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
Under current law, local governments must adhere to specific deadlines for processing housing permits. If these deadlines are missed, a portion of the permit fee is refunded to the applicant. However, no mechanism exists to ensure applicants receive their permits in a timely manner. In a bid to tackle Washington’s severe housing shortage, Rep. April Connors, R-Kennewick, has introduced legislation to expedite housing permit approvals and streamline the development process.
House Bill 1438 directly addresses this problem by requiring automatic approval of housing projects and the issuance of building permits on the next business day after a missed deadline, provided certain conditions are met. These conditions include the project being located within an urban growth area, containing at least one residential dwelling unit, and having plans prepared, stamped, and signed by a licensed professional engineer or architect. Automatic approval would not apply if the local government identifies serious public health or safety concerns that prevent the project from moving forward.
Permit delays in Washington average 6.5 months, according to the Building Industry Association of Washington, adding an average of $31,375 to the cost of a home. With home prices having already surged 129% over the past decade, the third-largest increase in the nation, Connors says the Legislature must act to alleviate the growing burden on homebuyers.
“Washington’s housing crisis demands bold action. Every day, more families are being priced out of the market, with nearly three-quarters of Washington households unable to afford a median-priced home,” said Connors. “House Bill 1438 is a practical solution to cut through red tape, reduce permitting delays, and deliver the housing units our state desperately needs. This bill is an important part of our effort as House Republicans to fix Washington and ensure every resident has access to affordable housing.”
Bill Summary
HB 1448 introduces ranked choice voting (RCV) into local elections, replacing the current, straightforward “top-two” primary system with a more complex and unnecessary voting method. Instead of simply selecting their preferred candidate, voters would be required to rank multiple candidates in order of preference. This system complicates the election process and introduces unnecessary confusion, making it harder for voters to navigate their ballots effectively.
RCV has been shown to increase ballot errors and lead to voter disenfranchisement. Many voters may not fully understand the ranking process, resulting in a higher rate of discarded ballots. This issue disproportionately affects older voters and those with limited English proficiency, who are more likely to make mistakes under this system. Moreover, exhausted ballots—those where a voter does not rank all candidates—can lead to a scenario where the winner is elected with less than 50% of the vote, undermining the fundamental democratic principle of majority rule.
Even some Democrats are speaking out against the bill. Brian Hatfield, legislative director for Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, a Democrat, said that the committee needs to “take into consideration the additional expense, the logistical problems and the confusion that would result in moving from our current system which relies on simple addition to a system that relies on an algorithm.” He called ranked choice voting a “regressive move” and furthermore pointed out that “adopting a more complicated way to vote is highly likely to disenfranchise people who can’t easily adjust to changing rules.”
Beyond voter confusion, the financial and administrative burden of implementing RCV falls heavily on local governments. Counties will be forced to upgrade voting machines and train election staff to process the new, complex system. The costs associated with these changes will divert resources from essential public services, creating unnecessary financial strain. Despite this burden, the bill establishes a so-called “work group” to oversee implementation, but this group is likely to be dominated by organizations that already advocate for RCV, ensuring a biased process with little consideration for the concerns of everyday voters.
The failure of RCV in Pierce County, WA, highlights the risks of this system. After only two election cycles, it was repealed due to widespread voter dissatisfaction and increased election costs. Yet HB 1448 would allow jurisdictions to adopt multi-winner RCV elections, eliminating primary elections altogether in some cases. This change could make it even harder for voters to assess candidates early in the process, ultimately leading to less-informed choices in the general election.
Another major flaw of RCV is that it requires multiple rounds of vote counting, meaning election results could take days or even weeks to finalize. This delay weakens public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the process. Additionally, jurisdictions that adopt RCV must reduce the number of primary candidates to five, an arbitrary rule that adds further confusion. The system also increases the potential for strategic voting and manipulation, as voters may feel pressured to rank candidates tactically rather than voting for their genuine preference.
Ultimately, local governments should not be forced to experiment with a complicated, untested election system when the current method works efficiently and ensures clear winners. HB 1448 is unnecessary, expensive, and confusing, making it a risky experiment that Washington voters should reject. By opposing this bill, voters can preserve a transparent, fair, and effective election process that serves all citizens without unnecessary obstacles.
-
Safety
Requiring electronic monitoring of sexually violent predators granted conditional release.
Bill Summary
Rep. Dan Griffey, R-Allyn has filed legislation to reform Washington state’s sexually violent predator (SVP) system. The goal is to balance protecting Washington residents from SVPs with the Constitutional rights of SVPs, who the courts have ruled cannot be held indefinitely under civil commitment at McNeil Island and must be given a path to unconditional release. “These proposals are the starting point to fixing this system,” said Griffey. “While not every stakeholder we have met with agrees on how to fix Washington’s SVP system, they all agree that it is broken.”
Washington State House Bill 1457 modifies existing law concerning the conditional release of sexually violent predators. The bill mandates technologically advanced ankle monitors that are virtually tamper-proof and provide real-time GPS data for those conditionally released to less restrictive environments. It also establishes guidelines for placement, prioritizing fair distribution across counties while considering victim safety and the availability of resources. The legislation includes provisions for individualized treatment plans, regular reporting, and annual court reviews to ensure community safety and the individual’s compliance. Finally, it outlines the roles and responsibilities of various agencies involved in the release and monitoring process.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1458 will impose strict new regulations on building projects, driving up costs and adding layers of government oversight. This bill mandates a 30% reduction in embodied carbon emissions for large construction projects, requiring developers to comply with costly and complex reporting, material restrictions, and bureaucratic oversight. Furthermore, the bill forces builders to meet strict carbon reduction targets through material reuse, alternative building materials, or complex carbon assessments, significantly raising project costs.
This legislation will create a state-run database where developers must report extensive project details, and state agencies will conduct random audits on 3% of projects annually adding uncertainty and red tape. By burdening developers with expensive compliance requirements, HB 1458 will slow new construction, making housing and commercial spaces even more unaffordable in Washington. Instead of imposing rigid mandates, lawmakers should focus on incentives and market-driven solutions to encourage sustainable construction without punishing businesses and homeowners.
Bill Summary
A protection order is a type of restraining order that a petitioner can file against another person who is allegedly committing harm. It is a civil court order, issued by a judge. There are several different types of civil protection orders available in Washington, in cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, harassment, vulnerable adult, and extreme risk cases. The Hope Card Program, enacted in 2023 and implemented January 1, 2025 offers the namesake cards that contain concise information regarding a protection order. Previously, those under a protection order had to carry bulky documents anywhere from 12 to 16 pages long.
HB 1460 makes several adjustments to the program, including changing the source of Hope Cards from the clerk of the issuing court to the Administrative Office of the Courts Hope Card Program. The administrative office of the courts will develop a program to issue these cards in collaboration with various judicial and law enforcement associations. The hope cards may now be in a scannable electronic format (like a barcode or QR code) and will contain the entire restraining order and case history; however, the physical card itself will only identify the name(s) and dates of birth of the restrained subject(s) and the protected persons. While previously the cards were mandatory, the bill changes the language to make them optional. Finally, there would be no fees charged for issuance of the cards. “We’re just not going to charge for them,” said Rep. Dan Griffey, R-Allyn. “The people that are asking for these are the people that I think society should give the most mercy and grace to.”
The bill includes a funding contingency that will nullify the act if specific funding is not provided by June 30, 2025, in the omnibus appropriations act. Expanding this program to the individual courts would be more costly. “We have issued 831 cards since January 1st,” Griffey told the committee. Please register “Pro” on this bill and, if possible, provide written testimony asking the Appropriations Committee to fund this legislation.