Rickert v. State Public Disclosure Commission
Washington Supreme Court
168 P.3d 826 (2007)
- Written by Kelly Simon, JD
Facts
In 2002, Marilou Rickert (defendant) challenged incumbent State Senator Tim Sheldon for a seat in the Washington legislature. Rickert sponsored a mailing that compared her positions to Sheldon’s positions. Specifically, the mailing compared Rickert’s support for providing social services to vulnerable citizens to Sheldon’s vote to close a facility for individuals with developmental challenges. Sheldon filed a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) (plaintiff) alleging a violation of Washington’s statutes that prohibited political or electioneering communications containing false statements of material fact about a candidate with actual malice. Sheldon won the 2002 election by receiving approximately 79 percent of the vote and overwhelmingly defeating Rickert. The PDC held a hearing on the complaint and determined that Rickert’s materials included two false statements, the statements made by Rickert were material, and Rickert distributed the brochure with actual malice. Rickert was fined $1,000 for violating Washington’s election law and appealed. The trial court affirmed the PDC’s determination. Rickert appealed to the court of appeals, which reversed. The PDC appealed to the Washington Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)
Dissent (Madsen, J)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
