Committee hears bill to exempt tribal data from Public Records Act; supporters cite sovereignty, opponents warn of overbreadth

Representative Deborah Lekanoff (state Representative, 40th Legislative District) and tribal leaders urged the State Government & Tribal Relations Committee to adopt House Bill 16 92, a proposal to exempt information ‘‘pertaining to American Indians, Alaska Natives, or Indian tribes’’ from disclosure under the Washington Public Records Act (PRA) when that information is prepared, owned, used, or retained by enumerated state or local agencies.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Deborah Lekanoff, told the committee the proposal was “budget neutral” and part of an effort to recognize tribal data sovereignty. She said tribes have been harmed by unethical uses of data and cited a December 3, 2024, agreement of the governor’s Indian Health Advisory Council on tribal data sovereignty principles and a data-sharing checklist as background for the measure.

Why it matters: Backers said the proposal would give tribes legal recourse to protect sensitive health and other data held in state systems and would allow tribes to negotiate data-sharing agreements that preserve tribal access to their own information without exposing it to third-party public records requests. ‘‘Tribal data that is collected by us, by our services, our health clinics, is ours first and should be recognized as such,’’ Vice Chairwoman Lani Greninger of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe told the committee.

Supporters included tribal leaders and the American Indian Health Commission. Vicky Lowe, executive director of the American Indian Health Commission, said the PRA’s operation had forced releases of tribal data and that protecting tribal records would allow tribes to tell ‘‘the story that goes with the data.’’

Opponents and concerns: Several journalists’ and open-government groups flagged the bill as broadly written. Arthur West argued the measure was ‘‘overbroad’’ and raised Washington State Constitution Article I, section 12 concerns about privileged classes. Roland Thompson, representing several media trade groups, and the Washington Coalition for Open Government asked for narrower language and more dialogue with stakeholders, warning that broad nondisclosure could hinder public understanding of health impacts and public spending related to tribes.

Committee action and next steps: The committee kept the bill open for further work and testimony. No committee vote was taken. Several testifiers asked for follow-up discussions to clarify the scope of the exemption, whether aggregate versus individual-level data would be protected, and how the exemption would interact with existing law enforcement or public-health PRA exemptions.

Details from testimony: OPR staffer Desiree Omley described the bill text as exempting from the PRA ‘‘any information pertaining to American Indians, Alaska Natives, or Indian tribes’’ if held by local health jurisdictions or named state agencies, and noted existing federal (HIPAA) and state (Uniform Care Information Act, as referenced in testimony) privacy laws that also protect health information. Representative Lekanoff and tribal leaders said the change responds to incidents during the COVID-19 pandemic when tribal-related data were released after PRA requests.

What wasn’t decided: The committee did not specify language changes or produce a staff substitute; multiple witnesses asked for clarifications about which agencies and which categories of records would be exempted, and press and open-government witnesses requested discussions about narrower drafting to protect both tribal sovereignty and public transparency.

Ending: Committee members said they would continue stakeholder conversations. The bill remains open for amendment and further hearings.