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.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2365 expands Washington’s broadband and digital equity framework by raising the state’s baseline broadband definition to 100/20 Mbps, broadening “low-income” eligibility, and adding new categories like foster care dependents and people experiencing housing instability to the “underserved population” definition. It directs the Governor’s Statewide Broadband Office and the Department of Commerce to coordinate planning, outreach, and adoption efforts, including more formalized collaboration with tribes and multiple state agencies. It also increases the scope and expectations of reporting and planning by requiring a refreshed digital equity plan and biennial reports beginning January 1, 2027, with recommendations that can include ongoing subsidies and potential revenue sources.
The bill asks providers to report their three lowest retail price tiers (unless already public) for outreach materials, moving the state closer to price transparency expectations that some providers may resist or game. It further shifts program emphasis from “digital equity” to “digital opportunity” and expands grant-eligible activities to include items like wireless mesh in certain contexts and new trainings such as generative AI literacy. While the goals are laudable, the bill leans heavily into expanding bureaucracy—more planning bodies, forums, guidelines, reporting cycles, and administrative functions—without ensuring that additional infrastructure actually gets built where service is worst.
By hard-coding a 100/20 Mbps floor statewide, it risks excluding pragmatic, faster-to-deploy solutions in remote areas where geography makes immediate compliance costly, potentially delaying service to the very communities the bill targets. The broadened “low-income” definition and enlarged “underserved” categories may dilute limited funds across a much larger pool, reducing the per-household impact and making outcomes harder to measure and audit. The bill also opens the door to ongoing subsidies and “identification of revenue sources,” which can become a pathway to new fees or taxes without clear guardrails or sunsets. If you want broadband expansion that is faster, more accountable, and less likely to become an open-ended administrative and subsidy apparatus, citizens should not support HB 2365 and push for a more tightly scoped infrastructure-first approach.
-
Environment & Disasters
Eliminating preferential treatment related to a coal-fired electric generating plant.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2367 eliminates longstanding statutory and tax preferences tied to a specific coal-fired electric generating facility by repealing sales and use tax exemptions on coal and ending special regulatory treatment after 2025. While framed as an environmental equity measure, the bill effectively imposes sudden and concentrated cost increases on a single facility and its associated utility arrangements, risking higher electricity costs for ratepayers. By stripping tax exemptions and preferential provisions without a phased economic transition, the legislation undermines regulatory certainty that utilities and communities relied upon when prior agreements were negotiated.
The bill expands the reach and rigidity of the climate compliance framework in a way that may accelerate emissions leakage, shifting generation or imports to other jurisdictions rather than achieving real global emissions reductions. It also threatens grid reliability by destabilizing an existing baseload power source before fully proven, affordable alternatives are in place. The emergency clause short-circuits normal implementation timelines and legislative scrutiny, limiting opportunities to mitigate economic and reliability impacts. Rural communities and workers connected to the facility face disproportionate harm, with potential job losses and reduced local tax base. The repeal of targeted tax exemptions functions as a de facto tax increase on energy production that will likely be passed on to consumers.
-
Community Concerns
Transferring the imagination library program from the Department of Children, Youth, and Families to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Bill Summary
HB 2371 transfers the statewide “Imagination Library” free‑books‑by‑mail program from the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and recodifies the statute into the K‑12 code. The legislation also requires OSPI to contract with a Washington‑based 501(c)(3) to run the program, create local affiliates, increase enrollment, market the program, and report annually on participation and funding. It authorizes OSPI to seek and spend public and private gifts, grants, and endowments to support and expand the program.
Moving the program into OSPI gives the same state office that pushes “woke” frameworks in K‑12 education direct control over a book pipeline into homes of children from birth to age five, which can easily be used to normalize the same woke ideology. Because the program is in OSPI’s chapter of law, it becomes part of the education bureaucracy’s core mission, making future ideological shifts in book selection more likely and harder to monitor.
Additionally, the bill creates a structure designed to market the program and boost enrollment statewide, which locks taxpayers into supporting an ever‑larger operation even when book content drifts far from basic literacy into woke activist. The program automatically mails books chosen by a national foundation and a state contractor, not by local school boards or parents, which weakens local control over what very young children are exposed to. Because the bill’s language is content‑neutral and gives OSPI latitude to contract and promote, nothing in statute prevents future book lists from embedding controversial racial, gender, or political themes that align with OSPI’s existing ideological direction.
OSPI should focus on core academics—reading, writing, math, and classroom discipline—instead of expanding into a taxpayer‑backed, cradle‑to‑school book‑marketing operation run through a single, OSPI‑chosen nonprofit. If an ‘Imagination Library’ program is desirable, it should remain a voluntary, privately driven charitable effort or stay in a neutral social‑services agency, not be absorbed into an education department already criticized for it’s woke ideological agendas.
-
Taxes & Financial
Requiring electric utilities to provide monthly bill assistance as part of their obligation to offer energy assistance to low-income households.
Bill Summary
HB 2373 requires every public and private electric utility to offer at least one energy assistance program that must be a monthly bill‑discount program for all low‑income customers, sufficient to meet energy assistance need by January 1, 2028, using funds from the utility’s funds collected from ratepayers. The bill mandates at least five income tiers, with benefit levels in each tier set to cover most or all of the household’s calculated energy assistance need, in addition to a reasonable discount even for low‑income customers who are not in documented need. Additionally, it allows utilities to provide equivalent monthly cash payments if a customer cannot receive the discount on their bill, turning the program into a regular transfer of money.
The bill explicitly requires utilities to fund these discounts using funds generated by the utility’s operations, which in practice means other ratepayers—working families, churches, small businesses, and fixed‑income seniors who already pay their own bills—will be forced to subsidize ongoing discounts and cash payments to others. This is a built‑in wealth transfer, not a one‑time safety‑net measure. By requiring that discounts be sufficient to meet energy assistance need and setting long‑term planning targets around that concept, HB 2373 moves Washington closer to treating household electricity as a right guaranteed by cross‑subsidies, rather than something households budget for, conserve, and plan around. That undercuts personal responsibility and prudent energy use.
The law tells utilities to offer “streamlined eligibility options, including self‑attestation,” making it easier for people to claim discounts without strong verification. For someone who rejects free hand‑outs, embedding self‑certified discounts and even cash payments into statute is a recipe for dependency and fraud. Expanding mandatory discount programs financed by utilities’ own revenue will push base rates higher for everyone else, as utilities still need to recover their total revenue requirement. This legislation effectively hides a social program inside your power bill instead of putting it on the general budget where it would face transparent debate and tradeoffs. The bill adds more data‑collection and planning requirements for the Department of Commerce and for utilities—collecting detailed income, housing, and energy burden information, and assessing mechanisms such as special low‑income rates and system benefits charges. These are stepping stones toward more complex rate designs, new surcharges, and deeper state involvement in how utilities bill customers.
-
Transportation
Providing for the suspension of tolling on certain facilities in the event of an emergency.
Bill Summary
HB 2379 amends state law so the Department of Transportation must immediately suspend tolls on any facility that can reasonably be used as an evacuation route during an emergency. Tolls must remain suspended until the department determines they are no longer needed to facilitate evacuation, then normal tolling resumes. This legislation puts safety ahead of revenue. In a crisis (wildfire, earthquake, major accident, attack), government should clear the way so families can get out quickly, not keep charging them to flee. Drivers have already paid gas taxes and other fees to build these roads and ferries. This bill ensures they are not treated as a revenue stream in the middle of an emergency. The bill doesn’t abolish tolling; it creates a narrow, common‑sense exception tied to a declared emergency and routes used for evacuation. Implementation is handled by the existing DOT and Transportation Commission structure, so it enhances responsiveness without growing a new bureaucracy.
Bill Summary
HB 2383 expands key timelines in the Involuntary Treatment Act so people in a severe behavioral health or addiction crisis can be held, evaluated, and treated long enough to sober up and regain basic clarity. It lengthens the maximum initial hold for people brought in by police or first responders from 12 hours to up to 120 hours and extends later 120‑hour holds to 168 hours in some circumstances. It adjusts follow‑on court‑reviewed periods such as 14‑day, 30‑day, and 180‑day commitments and related procedures so prosecutors, designated crisis responders, and judges have a more realistic framework for people whose conditions do not meaningfully improve in the very short windows allowed under current law. In addition, it re‑affirms and updates a detailed list of patient rights (clothing, possessions, communication, religious practice, limits on antipsychotic medication and procedures, etc.), showing the bill is not about throwing out civil liberties but about making the existing ITA workable in today’s fentanyl‑driven environment.
This legislation is in response to the “revolving door” where severely addicted people are picked up, briefly held, then released while still impaired, only to re‑offend or overdose. By extending the initial hold up to seven days and allowing an additional 21 days with court review, the bill makes it more likely that dangerous, impaired individuals are off the streets long enough either to sober up or enter longer‑term treatment instead of going straight back to crime or chaos. The bill recognizes that people deep in fentanyl or severe mental illness often cannot meaningfully consent, plan, or follow through under current short timelines. Tightening and extending these windows holds them accountable through the legal system and treatment requirements, rather than pretending a quick 120‑hour cycle is care when it just enables continued self‑destruction and community harm. In review, this bill strengthens the Involuntary Treatment Act while preserving due‑process protections and patient rights, so we can protect public safety, support law enforcement, and give troubled people a real chance at recovery.
Bill Summary
HB 2387 clarifies the authority and accountability of elected county sheriffs by drawing a clear line between holding the office and personally performing certified law enforcement actions. It specifies that an elected sheriff who is not a certified peace officer may exercise the powers of the office but may not personally carry out law enforcement duties reserved for certified officers, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or state law. The bill strengthens public trust by ensuring that arrests, use of force, and other critical actions are performed only by individuals who meet statewide training and certification standards.
It also establishes a direct accountability mechanism when a sitting sheriff is decertified for misconduct that occurs during their term, treating that decertification as the formal initiation of recall proceedings. In cases of mandatory decertification, the bill streamlines the process by eliminating the signature-gathering requirement, allowing voters to decide the sheriff’s future without delay. This approach respects the will of the electorate while recognizing that loss of certification is a serious breach of public trust that warrants prompt review. By tying certification, conduct, and recall together, HB 2387 closes gaps that have allowed confusion and inconsistency across counties.
-
Criminal Justice
Modifying provisions related to individuals found to have committed criminal offenses when under the age of 18.
Bill Summary
HB 2389 is another soft-on-crime bill. It makes changes to Washington’s juvenile justice system by significantly expanding alternatives to confinement, broadening eligibility for suspended and treatment-based dispositions, accelerating review hearings, and facilitating earlier movement from secure facilities into community placements or transition services. While framed as modernization and equity reform, the bill substantially weakens the predictability and deterrent value of the juvenile sentencing grid by shifting far more discretion to courts and agencies to reduce or suspend confinement even for serious repeat offenses. It lowers barriers to early release and less-restrictive placements, including through automatic midpoint review hearings and population-based transfers when facilities exceed capacity, which can prioritize institutional crowding over individualized public safety assessments.
The legislation also expands the use of suspended dispositions and treatment alternatives as the default outcome unless the court affirmatively proves confinement is necessary, effectively reversing the burden in favor of community placement. Victims’ interests risk being marginalized, as offenders may be released or transitioned earlier despite the seriousness of the underlying conduct, particularly in violent property crimes like robbery or motor vehicle theft that have real community impacts. By declaring an emergency and taking effect immediately, the bill bypasses a measured implementation period, increasing the risk of inconsistent application across counties and strained local supervision resources.
The extensive restructuring of sentencing, confinement, parole, and transfer rules creates a highly complex system that will be difficult for courts, prosecutors, victims, and the public to understand and trust. There is also no guarantee that adequate funding, treatment capacity, or supervision infrastructure will be in place statewide to safely support the expanded use of community-based alternatives. At a time when many communities are concerned about accountability and repeat juvenile offending, this bill sends a message that consequences for serious youth crime will be further diluted.
-
Crime & Public Safety
Enhancing public safety and enforcement of crimes that impact insurance.
Bill Summary
HB 2394 modernizes Washington’s insurance fraud statutes to better address recurring and technologically sophisticated schemes that harm not only insurers, but also insurance consumers and beneficiaries. It expands key definitions—most notably “insurer”—to explicitly cover a broader set of entities regulated under Title 48 RCW, including health care service contractors and health maintenance organizations, ensuring the law matches today’s insurance marketplace. The bill rewrites the insurance fraud definition as a clear criminal offense and enumerates common modern tactics, such as provider billing manipulation using CPT/HCPCS codes, misuse of provider identifiers, inflated repair scopes, falsified medical documentation, impersonation in claims and mitigation work, and premium finance misappropriation. It confirms insurance fraud as a class B felony, clarifies that each instance is a separate offense, and broadens venue so prosecutors can bring cases where the crime occurred, where the accused resides, where a victim consumer resides, or where an impacted insurer’s primary Washington business is located.
HB 2394 strengthens the Office of the Insurance Commissioner’s fraud program by emphasizing investigative capacity, enabling grants or reimbursements to local prosecutors, and explicitly authorizing the use of technology and digital forensics to detect collusive schemes. It also tightens information-sharing and confidentiality provisions so investigators can collaborate across jurisdictions while protecting victims, witnesses, and sensitive investigative records from harmful disclosure. Importantly, it reinforces restitution rights so insured persons and consumers are recognized as victims in restitution orders, not just the insurance company, aligning enforcement with real-world harms.
Bill Summary
HB 2403 reclassifies felony “Failure to Register as a Sex Offender” as a seriousness level I, unranked class C felony and removes the provision that makes a third or later failure‑to‑register a more serious class B felony. It amends the Sentencing Reform Act so that a second or subsequent felony failure‑to‑register is no longer counted as a “sex offense,” which can reduce how seriously it is treated for future sentencing and registration consequences. The bill keeps some community‑custody requirements (up to one year for a first violation, and a mandatory two years of community custody for subsequent violations), but does not preserve the higher class‑B felony hammer for persistent violators.
Under current law, someone who keeps blowing off registration can face elevation to a class B felony. HB 2403 removes that escalation, telling chronic offenders they will never face that higher level of punishment no matter how many times they duck supervision. That undercuts the principle that repeated defiance of the law deserves harsher consequences. Failing to register is not “paperwork,” it is a deliberate choice to avoid monitoring and community‑notification tools that protect neighborhoods. By downgrading the offense and stripping away its status as a “sex offense” for SRA purposes, this bill moves away from the idea that sex offenders must face strict, escalating penalties when they hide from law enforcement. Finally, it leans more heavily on community custody and DOC support within reentry plans instead of preserving strong incarceration leverage. For someone who already refuses to follow a simple, bright‑line rule—keep your registration current—more supervision conditions without the credible threat of tougher time looks like rewarding non‑compliance rather than enforcing it.