The Judicial Information System Committee, having recommended the suggested amendments to JISC Rule 13—Local Court Systems, and the Court having approved the suggested amendments for publication;

(a) That pursuant to the provisions of GR 9(g), the suggested amendments as shown below are to be published for comment in the Washington Reports, Washington Register, Washington State Bar Association and Administrative Office of the Court's websites in January 2026.

(c) Comments are to be submitted to the Clerk of the Supreme Court by either U.S. Mail or Internet E-Mail by no later than April 30, 2026. Comments may be sent to the following addresses: P.O. Box 40929, Olympia, Washington 98504-0929, or supreme@courts.wa.gov. Comments submitted by e-mail message must be limited to 1500 words.

These revisions to the language of the Judicial Information Systems Committee (JISC) Rule (JISCR) 13 are proposed to provide guidance to Washington State Superior Courts, Superior Court Clerks, Courts of Limited Jurisdiction and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) when a local court intends to use an alternative electronic court record system in lieu of using the statewide court record system and to facilitate sharing of statewide court data relied on for judicial decision making and public safety. This rule also acknowledges that the Judicial Information System Committee (JISC) and the AOC set statewide information technology (IT) priorities through a JISC-adopted IT governance process.

The JISC considered the revisions proposed to this rule at its regular meeting. These changes was considered by the committee and unanimously approved. The changes proposed represent the consensus of the committee on updates needed to bring this rule into line with developments that have occurred since this rule was last updated.

We seek to amend, delete, and add language to JISCR 13 to provide guidance to Washington State Superior Courts, Superior Court Clerks, Courts of Limited Jurisdiction and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) when a local court intends to use an alternative electronic court record system and to clarify that the Judicial Information System Committee (JISC) and the AOC set statewide information technology (IT) priorities through a JISC-adopted IT governance process.

Reviser's note: The typographical error in the above material occurred in the copy filed by the State Supreme Court and appears in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.

This rule provides guidance to Washington State Superior Courts, Superior Court Clerks, Courts of Limited Jurisdiction and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) when a local court intends to use an alternative electronic court record system in lieu of using the statewide court record system and to facilitate sharing of statewide court data relied on for judicial decision making and public safety.

(a) An "electronic court record system" is any electronic court data technology system that is a source of statewide court data identified in the JIS Data Standards for Alternative Local Court Record Systems Policy ("JIS Data Standards Policy").

(b) If an alternative electronic court records system is implemented in a superior court jurisdiction, the presiding judge and county clerk will be consulted and included for purposes of compliance with this rule.

(c) Counties or cities may implement alternative electronic court record systems in compliance with procedures established by the Judicial Information System Committee (JISC). Courts wishing to establishimplementautomatedalternative electronic court record systems shall provide advance notice of the proposed developmenttheir intent to the Judicial Information System CommitteeJISC and the Office of the Administrator for the CourtsAOC at least 90 days prior to the commencement of such projectsstart of the procurement process for the purpose of review and approvalcoordination.

(d) Courts implementing an alternative electronic court record system shall meet the requirements outlined in the JIS Data Standards Policy. AOC, on behalf of the JISC, will provide the courts and/or clerk with all necessary information and requirements needed to support the local court's implementation of the alternative electronic court record system and data exchange into the statewide data repository.

(e) As soon as practicable after selection of an alternative electronic court record system, the court will provide AOC with a project schedule and detailed plan for integration with the statewide data repository and will also provide ongoing updates and changes to the project schedule and plan.

(f) The local court and/or county clerk agree to coordinate with AOC on data mapping to ensure data quality standards are met for successful data exchange between the alternative electronic court record system and the statewide data repository.

(g) AOC, the court and/or clerk will meet to establish an agreed upon timeline for transfer of data into the statewide data repository which should not exceed more than two months after implementation of the alternative electronic court records system, unless agreed upon by the court, clerk, and AOC.

(h) Individual courts and/or county clerks are responsible for arranging resources for implementing and maintaining locally procured electronic court record systems and for programming and testing local systems that interface with the statewide data repository.

(i) The court, clerk, and AOC agree to address and resolve any identified issues that may impact implementation of the alternative electronic court record system and successful exchange of data into the statewide data repository.

(j) The AOC will provide sufficient notice to the courts and clerks using alternative electronic court record systems to allow for adoption of any necessary changes to the JIS Data Standards Policy, legislative requirements, or required business and technical changes.

This rule recognizes that early and frequent communication and collaboration between the local court and the AOC is essential for success. This rule also acknowledges that the Judicial Information System Committee (JISC) and the AOC set statewide information technology (IT) priorities through a JISC-adopted IT governance process.

	For the Court

	Stephens, C.J.
	CHIEF JUSTICE