Legislative jockeying may kill 'up-skirt' ban

So-called "up-skirt" photography gained attention last year when the state Supreme Court ruled that, though "disgusting and reprehensible," filming up women's skirts isn't illegal because the state's voyeurism law was too broad and the photography took place in public.

· More coverage
· Look up e-mails
· Bill info, more

Lawmakers in Olympia vowed to approve legislation that would withstand court scrutiny, and the House unanimously passed an up-skirt photography bill. But Senate Majority Leader Jim West, R-Spokane, has stalled the measure because its sponsor won't consider a proposal to limit medical malpractice awards.

The political maneuvering has disgusted Jolene Jang of Seattle, who testified in support of the up-skirt legislation. Jang was secretly filmed at the Bite of Seattle more than two years ago when a man lowered his camera to shoot up her dress.

"I feel completely manipulated that all my innocent efforts in benefiting society are toyed with by some political scheming," Jang said, adding she trusted the Legislature to close the loophole and feels like a victim "being pushed around on a playground by a number of faceless bullies.

"This is immature. They are not good role models. Real people are being affected here."

The man who filmed up Jang's dress was convicted of voyeurism and served a two-month sentence in King County Jail, but the high court ruling overturned his conviction.

Rep. Pat Lantz, D-Gig Harbor, introduced legislation to make up-skirt photography illegal. In fact, the legislation was the second bill introduced in the House and the first bill to pass out of a House committee in early January.

Despite passing out of the House, the bill has since stagnated in the Senate by direct order of West.

West said he ordered all of Lantz's bills to be held until Lantz, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Committee, heard legislation on medical malpractice reform, which Lantz has refused to do.

The Washington State Medical Association has spent almost $150,000 lobbying the Legislature to place a monetary cap on the damages malpractice victims could sue over. The House had been pushing for a more limited approach. West said limiting malpractice judgments was one of his most important issues, and that's why he refused to hear Lantz' bill.

"I was trying to put pressure on her," he said.

But the pressure didn't work and neither Lantz nor West's positions budged.

West said he helped push forward a similar up-skirt photography measure in the Senate with Sen. Pam Roach, R-Sumner, and it was passed unanimously.

But that bill didn't get a hearing in the House because Lantz blocked it, saying she had struck a deal with the Senate to get her own bill passed.

Lantz said the deal was that she would rush through legislation that allows a felony murder charge to be filed against someone who commits an assault that results in death. In return, the Senate would push through her version of the up-skirt photography bill.

The felony murder bill was signed into law by the governor. But the deal broke down when the Senate wouldn't, in turn, hear Lantz' bill.

Sen. Bob McCaslin, R-Spokane Valley, said he had struck such a deal with Lantz, though, "West's command overruled any such deal."

West said he was unaware any deal had been struck, and "if the bill was so important to her, she should have just passed out the Roach version."

Roach's voyeurism legislation makes committing the act of up-skirt photography a Class C felony. Lantz's version split the crime into two degrees. First degree would be a Class C felony and second degree would be a gross misdemeanor.

Lantz said she refused to move the Roach bill out of her committee "because a deal is a deal."

"There was no reason to waste our time because I still believed they would pass my bill out of their committee," she said. "I was in disbelief."

Jang said if she was aware such political maneuvering could have taken place, she would have packed hearing rooms and had constituents call or e-mail their legislators

"They're acting selfishly and don't seem to be concerned with the public or the people," she said.