Looking for a summary of our Top Bills?
These are the bills we deem major and significant. Click the image below.
Are you looking for a summary of our Top Bills for 2026? These are bills we deem major and significant. If so, use the filter below.
-
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.
Bill Summary
HB 1122 is a bipartisan effort that requires OSPI to report on effective policies for limiting student mobile device use during instructional hours, including summaries of strategies from other states (e.g., time/location/activity limits, secure storage, or designated areas). The bill directs the Washington State School Directors’ Association to develop and post a model policy based on OSPI recommendations, with input from stakeholders. It mandates that every school district, including charter and tribal impact schools, adopt and annually share its own policy.
This long overdue legislation addresses the proven harms of classroom phone use—lower test scores, cyberbullying, unauthorized recording, and mental‑health declines—without ideological baggage or new funding demands. The bill empowers local districts and school boards to implement practical, flexible strategies (e.g., phones in pouches, lockers, or limited to lunch), rather than a rigid statewide mandate from Olympia. It includes exceptions for emergencies, disabilities, English learners, health conditions, and instructional needs, ensuring the policy is humane and practical. It defines “mobile device” narrowly (personal phones/tablets for calls, messages, games, video—not school‑issued devices), avoiding overreach into educational tools. Finally, thee are no new bureaucracy or costs; it leverages existing OSPI reporting and school directors’ model‑policy process already used for other issues.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1128 creates a new child care workforce standards board with sweeping authority to set statewide wage floors and working condition rules for virtually all child care workers, including family child care providers, through an appointed body rather than the Legislature. The bill empowers this board to adopt binding standards that can override other agency rules, mandates employer-funded trainings run by certified worker organizations, and establishes expansive enforcement tools, civil liability, and presumptions of retaliation against employers. While framed as improving quality and stability, the measure risks sharply increasing operating costs for providers in a sector already struggling with razor-thin margins and limited capacity. Higher mandated wages and compliance costs will almost certainly be passed on to families through higher prices or reduced availability of care, worsening access for working parents, especially in rural and lower-income communities. Small family-based providers may be forced to close or stop accepting subsidized placements because they lack the administrative capacity to comply with complex new rules and reporting requirements.
The bill also shifts core policymaking power from elected lawmakers to an unelected board, reducing transparency and democratic accountability over major economic decisions. By privileging certain certified worker organizations with mandatory training access and data sharing, the proposal blurs the line between neutral regulation and quasi-unionization without a traditional collective bargaining framework. The promise that standards will not take effect without appropriations offers little comfort, since pressure to fund mandated increases could crowd out other early learning or education priorities. Rather than stabilizing the child care market, this approach risks accelerating consolidation and reducing parental choice by squeezing out independent providers. For these reasons, citizens should oppose HB 1128 and urge solutions that expand supply, support providers directly, and keep child care affordable without creating an inflexible regulatory superstructure.
-
Gun Rights
Enhancing public safety by establishing secure storage requirements for firearms in vehicles and residences.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1152 would impose sweeping new firearm storage mandates in both vehicles and residences, requiring pistols, rifles, and shotguns to be unloaded, locked in specific containers, concealed from view, and in some cases fitted with trigger locks, while also redefining how concealed pistol license holders may store firearms in vehicles. It expands the definition of “residence” to include vehicles and movable dwellings, meaning individuals who live in motor homes, trailers, or even boats would be subject to the same strict storage mandates at virtually all times. The bill layers escalating penalties on top of these mandates, beginning with a civil infraction of up to $1,000 and rising to misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, or even a class C felony if a prohibited person accesses a firearm and commits a crime with it.
While framed as a public safety measure, the legislation places the burden of criminal liability on lawful gun owners even when they themselves have done nothing violent or malicious. It also removes an existing exemption tied to unlawful entry, meaning victims of theft could face legal jeopardy if a stolen firearm is later misused. By tightening vehicle storage rules beyond current law, it creates complex compliance standards that many responsible owners may struggle to interpret correctly in real-world scenarios. The bill further directs the Washington Office of Firearm Safety and Violence Prevention to expand education and policy development efforts, reinforcing a regulatory approach that continues to grow in scope. The proposal risks criminalizing ordinary behavior and shifting responsibility for criminal misuse from offenders to lawful owners. For citizens concerned about over criminalization, property rights, and ensuring that penalties are focused squarely on those who commit crimes rather than those who lawfully possess firearms, this bill raises serious red flags and merits a “thumbs down”.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1169 explicitly covers fabricated or digitally created depictions of minors in sexually explicit conduct and requires that these depictions be obscene, so child‑sex deepfakes and AI images can be prosecuted. Specifically, it expands the crime of sexual exploitation of a minor and related offenses involving depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. It also increases the statute of limitations for certain offenses involving sexually explicit depictions of minors, giving prosecutors more time to hold abusers and exploiters accountable.
This bill eliminates some defenses that have allowed defendants in child‑sex‑depiction cases to escape accountability, tightening the law so technicalities cannot so easily override the protection of children. It provides immunity from criminal liability for people for example, tech workers or printers who encounter such depictions in the ordinary course of processing material and, in good faith, promptly report it to law enforcement, encouraging more tipping‑off of offenders. Additionally, it makes Washington’s law more consistent and up‑to‑date with the realities of online abuse, grooming, and image‑based exploitation, where predators increasingly use synthetic images and deepfakes.
HB 1169 prioritizes the innocence and dignity of children by explicitly targeting any sexually explicit depictions of minors, whether real or artificially generated, reflecting a moral commitment that children must never be used as sexual objects. It focuses on punishing wrongdoers rather than creating new social programs or bureaucracies; there is no appropriation in the bill, so it operates through tougher criminal standards and better tools for prosecutors, not bigger government. Finally, the bill enjoys unanimous Senate support and broad bipartisan backing, indicating a shared, non‑ideological consensus that protecting children from sexual exploitation is a core duty of the state.
-
Healthcare
Protecting patients involved in motor vehicle accidents from delayed ambulance bills.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1187 protects patients injured in motor vehicle accidents from being blindsided by aggressive ambulance debt collection by prohibiting ambulance services from selling or assigning that medical debt to a collection agency for at least 120 days after the initial billing statement is sent. The bill applies broadly to motor vehicle accidents, explicitly including situations where pedestrians or bicyclists are struck or injured by a vehicle, ensuring vulnerable road users receive the same protections as drivers. By creating a mandatory waiting period before debt can be transferred under chapter 19.16 RCW, the legislation gives patients critical time to coordinate with auto insurers, health plans, or personal injury protection coverage. This is particularly important because billing disputes and insurance determinations after a crash often take weeks or months to resolve, and premature collections can cause severe financial stress. The bill also establishes a clear enforcement pathway by allowing the insurance commissioner to flag patterns of noncompliance to the department of health.
Before formal enforcement occurs, ambulance services are given an opportunity to cure alleged violations or explain their conduct, promoting fairness and regulatory due process. If violations persist, the department of health may impose fines or cost recovery and take additional disciplinary action within its statutory authority. This balanced framework both protects patients and maintains accountability without imposing unreasonable burdens on legitimate providers. By reducing the risk of damaged credit and financial hardship during an already traumatic time, the bill strengthens consumer protections in Washington’s health care and emergency response systems.
-
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.
-
Crime & Public Safety
Concerning toxicology testing by certified or accredited laboratories.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1228 modernizes Washington’s impaired driving laws by clarifying and strengthening the standards for toxicology testing used in DUI-related cases. The bill allows blood and breath analyses to be conducted not only by individually permitted technicians, but also by laboratories that are certified or accredited under the internationally recognized ISO/IEC 17025 forensic toxicology standard. This change reflects current best practices in forensic science and ensures that test results come from facilities that meet rigorous quality, accuracy, and reliability benchmarks.
By recognizing accredited laboratories, the bill reduces unnecessary bottlenecks in testing, shortens case delays, and improves the consistency of results across jurisdictions. The legislation preserves defendants’ rights by explicitly allowing challenges to the reliability, accuracy, or maintenance of testing instruments, ensuring fairness in court proceedings. At the same time, it provides clearer evidentiary rules for prosecutors and courts, reducing confusion and litigation over technical admissibility issues. The bill does not lower impairment standards or expand criminal liability; instead, it strengthens confidence in the science used to determine impairment. Law enforcement, courts, and the public all benefit from clearer, more reliable toxicology evidence that supports just outcomes.
Bill Summary
Substitute House Bill 1302 allows municipal utilities to waive connection charges not only for affordable housing and emergency shelter projects, but also for public or private organizations that utilize property for “industrial symbiosis.” The bill defines industrial symbiosis broadly as collaboration among businesses to exchange materials, energy, water, or byproducts in ways that reduce resource consumption or greenhouse gas emissions. Under the proposal, cities that operate utilities could forgive one-time connection fees for qualifying projects, with the waived costs funded by general funds, grants, or other revenue sources. If a project later stops meeting eligibility requirements, the previously waived charges would become immediately due.
While the goal of encouraging sustainable innovation is appealing, this bill shifts infrastructure costs away from the benefiting entities and onto taxpayers or other ratepayers. Utility connection charges exist to recover the capital and administrative expenses of expanding service, and waiving them risks creating cross-subsidies that burden households and small businesses. The definition of industrial symbiosis is expansive and subjective, which could invite inconsistent application or preferential treatment for certain private ventures. Local governments already possess tools to incentivize economic development without distorting utility cost recovery structures. By tying utility finance policy to evolving environmental concepts, the bill may complicate rate design and long-term infrastructure planning.