Essential information on each bill is below. For more details, click on the bill number – e.g., “SB 5000.” 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.
Bill Summary
For many Washington families, manufactured homes offer an attainable path to homeownership. However, outdated lending rules make it difficult to secure affordable financing. Currently, homes in manufactured housing communities can only be financed with chattel loans, which come with higher interest rates and less favorable terms than traditional mortgages. These loans treat manufactured homes like vehicles or RVs rather than real estate, leading to significantly higher borrowing costs. This barrier makes homeownership unaffordable for many and discourages the creation of new resident-owned cooperatives. More than 1,000 households in Washington already live in resident-owned cooperatives, where residents collectively own the land beneath their homes.
House Bill 1191, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. April Connors, R-Kennewick, would allow these homeowners—and those seeking to join them—to eliminate the separate title to their home, reclassifying it as real property and improving access to more affordable financing. This change would make them eligible for conventional mortgages, unlocking better lending terms and lower interest rates. This legislation would align Washington with approximately 40 other states that have procedures to convert manufactured homes in resident-owned communities from personal to real property.
“This bill represents an important step forward in preserving one of the most affordable housing options we have in Washington,” said Connors. “If signed into law, House Bill 1191 will ensure homeowners in resident-owned cooperatives are no longer stuck with high-interest loans by providing access to the same mortgage options as any other homeowner. Currently, 84% of Washington families cannot afford a new home, our state ranks last for the per capita supply of affordable housing, and we are projected to need around 1 million new homes by 2044 to meet demand. It is critical we tackle our housing crisis head-on by reducing as many financial burdens as we can.”
-
Elections
Revoking a person’s voting rights only when convicted of a state crime punishable by death.
Bill Summary
The passage of HB 1078, which took effect on January 1, 2022, restored voting rights to people with past felony convictions immediately after they finished their prison terms. Misdemeanors do not affect voting rights in this state. A juvenile conviction does not impact your right to vote. In addition, your voting rights cannot be revoked because of court debt.
Now, House Bill 1196, also known as the “Free the Vote Act”, narrows the definition of an “infamous crime” in Washington state to only include state crimes punishable by death, which significantly changes voting rights restoration for people with criminal convictions. Currently, individuals convicted of felonies lose their voting rights; however, under this new legislation, voting rights would only be revoked for those convicted of a state crime punishable by death. When a person is convicted of such a crime and sentenced to total confinement, their voting rights are automatically revoked, but those rights are also automatically restored once they are no longer serving a sentence of total confinement under the department of corrections. The bill requires individuals whose voting rights have been restored to re-register to vote before casting a ballot. Additionally, the legislation modifies various related statutes to align with this new definition, including voter registration forms, ballot declarations, and jury service eligibility.
When you commit crimes against society, and are removed from society for a period of time to serve a prison sentence, you deserve forfeiture of your voting rights. Once you have completed your prison sentence and paid all court debts, your rights should be automatically restored. We stand against firmly against any legislation that allows convicts the right to vote prior to their release from prison, especially those convicted of felonies.
I implore all democratic legislators to focus more attention on the innocent victims of crime rather than on the rights of those convicted of crimes. Please oppose this unnecessary legislation.
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?
Bill Summary
State law currently requires teachers, police, registered nurses, social service counselors and members of several other professions to report to law enforcement or the state Department of Children, Youth and Families if they have reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect. This bill would add clergy to the list and remove their privilege to keep information shared in penitent communications confidential.
Democratic state lawmakers are trying again to require clergy members in Washington to report child abuse or neglect, including when it is disclosed to them by a congregant during confession. This is the third straight session that the issue will be debated. Past efforts failed when the two legislative chambers disagreed on whether to protect what’s heard in confessions. Sen. Noel Frame, D-Seattle, and Rep. Amy Walen, D-Kirkland, have introduced companion bills in the House and Senate to add clergy to the state’s roster of professions whose members must inform law enforcement if they believe a child has been harmed. The proposed legislation would close the controversial “clergy-penitent privilege” loophole.
The Washington State Catholic Conference opposes the legislation. The conference is the “public policy voice” of the Catholic Bishops of the Archdiocese of Seattle, the Diocese of Spokane, and the Diocese of Yakima. “We remain willing to have clergy as mandatory reporters but Catholic priests cannot reveal what is said in the confessional,” wrote Jean Welch Hill, the organization’s executive director. The WSCC welcomes narrowing the clergy-penitent privilege to sacramental confession only and they support mandatory reporting for situations outside of confession. Hill adds, “If they comply with the bill as it is written, the priest will be automatically excommunicated. To demand that a priest choose between compliance with the law or the loss of his lifelong vocation is exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to protect against.”
Abolishing the clergy-penitent privilege would likely prevent abusers from confessing and hinder priests’ efforts to instruct offenders to turn themselves in. The U.S. Constitution protects the clergy-penitent privilege. In addition, the Ninth Circuit, which includes Washington state, recognizes that no state or federal court has ever approved government invasion of the sacrament of confession. The United States Supreme Court has held that “suits cannot be maintained which would require a disclosure of the confidences of the confessional…” Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 107 (1875). Legally speaking, removing the clergy-penitent privilege would be an unconstitutional violation of civil liberties and would violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause because it would threaten priests with legal sanctions unless they violate their religious vows. In effect, It would say that it’s good for lawyers to keep confessions secret for secular reasons, but it’s illegal for priests to keep confessions secret for religious reasons.
For three years, protection of what is said in the confessional has been the dividing line between the Senate and the House. Proponents of the bill insist that no religious law should be above state law. “It is traumatizing to have colleagues who I love and trust and have respect for tell me to my face that freedom of religion is more important than protecting children,” said Sen. Frame. Last year, Frame crafted what she described as a “delicate” and “very narrowly defined compromise” with the Washington State Catholic Conference. It preserved the clergy-penitent privilege. But, under the legislation, if a religious leader heard a child may be at imminent risk of harm in a confession and in another setting, when they were not carrying out their work as a religious leader, they had a responsibility to contact authorities. The Senate passed the bill but it lapsed in a House committee.
-
Freedom
Expanding protections for workers in the state paid family and medical leave program.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1213 is another attack against businesses. It imposes unnecessary burdens on small businesses and creates potential for abuse within the system. The bill lowers the threshold for claiming benefits from 8 to just 4 consecutive hours, opening the door for fragmented, difficult-to-manage leave requests that disrupt workflow and increase administrative complexity. More troubling is the elimination of the minimum hours-worked requirement for job protection; now, any employee who’s been with an employer for just 90 days can claim protected leave, regardless of how little they’ve worked. This could severely impact scheduling and staffing, especially for smaller employers who already struggle to cover absences.
The legislation also expands job protections to unpaid leave periods under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, further complicating employers’ obligations and blurring the lines between paid and unpaid leave entitlements. With mandatory health care coverage during these leaves, even for intermittent or short-duration absences, employers face rising costs without any new funding to offset them. The bill also requires burdensome record-keeping and audits by the Employment Security Department, adding yet another layer of compliance red tape for businesses.
HB 1213 swings the pendulum too far, prioritizing administrative rigidity over flexibility and fairness. It erodes the balance between supporting workers and keeping businesses viable. This bill ultimately expands entitlements without proper safeguards or consideration of economic impacts, especially for small employers.