Essential information on each bill is below. For more details, click on the bill number – e.g., “HB 1000.” The new page will show the progress of the bill, videos of debate, and the link to send a comment to your legislator about the bill.
Topics
-
School Safety
Improving school safety by extending penalties for interference by, or intimidation by threat of, force or violence at schools and extracurricular activities and requiring schools to notify the public of such penalties.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1085 extends and clarifies criminal penalties for “interference by, or intimidation by threat of, force or violence” at schools and extracurricular activities, including youth sports. The legislation requires schools to notify the public, through posted notices or policies, about these penalties so parents, students, and spectators know up front that threats and assaults carry serious consequences. The bill grew out of highly publicized incidents of violence against referees, coaches, and others at youth events, especially “rage on the field” episodes. Many parents and churches want sports and school events to model self‑control and sportsmanship; visible notices and real penalties back up those expectations with enforceable standards.
Students, teachers, officials, and volunteers should be able to teach, learn, and serve without fear of being threatened or attacked; enhancing penalties and posting clear warnings helps create a safer, more orderly environment—consistent with the biblical role of government to restrain evil and reward good. By explicitly targeting intimidation and interference at schools and extracurricular events, the bill reinforces respect for legitimate authorities such as teachers, coaches and referees, and discourages the kind of lawless anger that undermines discipline and character formation in kids. HB 1085 does not impose new ideological curriculum or speech codes; it simply tightens consequences for concrete acts of force, violence, or threats in a very specific setting, which aligns with a limited‑government, law‑and‑order approach.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1092 makes several changes to Washington’s child welfare and mandatory reporting laws to prioritize child safety when there is imminent or serious physical harm risk. It clarifies that courts may order emergency removal based on a dependency petition plus a department affidavit showing there wasn’t time to serve parents and hold a hearing before removal, and it expressly includes risks tied to sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, severe neglect patterns, and high-potency synthetic opioids. It further states that a caregiver’s use of Schedule I or II controlled substances (other than cannabis) without a valid prescription while caring for a child constitutes reasonable grounds for removal to prevent imminent or serious harm.
The bill tightens shelter care decision-making by creating rebuttable presumptions for removal and “manifest danger” when a child faces risk of exposure to, ingestion of, inhalation of, or contact with Schedule I or II drugs, and it says a promise to “secure” drugs or only use them away from a child is not enough by itself. It also requires, in cases removed for drug-exposure risk, documentation of at least six months of sobriety supported by random testing at least twice per month before returning the child to the parent or custodian who posed the risk.
HB 1092 changes certain emergency custody standards for law enforcement and hospitals from “probable cause” to “reasonable cause,” intending to speed protective action when time is critical. At the same time, it preserves due process features like prompt shelter care hearings, inquiry into relative placements, and ongoing visitation, while emphasizing that the court’s paramount consideration is the child’s health, welfare, and safety. In practical terms, the bill aims to reduce the chances that a child is left in a home where fentanyl or other high-risk substances are present or where severe abuse indicators exist, by lowering procedural barriers to immediate intervention. Given Washington’s ongoing overdose and fentanyl exposure concerns, these targeted presumptions and clear evidentiary expectations can help front-line responders act decisively before tragedy occurs. Child protection system should err on the side of preventing catastrophic harm—especially where lethal drugs or severe maltreatment risks are implicated—and this bill provides sharper tools and clearer standards to do exactly that.
-
Elections
Revoking a person’s voting rights only when convicted of a state crime punishable by death.
Bill Summary
HB 1196 redefines “infamous crime” to mean only a Washington state crime punishable by death, and then it limits loss of voting rights solely to people convicted of such crimes while serving total confinement. Because Washington has abolished the death penalty, this bill effectively eliminates any circumstance in which a criminal conviction suspends voting rights, including for serious violent felonies during incarceration. One estimate says that under this law about 15,000 incarcerated criminals would be eligible to vote. The measure rewrites large sections of election law, voter challenges, ballot declarations, and court procedures to reflect this change, creating a sweeping policy shift with minimal guardrails. By doing so, it removes a longstanding and widely understood boundary between lawful civic participation and active criminal custody, risking public confusion about who is legally eligible to vote.
Bill Summary
Washington House Bill 1203 aims to protect public health by banning the sale of flavored tobacco and nicotine products in Washington State starting January 1, 2026. The proposal includes bans on flavored electronic cigarettes, also called vapes, menthol cigarettes and nicotine pouches, like Zyn. The legislation also targets so-called “entertainment vapor products” that include video games or music.
The bill cites alarming statistics on youth vaping and smoking rates, emphasizing the link between flavored products and addiction. In 2023, 29% of Washington’s 12th graders reported having tried e-cigarettes, according to the state’s Healthy Youth Survey. That’s compared to 17.5% who said they’d smoked cigarettes. Nationally, students who have used e-cigarettes overwhelmingly reported choosing flavored options, with fruit flavors being the most popular, according to federal Food & Drug Administration data.
It establishes penalties for retailers who violate the ban and mandates public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about the dangers of these products. The legislation also includes amendments to existing laws concerning tobacco and vapor product sales, outlining specific enforcement procedures and penalties. Businesses licensed to sell these products would be required to post signage noting the statewide prohibition. The state Department of Health would also run a campaign to build awareness about the harms of flavored tobacco products.
Critics of such bans have argued the measures would cause the state to lose out on millions in tax revenue. How pathetic is that?
-
Taxes & Financial
Easing the financial burden on families by removing sales and use tax on diapers and essential child care products.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1307 is a very practical way to help moms and dads caring for young children. It removes state and local sales and use taxes on diapers and essential child care products beginning January 1, 2026, providing immediate and tangible relief to families and caregivers across Washington. The bill recognizes that items like diapers, baby clothing, car seats, wipes, and adult incontinence products are necessities, not luxuries, and are critical to health, safety, dignity, and daily functioning. Lawmakers cite data showing that one in two families struggle to afford diapers and that infant care costs can consume nearly half of a single parent’s income, making even small tax relief meaningful.
By exempting these products from taxation, the bill directly lowers the cost of raising children and caring for vulnerable adults without creating new bureaucracy or eligibility hurdles. The exemption applies broadly and clearly, with detailed definitions and a requirement that the Department of Revenue publish an accessible list of qualifying products, ensuring transparency and ease of compliance. Importantly, the bill also extends relief to families caring for seniors and people with disabilities who rely on incontinence supplies, a group often overlooked in tax policy. HB 1307 is a targeted, compassionate tax reform that helps families keep more of their own money during the most financially demanding stages of life.
Bill Summary
HB 1390 repeals the Community Protection Program (CPP) in statute, which was a distinct track for people with developmental disabilities who had committed serious crimes or clearly dangerous sexual or violent acts and were considered likely to reoffend if not tightly supervised. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) is directed to transition everyone in CPP into other services or programs by the end of 2025 and fully repeal CPP statutes as of January 1, 2026, while promising not to reduce overall supportive services. CPP’s entire purpose was to keep a small, high‑risk group under intensive, structured supervision and highly restrictive placements in the community because they were assessed as likely to commit predatory sexual or violent acts if not tightly controlled. This bills stated intent is to let these individuals obtain less restrictive service options, which means loosening the very controls that were designed to protect the public from repeat sex predators and violent offenders who also have developmental disabilities.
This legislation moves high‑risk offenders out of a named, high‑visibility statutory program into ordinary DDA/service frameworks, which are geared toward support, not crime control; that blurs the line between truly dangerous offenders and non‑offending, law‑abiding clients. Once CPP is gone, it becomes harder for legislators, prosecutors, and the public to see how many dangerous offenders are in the community, what level of supervision they are under, and whether they are complying—undermining transparency and accountability that tough‑on‑crime conservatives demand. The program being repealed was targeted at people with histories like predatory sex offenses, serious assaults, child molestation, and related violent crimes; yet HB 1390 emphasizes the comfort and less restrictive choices of the offender, not the ongoing trauma and safety concerns of victims and communities.
Law enforcement and prosecutors rely on clear legal tools to argue that certain offenders must remain in secure or tightly controlled placements; taking a specialized statutory framework off the books narrows those tools and sends the wrong message about consequences for serious crime. A truly tough‑on‑crime system keeps dangerous offenders—regardless of disability status—under strong, enforceable supervision until they are no longer a serious risk. This legislation moves in the opposite direction by design. Reforms should fix any abuses or over‑breadth in CPP through tighter criteria, clearer due‑process protections, and regular risk reviews, not by repealing the program and scattering offenders into less‑restrictive settings that are harder to monitor and easier to walk away from.
-
Military & Veterans
Ensuring access to state benefits and opportunities for veterans, uniformed service members, and military spouses.
Bill Summary
HB 1738 updates definitions and eligibility so more categories of uniformed service, including certain Guard, Reserve, and other federal uniformed services, clearly qualify for state veterans benefits and preferences. The bill streamlines verification of military service, allows agencies to share information appropriately, and reduces administrative barriers that keep veterans and spouses from accessing education, employment, and other state programs. The bill’s core aim is to ensure those who risked life, family stability, and long deployments can actually receive the benefits and opportunities the state already promised them, which aligns with a Christian ethic of honoring those who pay the price for others’ safety.
By explicitly including military spouses and, through related provisions, dependents in eligibility and access, it recognizes that military service is a family calling and helps families weather the disruptions of moves, deployments, and transition out of uniform. HB 1738 focuses on removing red tape and clarifying eligibility around existing benefit structures rather than creating an open‑ended new welfare program. With near‑unanimous votes and support from both veterans’ advocates and lawmakers in both parties, the bill is narrowly tailored to a mission most conservatives support—standing with veterans and the currently serving, not advancing a broader ideological agenda.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1833 creates the Spark Act Grant Program in the Department of Commerce to support innovative uses of artificial intelligence that provide a clear public benefit to issues such as wildfire tracking, cybersecurity and health care tools. The bill prioritizes grants for small businesses, applicants that commit to ethical AI and have analyzed risks, and projects with statewide impact. In addition, it requires that funded technology be shared with the state and provide a benefit to Washington, not just the private grantee. The legislation directs Commerce to report every two years beginning in 2027 on grants awarded, projects funded, and revenue sources, giving the Legislature ongoing oversight. It includes a null‑and‑void clause so it only takes effect if funded in the budget, tying the program to explicit legislative appropriations.
The bill explicitly aims to promote economic development through AI, with testimony noting it will help ensure AI companies invest here rather than in competing states. The grants will support startups, research institutions, and companies building AI tools with broad public benefit, aligning with Washington’s strong tech ecosystem. By requiring Commerce to chase federal grants and private donations, the program can multiply state dollars and pull national funding into Washington projects. Commerce must prioritize applicants that have committed to ethical uses of AI and analyzed risks, pushing grantees to think up front about bias, safety, and misuse. Additionally, Commerce must solicit input from the state’s AI task force to identify priorities, tying grants to broader state policy discussions on safety, privacy, and civil rights. The program is administered by Commerce within existing structures, and funds are restricted to running the grant program and its administration, not creating a large new bureaucracy.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1834 creates a new regulatory framework aimed at protecting minors online by restricting so-called “addictive feeds,” limiting data collection, and imposing strict design and notification rules on websites and apps likely to be accessed by minors. The bill requires businesses to estimate users’ ages with a “reasonable level of certainty” or apply minor-level privacy protections to everyone, effectively pushing companies toward broad age verification systems. It prohibits collecting, selling, or retaining personal information from minors under 13, heavily restricts profiling and precise location tracking, and bans the use of “dark patterns” that influence minors’ choices. It also makes it unlawful for platforms to provide algorithmically curated addictive feeds to users they know—or reasonably should know—are minors. The measure limits notifications to minors during late-night and school-day hours without parental consent and mandates high-default privacy settings across services. Violations are deemed unfair or deceptive acts under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, exposing companies to significant legal liability.
While protecting children online is a worthy goal, this bill places expansive compliance burdens on a broad range of online services, many of which are not traditional social media platforms. The vague standards around “materially detrimental” content and “reasonable” age determination create uncertainty that could chill innovation and limit access to beneficial educational and community tools. Requiring widespread age assurance could also increase data collection risks by forcing platforms to gather more identifying information than they otherwise would. For voters concerned about overly broad regulation, the surveillance state, unintended privacy tradeoffs, and costly compliance mandates that may not effectively solve the underlying problem, House Bill 1834 should be rejected.
-
Jobs & Business
Creating a Washington state supply chain competitiveness infrastructure program.
Bill Summary
HB 1860 creates a Washington state supply chain competitiveness infrastructure program to prioritize and help finance key transportation projects that support ports and freight movement such as roads, rail, terminals and last‑mile links. It directs WSDOT to work with Commerce, the Washington Public Ports Association, FMSIB, tribes with port operations, and other supply‑chain stakeholders to set goals, performance metrics, and project criteria. Additionally, it establishes a dedicated program account, but does not itself appropriate new money or create a new standing commission; it uses existing agencies and existing funding streams that the Legislature can control each biennium. Any substantial funding still has to go through normal budget and appropriations processes where you can scrutinize and oppose new tax proposals if they arise.
Strong ports and efficient freight corridors keep Washington competitive in global trade, supporting private‑sector jobs in trucking, warehousing, agriculture, manufacturing, and export industries instead of expanding government payrolls. The bill ties projects to clear programmatic goals—improving freight movement, safety, and efficiency to and from ports and tribal port operations—rather than scattering money across unrelated local wish‑lists. Requiring performance metrics and collaborative planning makes it easier for legislators and the public to see what they’re getting for the dollars spent, aligning with conservative calls for measurable outcomes and return on investment. The bill has broad bipartisan sponsorship and passed the Senate 48‑0, signaling cross‑party agreement that this is practical infrastructure, not a partisan social program.
Bill Summary
HB 1969 establishes a “law enforcement aviation support grant program” administered by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The program provides financial assistance to local law‑enforcement aviation support units statewide. The bill directs DNR to work with a statewide association of law‑enforcement executives to identify and recognize local rotary‑wing aviation units that provide support to any jurisdiction reachable by their aircraft, not just their home county or city. It prioritizes funding for maintaining and operating helicopters (crew, maintenance, fuel, insurance, upgrades, training, acquisition, etc.), ensuring existing public‑safety air assets stay mission‑ready.
The bill requires that remaining funds each fiscal year be made available for recognized local aviation units to be reimbursed for all costs of search‑and‑rescue missions or SAR training, regardless of where in the state the mission occurred. This will reduce the disincentive for sheriffs and local agencies to launch helicopters quickly due to budget fears, supporting faster response for lost hikers, flood victims, and other life‑threatening emergencies. It ensures mission‑driven allocation: reimbursable SAR costs explicitly include fuel, training, and other necessary expenses, which encourages agencies to train adequately instead of cutting corners when budgets are tight.
In addition, HB 1969 allows state wildfire suppression funds to be used to support local fire departments and sheriffs’ offices that employ aviation assets for an initial attack on wildland fires. This requires that sheriffs’ offices using suppression funding operate aircraft they own or lease, and that personnel be trained on when and how to deploy aviation assets, tying funding to professional standards instead of ad‑hoc use. It codifies legislative intent that strategic early use of aviation can prevent fires from becoming uncontrollable and avoid costly state mobilizations, thereby protecting communities, natural resources, and air quality while saving money long‑term.
The legislation specifies that grant funds must supplement, not supplant, existing local funding for aviation units, preventing local governments from cutting their own contributions and backfilling with state money. It also requires DNR to report annually on aviation usage by local fire departments and sheriffs’ offices, including funding amounts, which agencies used funds, which fires were supported, and lessons learned, giving the Legislature tools for oversight and future policy adjustment.
In review, HB 1969 strengthens law‑enforcement and emergency‑response capabilities without creating new arrest powers or controversial policing mandates; it focuses on aviation capacity that directly saves lives (SAR, disaster response, fire support). It uses targeted grants and suppression funding with explicit guardrails (training requirements, non‑supplant language, statewide service expectation, annual reporting) rather than open‑ended entitlement spending, which fits a fiscally cautious but safety‑oriented framework. Lastly, it supports inter‑jurisdictional cooperation: recognized aviation units are expected to offer support to any reachable jurisdiction, helping small and rural counties benefit from assets they could never afford alone while still ensuring local skin in the game via required existing funding.