging that the Seattle City Attorney and his assistants had violated RCW 42.17A.555 by authorizing the use of City resources for the promotion of I-502.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.555(1) — 2 cases
State v. Econ. Dev. Bd. for Tacoma-Pierce Cnty., 441 P.3d 1269 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “255, that the Port improperly used public funds to oppose the STW ballot proposition under RCW 42.17A.555, 2 and that the trial court improperly awarded fees and costs to the defendants.”
State Of Washington, V Econ. Dev. Bd. Of Tacoma (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “255, that the Port improperly used public funds to oppose the STW ballot proposition under RCW 42.17A.555,2 and that the trial court improperly awarded fees and costs to the defendants.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.555(3) — 2 cases
State v. Econ. Dev. Bd. for Tacoma-Pierce Cnty., 441 P.3d 1269 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “255, that the Port improperly used public funds to oppose the STW ballot proposition under RCW 42.17A.555, 2 and that the trial court improperly awarded fees and costs to the defendants.”
State Of Washington, V Econ. Dev. Bd. Of Tacoma (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “255, that the Port improperly used public funds to oppose the STW ballot proposition under RCW 42.17A.555,2 and that the trial court improperly awarded fees and costs to the defendants.”
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.