Welcomed news from Rep. Chris Harris.

A recent announcement that he would not seek re-election to the Kentucky House of Representatives left open government advocates deeply disappointed.

There have been few voices in the House in the immediate past — other than that of former state Rep. Jim Wayne — that more consistently, courageously, and with clarity of purpose, demanded openness and transparency in government.

That voice, like Jim Wayne's, will be missed. We are confident that there are other lawmakers who will rise to the challenge and fill the void.

But election to the Kentucky Supreme Court ensures that at least one justice can hit the ground running in cases involving the public's right to know.

A lawmaker's role is clearly different than a Supreme Court Justice's role. A lawmaker may advocate for changes in the law based on perceived need and/or the interests of his or her constituents.

Whatever the justice's personal biases or beliefs, he or she must set them aside and be guided by the existing law, free from passion, prejudice, or political pressure.

Assistant attorneys general, assigned to adjudicate open records/meetings disputes, face a similar challenge. However deeply committed to the principles of open government they might be, their decisions must be guided by the law.

But each can/should be guided by the statement of legislative policy that informs the law, recognizing that the formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret and that free an open examination of public records is in the public's interest.

Each can/should be guided by the judicial recognition that Kentucky's open government laws exhibit a bias favoring disclosure. Statutes enacted for the public benefit must be construed most favorably to the public and doubts can/should be resolved in favor of access.

It's a flawed analogy but relatable to someone who spent 25 years struggling to do just that.

Chris Harris's experiences as a member of the Pike County Fiscal Court and state legislator have instilled in him a profound understanding of these well-established principles of law that few bring to the Supreme Court.

If the law supports access, he will find in favor of access. If the law does not support access —and there are cases in which it does not — he will find against it, however "offensive" the law might be to him personally.

The challenges that lie ahead for Rep. Harris are great. He will rise to them. And, as we opined not long ago, Kentuckians will be better for it.

https://www.facebook.com/419650175248377/posts/585467335333326/?d=n

Thankfully, concerns about Rep. Harris's extended retirement from public life were greatly exaggerated!