The Washington State Supreme Court issued an en banc decision December 18, 2025, in *Horvath v. DBIA Services*, a case examining the application of Washington's Public Disclosure Act to metropolitan improvement districts. The opinion, written by Justice González and filed at 8 a.m., carries significant weight as an en banc ruling involving all nine justices.
The case centers on Steven Horvath's challenge against DBIA Services, which operates as a Metropolitan Improvement District. While the full scope of the dispute remains to be detailed in the complete opinion, the court's opening remarks establish the foundational importance of Washington's public disclosure laws in ensuring government transparency.
Justice González opened the opinion by emphasizing the historical significance of the Public Disclosure Act, noting that "the people of our state adopted the public disclosure act by initiative half a century ago." The court specifically referenced Initiative 276, which was approved by Washington voters on November 7, 1972, and codified in the Laws of 1973, chapter 1.
The court highlighted language from the original 1972 Official Voters Pamphlet that accompanied Initiative 276, which declared "The People Have the Right to Know." This foundational principle, the court noted, was based on the concept that "our whole concept of democracy is based on an informed and involved citizenry."
According to the historical record cited by the court, Initiative 276 was born out of concerns about declining public trust in government institutions. The original voters pamphlet identified "secrecy in government and the influence of private money on governmental decision making" as primary causes of citizen distrust. The initiative was designed to bring governmental operations "out into the open for citizens and voters to judge for themselves."
The timing of this decision comes at a crucial moment for government transparency advocates. Public disclosure laws have faced numerous challenges across the country, with various governmental entities seeking exemptions or limitations on public access to records. Metropolitan improvement districts, like the one involved in this case, operate in a unique space between public and private sectors, often creating questions about which transparency requirements apply.
DBIA Services operates as a Metropolitan Improvement District, which are special purpose districts typically created to fund and manage infrastructure improvements in specific geographic areas. These districts often have the authority to levy assessments, issue bonds, and enter into contracts, making questions about public disclosure requirements particularly relevant to affected property owners and the broader community.
The en banc nature of this decision signals its importance to the court and likely indicates that the case addresses fundamental questions about the scope and application of Washington's Public Disclosure Act. En banc decisions involve all justices of the Supreme Court, rather than the typical three-justice panel, and are typically reserved for cases of exceptional importance or those requiring clarification of significant legal principles.
Washington's Public Disclosure Act has been a model for transparency legislation nationwide since its adoption in 1972. The law requires government agencies to make records available for public inspection and copying, with limited exceptions for certain sensitive materials. The act also includes provisions requiring disclosure of campaign contributions and lobbying activities.
The court's emphasis on the 50-year history of Initiative 276 suggests that this decision may reaffirm or clarify longstanding principles of government transparency in Washington state. The reference to declining trust in government institutions resonates with contemporary concerns about transparency and accountability in public governance.
For municipal law practitioners and government transparency advocates, this case likely provides important guidance on how disclosure requirements apply to special purpose districts and similar quasi-governmental entities. The decision may clarify whether metropolitan improvement districts must comply with the same disclosure requirements as traditional government agencies.
The case also comes at a time when many states are grappling with questions about the balance between government efficiency and transparency. Special purpose districts have proliferated across the country as mechanisms for providing specific services or managing particular projects, but their hybrid nature often creates ambiguity about applicable transparency requirements.
Property owners within metropolitan improvement districts have particular interests in transparency, as these districts often have significant authority to impose assessments and make decisions affecting property values and development opportunities. Clear guidance on disclosure requirements helps ensure that affected residents have access to information about district operations and decision-making processes.
The full implications of the *Horvath* decision will become clearer as the complete opinion is released and analyzed. However, the court's opening emphasis on the fundamental democratic principles underlying Washington's Public Disclosure Act suggests a strong commitment to maintaining robust transparency requirements for governmental entities, regardless of their particular organizational structure.