Appeal Filed: Judge Vanderwood Claims Judicial Privilege to Shield Records in County Clerk Effort

On Wednesday, I filed a formal appeal after my recent public records request hit a wall. I had requested documents related to the effort to change the County Clerk from an elected to an appointed position—records that span both the County Council and the Superior Court.

On July 28, I received a response that included a few documents, along with a letter stating that Presiding Judge Derek Vanderwood was refusing to release further records, citing judicial privilege.

But here’s the problem: judicial privilege is supposed to be narrow—limited strictly to duties tied to actual judicial proceedings. The records I requested relate not to courtroom decisions, but to the behind-the-scenes lobbying effort by judges, including Vanderwood, to change the County Charter and significantly reshape local governance. These efforts used county time and resources to influence policy and sway Councilors—all on the taxpayer’s dime.

My appeal argues:

"The Superior Court Administrator’s decision to withhold records under GR 31.1(m) and GR 31.1(l)(2) misapplies these exemptions and overbroadly denies access to administrative records. The claim that the judicial branch is not a 'public agency' under the Public Records Act is irrelevant, as GR 31.1 governs and requires disclosure of non-exempt records. I respectfully request that the Presiding Judge or designee overturn the decision and release the withheld records, with redactions only where strictly necessary and justified under GR 31.1."

But I’m not holding my breath. The judicial branch enjoys immense power and protections, and this appeal will be reviewed by... Judge Vanderwood himself, unless he recuses. The question is: Will he allow an outside judge to make the decision? And even if so, will another judge dare to rule against one of their own?

The appeal should be decided within five business days—but transparency shouldn't have to rely on hope or internal politics. Citizens deserve full accountability.

WATCH: Recent Facebook Update About The Appeal & Interesting Overlaps Of The Clerk Fight & My OPMA Case

YOU ARE THE CATALYST FOR REFORM!

Support Reform Clark County Efforts Here

Click Here To Support

Your support helps with legal and other expenses needed to reform Clark County

Ballot Box Reversal: Kimsey Relents, Installs Cameras After Attacks

Recently, I was notified (thank you, Lauren Colas!) that a surveillance camera had been installed at the Fisher’s Landing ballot box—the same one that was firebombed in October 2024.

As many of you know, ballot drop box cameras were a key component of the Restore Election Confidence initiative. Yet Auditor Greg Kimsey strongly opposed the idea at the time. In fact, in May 2024, he published a guest commentary defending his decision not to install cameras:

“Installing cameras at ballot drop boxes and the system to store and retrieve recorded video is estimated to cost taxpayers almost $1 million and requires a significant amount of staff time... Cameras on ballot drop boxes do not prevent fraudulent ballots from being deposited... Over the past 20 years, there has not been a single incident of significant vandalism to Clark County’s ballot drop boxes.”

That commentary didn’t age well.

Within months, two separate firebomb attacks occurred on Clark County ballot boxes—clear evidence that times have changed. Had HD cameras been in place at the time, it’s highly likely the suspect’s image would have been widely circulated—just like the video footage from the Multnomah County ballot box attack that helped bring national attention.

Authorities believed more attacks were likely, but none followed the October 28th incident—possibly due to the national attention it received and the strong deterrent effect of publicized surveillance footage.

The simple truth is this: cameras work. The presence of HD surveillance at the Portland ballot box likely helped stop further attacks. And now, in Clark County, Kimsey has apparently changed his mind on the importance of ballot box cameras.

Thanks in part to new leadership within the Elections Department, Clark County is currently installing cameras at several ballot drop boxes, with plans to expand coverage—potentially to all boxes—by the next presidential election.

And here’s the kicker: Kimsey previously claimed the project would cost nearly $1 million. But now, the effort is budgeted at around $400,000—less than half the original estimate Kimsey was floating. Don't forget, after the October attacks, Kimsey requested an additional $500,000 in funding from the County to respond to the attacks. It’s unclear whether any of that money is being used for cameras, but reports indicate the current installation effort is funded through a mix of grants, state aid, and county funds.

This is a significant—and quiet—reversal by Kimsey. One he hasn’t been eager to talk about publicly.

But it's a win for accountability, for safety, and for public trust. And it’s a step in the right direction as we continue pushing for common-sense reforms to restore confidence in our elections.

DON'T FORGET TO SIGN THE NEW STATE INITIATIVE TO REQUIRE VOTER ID (IL26-126) - READ THE INITIATIVE HERE

ICYMI: IRS FINALLY ADMITS THAT JOHNSON AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

CLICK HERE TO WATCH MY VIDEO TO LEARN MORE

The National Religious Broadcasters, and a few churches, originally filed a complaint against the IRS Commissioner alleging, “Accordingly, Plaintiffs believe that every Christian has a duty to vote in accordance with the standards of God’s Word. Plaintiffs believe that they have a duty to teach the full counsel of the Word of God, and to declare when candidates have deviated from the right or the left of God’s standards. Plaintiffs cannot do so without fear of punishment from the IRS" (P. 11 s 44)

READ THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT HERE

But the IRS admitted, or I should say confessed, in a Joint Motion filed that, “Plaintiffs ask this Court to enter declaratory relief that the Johnson Amendment unconstitutionally prohibits § 501(c)(3) organizations from engaging in political speech and injunctive relief to prohibit enforcement of the Johnson Amendment insofar as it operates to prohibit political speech. “ P. 2 s 4

READ THE JOINT MOTION FILED HERE

Click HERE To Follow On X (Twitter)

Click HERE To Follow On Facebook

Or HERE To Follow On Instagram

www.reformclarkcounty.com

Reform Clark County only encourages lawful and respectful action that leads to meaningful constitutional reforms in Clark County