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

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.765 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1)(a) The attorney general may bring civil actions in the name of the state for any appropriate civil remedy, including but not limited to the special remedies provided in RCW 42.17A.750 upon:
(i) Referral by the commission pursuant to RCW 42.17A.755(4);
(ii) Receipt of a notice provided in accordance with RCW 42.17A.755(5); or
(iii) Receipt of a notice of intent to commence a citizen's action, as provided under RCW 42.17A.775(3).
(b) Within forty-five days of receiving a referral from the commission or notice of the commission's failure to take action provided in accordance with RCW 42.17A.755(5), or within ten days of receiving a citizen's action notice, the attorney general must publish a decision whether to commence an action on the attorney general's office website. Publication of the decision within the forty-five day period, or ten-day period, whichever is applicable, shall preclude a citizen's action pursuant to RCW 42.17A.775.
(c) The attorney general should use the enforcement powers in this section in a consistent manner that provides guidance in complying with the provisions of this chapter to candidates, political committees, or other individuals subject to the regulations of this chapter.
(2) The attorney general may investigate or cause to be investigated the activities of any person who there is reason to believe is or has been acting in violation of this chapter, and may require any such person or any other person reasonably believed to have information concerning the activities of such person to appear at a time and place designated in the county in which such person resides or is found, to give such information under oath and to produce all accounts, bills, receipts, books, paper and documents which may be relevant or material to any investigation authorized under this chapter.
(3) When the attorney general requires the attendance of any person to obtain such information or produce the accounts, bills, receipts, books, papers, and documents that may be relevant or material to any investigation authorized under this chapter, the attorney general shall issue an order setting forth the time when and the place where attendance is required and shall cause the same to be delivered to or sent by registered mail to the person at least fourteen days before the date fixed for attendance. The order shall have the same force and effect as a subpoena, shall be effective statewide, and, upon application of the attorney general, obedience to the order may be enforced by any superior court judge in the county where the person receiving it resides or is found, in the same manner as though the order were a subpoena. The court, after hearing, for good cause, and upon application of any person aggrieved by the order, shall have the right to alter, amend, revise, suspend, or postpone all or any part of its provisions. In any case where the order is not enforced by the court according to its terms, the reasons for the court's actions shall be clearly stated in writing, and the action shall be subject to review by the appellate courts by certiorari or other appropriate proceeding.
[ 2019 c 428 s 39; 2018 c 304 s 14; 2010 c 204 s 1004; 2007 c 455 s 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 294 s 27; 1973 c 1 s 40 (Initiative Measure No. 276, approved November 7, 1972). Formerly RCW 42.17.400.]

Notes:

Effective date—Finding—Intent—2019 c 428: See notes following RCW 42.17A.160.
Finding—Intent—2018 c 304: See note following RCW 42.17A.235.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2013–2023 · leading case: Freedom Found. v. Teamsters Local 117 Segregated Fund, 480 P.3d 1119 (Wash. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Freedom Found. v. Teamsters Local 117 Segregated Fund, 480 P.3d 1119 (Wash. 2021). · cites it 46× “10 Procedural requirements for the government to enforce the FCPA are instead laid out in RCW 42.17A.765(1)-(3). 11 B. The Second Absurd Consequence: The Majority’s Interpretation Permits Filing of New 10-Day Notices over and over Again In addition, under the majority’s reading…”
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 341 P.3d 953 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 30× “at 672 -73 (quoting RCW 42.17A.765 (4)(a)(i)). Thus, according to the Court of Appeals, where the AG refers for investigation or investigates a complaint, the notice-giving citizen may not sue even if the AG declines to sue.”
State v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, 461 P.3d 334 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 12× “96604-4 whether a violation is intentional under RCW 42.17A.765, Washington law requires the Court to look at whether the person acted with the purpose of accomplishing an illegal act under RCW 42.”
No On I-502, Arthur West v. Norml, 372 P.3d 160 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “RCW 42.17A.765(4) (emphasis added). For the FCPA, “person” “includes an individual, partnership, joint venture, public or private corporation, association, federal, state, or local governmental entity or agency however constituted, candidate, committee, political committee,…”
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 310 P.3d 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 17× “RCW 42.17A.765. ¶42 The issue before us is what constitutes “action” by the State.”
State Of Washington v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, 425 P.3d 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 23× “The trial court ruled that proving an intentional violation under RCW 42.17A.765 required looking at “whether the person acted with the purpose of accomplishing an illegal act under RCW 42.”
State v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, 502 P.3d 806 (Wash. 2022). · cites it 3× “3d 927 (2018) (GMA I) (citing former RCW 42.17A.765(5) (2010)). GMA I did not reach GMA’s argument that the penalty violated the excessive fines clauses of the state and federal constitutions.”
State Pub. Disclosure Comm, V Food Democracy Action, 427 P.3d 699 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “WAC 390-37-041; see Former RCW 42.17A.765(4) (2012). 4 A “political committee” is an entity with the “the expectation of receiving contributions or making expenditures in support of, or opposition to, any candidate or any ballot proposition.”
State v. Econ. Dev. Bd. for Tacoma-Pierce Cnty., 441 P.3d 1269 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “For these reasons, we remand the issue of attorney fees to the trial court to be determined at the conclusion of the trial court's proceedings.”
West v. Washington State Dist. & Mun. Court Judges' Ass'n, 361 P.3d 210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “¶21 Authority to determine whether an actual violation of the act has occurred and to enforce an appropriate order lies primarily with the Public Disclosure Commission.”
Freedom Found. v. Bethel Sch. Dist., At Al. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 12× “775; former RCW 42.17A.765 (2010); Utter, 182 Wn.2d at 407 .”
Robert F. Utter & Faith Ireland, App./x-resp. v. Bldg. Indus. Assoc. Of Wa, Resp./x-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 18× “RCW42.17A.765(1-3). The issue before us is what constitutes "action" by the State.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.765(1) — 7 cases
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 341 P.3d 953 (Wash. 2015). “at 672 -73 (quoting RCW 42.17A.765 (4)(a)(i)). Thus, according to the Court of Appeals, where the AG refers for investigation or investigates a complaint, the notice-giving citizen may not sue even if the AG declines to sue.”
Freedom Found. v. Teamsters Local 117 Segregated Fund, 480 P.3d 1119 (Wash. 2021). “10 Procedural requirements for the government to enforce the FCPA are instead laid out in RCW 42.17A.765(1)-(3). 11 B. The Second Absurd Consequence: The Majority’s Interpretation Permits Filing of New 10-Day Notices over and over Again In addition, under the majority’s reading…”
State v. Econ. Dev. Bd. for Tacoma-Pierce Cnty., 441 P.3d 1269 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “For these reasons, we remand the issue of attorney fees to the trial court to be determined at the conclusion of the trial court's proceedings.”
West v. Washington State Dist. & Mun. Court Judges' Ass'n, 361 P.3d 210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “¶21 Authority to determine whether an actual violation of the act has occurred and to enforce an appropriate order lies primarily with the Public Disclosure Commission.”
State Of Washington v. Evergreen Freedom Found. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.765(1)(a) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V. Tim Eyman (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.765(1)(b) — 1 case
Freedom Found. v. Bethel Sch. Dist., At Al. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “775; former RCW 42.17A.765 (2010); Utter, 182 Wn.2d at 407 .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.765(2) — 2 cases
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 310 P.3d 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 42.17A.765. ¶42 The issue before us is what constitutes “action” by the State.”
Robert F. Utter & Faith Ireland, App./x-resp. v. Bldg. Indus. Assoc. Of Wa, Resp./x-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW42.17A.765(1-3). The issue before us is what constitutes "action" by the State.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.765(3) — 1 case
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 341 P.3d 953 (Wash. 2015). “at 672 -73 (quoting RCW 42.17A.765 (4)(a)(i)). Thus, according to the Court of Appeals, where the AG refers for investigation or investigates a complaint, the notice-giving citizen may not sue even if the AG declines to sue.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.765(4) — 12 cases
Freedom Found. v. Teamsters Local 117 Segregated Fund, 480 P.3d 1119 (Wash. 2021). “10 Procedural requirements for the government to enforce the FCPA are instead laid out in RCW 42.17A.765(1)-(3). 11 B. The Second Absurd Consequence: The Majority’s Interpretation Permits Filing of New 10-Day Notices over and over Again In addition, under the majority’s reading…”
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 341 P.3d 953 (Wash. 2015). “at 672 -73 (quoting RCW 42.17A.765 (4)(a)(i)). Thus, according to the Court of Appeals, where the AG refers for investigation or investigates a complaint, the notice-giving citizen may not sue even if the AG declines to sue.”
No On I-502, Arthur West v. Norml, 372 P.3d 160 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 42.17A.765(4) (emphasis added). For the FCPA, “person” “includes an individual, partnership, joint venture, public or private corporation, association, federal, state, or local governmental entity or agency however constituted, candidate, committee, political committee,…”
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 310 P.3d 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 42.17A.765. ¶42 The issue before us is what constitutes “action” by the State.”
State Pub. Disclosure Comm, V Food Democracy Action, 427 P.3d 699 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “WAC 390-37-041; see Former RCW 42.17A.765(4) (2012). 4 A “political committee” is an entity with the “the expectation of receiving contributions or making expenditures in support of, or opposition to, any candidate or any ballot proposition.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.765(4)(a) — 2 cases
Freedom Found. v. Teamsters Local 117 Segregated Fund, 480 P.3d 1119 (Wash. 2021). “10 Procedural requirements for the government to enforce the FCPA are instead laid out in RCW 42.17A.765(1)-(3). 11 B. The Second Absurd Consequence: The Majority’s Interpretation Permits Filing of New 10-Day Notices over and over Again In addition, under the majority’s reading…”
West v. Washington State Dist. & Mun. Court Judges' Ass'n, 361 P.3d 210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “¶21 Authority to determine whether an actual violation of the act has occurred and to enforce an appropriate order lies primarily with the Public Disclosure Commission.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.765(4)(a)(i) — 6 cases
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 341 P.3d 953 (Wash. 2015). “at 672 -73 (quoting RCW 42.17A.765 (4)(a)(i)). Thus, according to the Court of Appeals, where the AG refers for investigation or investigates a complaint, the notice-giving citizen may not sue even if the AG declines to sue.”
Freedom Found. v. Teamsters Local 117 Segregated Fund, 480 P.3d 1119 (Wash. 2021). “10 Procedural requirements for the government to enforce the FCPA are instead laid out in RCW 42.17A.765(1)-(3). 11 B. The Second Absurd Consequence: The Majority’s Interpretation Permits Filing of New 10-Day Notices over and over Again In addition, under the majority’s reading…”
No On I-502, Arthur West v. Norml, 372 P.3d 160 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 42.17A.765(4) (emphasis added). For the FCPA, “person” “includes an individual, partnership, joint venture, public or private corporation, association, federal, state, or local governmental entity or agency however constituted, candidate, committee, political committee,…”
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 310 P.3d 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 42.17A.765. ¶42 The issue before us is what constitutes “action” by the State.”
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n of Wash. (Wash. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.765(4)(a)(ii) — 1 case
Freedom Found. v. Teamsters Local 117 Segregated Fund, 480 P.3d 1119 (Wash. 2021). “10 Procedural requirements for the government to enforce the FCPA are instead laid out in RCW 42.17A.765(1)-(3). 11 B. The Second Absurd Consequence: The Majority’s Interpretation Permits Filing of New 10-Day Notices over and over Again In addition, under the majority’s reading…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.765(4)(a)(iii) — 1 case
Freedom Found. v. Teamsters Local 117 Segregated Fund, 480 P.3d 1119 (Wash. 2021). “10 Procedural requirements for the government to enforce the FCPA are instead laid out in RCW 42.17A.765(1)-(3). 11 B. The Second Absurd Consequence: The Majority’s Interpretation Permits Filing of New 10-Day Notices over and over Again In addition, under the majority’s reading…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.765(4)(a)(iv) — 1 case
Freedom Found. v. Teamsters Local 117 Segregated Fund, 480 P.3d 1119 (Wash. 2021). “10 Procedural requirements for the government to enforce the FCPA are instead laid out in RCW 42.17A.765(1)-(3). 11 B. The Second Absurd Consequence: The Majority’s Interpretation Permits Filing of New 10-Day Notices over and over Again In addition, under the majority’s reading…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.765(4)(b) — 6 cases
Freedom Found. v. Teamsters Local 117 Segregated Fund, 480 P.3d 1119 (Wash. 2021). “10 Procedural requirements for the government to enforce the FCPA are instead laid out in RCW 42.17A.765(1)-(3). 11 B. The Second Absurd Consequence: The Majority’s Interpretation Permits Filing of New 10-Day Notices over and over Again In addition, under the majority’s reading…”
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 341 P.3d 953 (Wash. 2015). “at 672 -73 (quoting RCW 42.17A.765 (4)(a)(i)). Thus, according to the Court of Appeals, where the AG refers for investigation or investigates a complaint, the notice-giving citizen may not sue even if the AG declines to sue.”
No On I-502, Arthur West v. Norml, 372 P.3d 160 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 42.17A.765(4) (emphasis added). For the FCPA, “person” “includes an individual, partnership, joint venture, public or private corporation, association, federal, state, or local governmental entity or agency however constituted, candidate, committee, political committee,…”
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 310 P.3d 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 42.17A.765. ¶42 The issue before us is what constitutes “action” by the State.”
Robert F. Utter & Faith Ireland, App./x-resp. v. Bldg. Indus. Assoc. Of Wa, Resp./x-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW42.17A.765(1-3). The issue before us is what constitutes "action" by the State.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.765(5) — 10 cases
State v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, 461 P.3d 334 (Wash. 2020). “96604-4 whether a violation is intentional under RCW 42.17A.765, Washington law requires the Court to look at whether the person acted with the purpose of accomplishing an illegal act under RCW 42.”
State Of Washington v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, 425 P.3d 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “The trial court ruled that proving an intentional violation under RCW 42.17A.765 required looking at “whether the person acted with the purpose of accomplishing an illegal act under RCW 42.”
State v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, 502 P.3d 806 (Wash. 2022). “3d 927 (2018) (GMA I) (citing former RCW 42.17A.765(5) (2010)). GMA I did not reach GMA’s argument that the penalty violated the excessive fines clauses of the state and federal constitutions.”
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 310 P.3d 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 42.17A.765. ¶42 The issue before us is what constitutes “action” by the State.”
State Pub. Disclosure Comm, V Food Democracy Action, 427 P.3d 699 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “WAC 390-37-041; see Former RCW 42.17A.765(4) (2012). 4 A “political committee” is an entity with the “the expectation of receiving contributions or making expenditures in support of, or opposition to, any candidate or any ballot proposition.”
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.