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 1668 tightens accountability for offenders on community custody and improves information-sharing with the Department of Corrections (DOC), which aligns with public-safety, rule-of-law, and victim‑protection priorities many conservatives hold. This proposed legislation removes the special “specified offender scoring” rules for the felony of Escape from Community Custody (ECC), so courts score that crime using normal prior‑escape rules, which simplifies sentencing and treats escape more like other felonies. It also requires mental health and substance‑use disorder providers to send compliance updates to a DOC community corrections officer when treatment is a condition of sentence or DOC supervision.
ECC custody is committed by people already convicted of other crimes and under DOC supervision. By cleaning up scoring rules and treating escape like other felonies, the bill reinforces that supervision orders are serious and that absconding has real consequences. The bill targets a high‑risk group—individuals under community custody who already pose enough risk to warrant supervision—rather than expanding criminal law on low‑level or technical behavior, which is consistent with a focused, safety‑first approach. Requiring treatment providers to proactively report on compliance gives community corrections officers better tools to intervene early when someone is decompensating or relapsing, which can prevent new offenses and protect victims. Finally, the bill report notes no direct appropriation, so it strengthens accountability mechanisms without explicitly creating a new tax or big new program.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1683 would mandate that, by calendar year 2027, any school district with more than 3,000 students shift from primarily at-large school board elections to electing a minimum number of directors from designated “member districts.” For districts over 5,000 students, at least four directors would have to be elected by member district, and for districts between 3,001 and 5,000 students, at least three would have to be elected that way, while smaller districts are exempt. Although the stated goal is improving representation and diversity, the bill imposes a one-size-fits-all governance model on hundreds of communities with very different geographies, demographics, and civic cultures. Redrawing boundaries and administering district-based elections will add recurring costs, legal complexity, and political conflict—resources that would be better spent directly on student learning, staffing, and school safety. Member-district elections can also intensify factionalism by incentivizing directors to prioritize narrow neighborhood interests over districtwide outcomes like academic recovery, special education services, and long-term capital planning.
By making electoral structure a state mandate rather than a locally chosen reform, the bill reduces local control and limits a district’s ability to adopt the governance system that best fits its community. The enrollment threshold is arbitrary, meaning districts hovering around 3,000 students could be forced into expensive transitions simply due to normal year-to-year fluctuations. The accelerated timeline to 2027 risks rushed mapping and implementation, which can undermine public confidence and invite litigation over district lines and voting equity. At-large systems are not inherently incompatible with diversity, and districts should be free to pursue voluntary changes—paired with robust outreach and candidate development—without a statewide mandate. If the Legislature wants better representation, it should focus on proven supports like candidate training, translation and engagement resources, and clear guardrails for fair local redistricting rather than compelling a structural overhaul. For these reasons, HB 1683 is likely to create new administrative burdens and political fragmentation without guaranteeing improved outcomes for students, and it should be rejected.
Bill Summary
HB 1710 creates unnecessary government overreach, forcing local governments to obtain state approval before making common election changes. This bill introduces an excessive layer of bureaucracy, requiring local election officials to go through a burdensome preclearance process that slows decision-making and increases administrative costs. Rather than empowering communities to govern themselves, it places critical election decisions in the hands of the state, undermining local control.
One of the most concerning aspects of the bill is the excessive power it grants to the Attorney General. This official would have the authority to approve or deny election system changes without clear oversight or accountability. This bill effectively reinstates a failed policy—the preclearance system that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) for being outdated and unconstitutional. By reviving this approach, HB 1710 disregards the Court’s ruling and imposes unnecessary restrictions on local jurisdictions.
The bill also encourages legal battles, as it allows activist organizations to challenge election changes, leading to expensive and time-consuming litigation. Small communities and rural districts, particularly those with at least 6,000 residents of a so-called “protected class,” will be disproportionately impacted. These areas will face increased scrutiny and unnecessary state oversight, further complicating local governance. Worse, the Attorney General is given unchecked authority to determine what constitutes a “covered jurisdiction,” creating the potential for politically motivated targeting of specific regions.
Routine election adjustments, such as moving polling places, redrawing district lines, or even relocating ballot drop boxes, would now require state approval. This additional hurdle slows down necessary improvements and hinders the ability of election officials to respond efficiently to their communities’ needs. The bill assumes that voter disparities are caused solely by discrimination, disregarding the reality that voter participation is often a matter of individual choice rather than systemic barriers.
HB 1710 does little to address actual voter suppression but instead introduces expensive, redundant regulations that offer no meaningful improvements to election security or accessibility. It imposes arbitrary population and voting percentage thresholds, unfairly labeling certain jurisdictions as needing state oversight based on statistical disparities rather than evidence of misconduct. These unnecessary regulations will increase the financial burden on taxpayers, as local governments will be forced to allocate funds for legal compliance, consultant fees, and court challenges.
Moreover, the bill opens the door for politically motivated interference, granting state officials broad power to influence how local elections are conducted based on subjective criteria. This sets a dangerous precedent, allowing future election laws to further erode local autonomy and diminish voter confidence in fair and impartial elections. At its core, HB 1710 is unnecessary, costly, and politically driven. Please vote CON.
Bill Summary
As a bipartisan bill, House Bill 1717 establishes a targeted sales and use tax remittance program designed to significantly expand the supply of affordable housing for low-income households across Washington. The bill allows cities and counties to voluntarily adopt a program that reimburses a portion of state and local sales and use taxes paid on qualifying affordable housing construction projects, directly lowering development costs. To qualify, at least 50 percent of residential units must be affordable to low-income households and remain so for a minimum of 40 years, ensuring long-term public benefit rather than short-term gain. The program is carefully structured with local approval, public hearings, clear application standards, and ongoing compliance reporting to guarantee accountability and transparency.
The bill notes that the remitted state sales tax is shared with participating local governments, creating a sustainable funding stream that can be reinvested into additional affordable housing, supportive housing services, or behavioral health programs. This approach leverages private, nonprofit, and public developers to stretch public dollars further without raising taxes on consumers. Rural counties are given flexible income thresholds to reflect local economic realities, promoting equitable housing development statewide. Strong claw-back provisions ensure that if affordability commitments are broken, the tax benefits must be repaid with interest, protecting taxpayers. The program sunsets in 2035 and includes a mandatory performance review, allowing the Legislature to repeal it if it fails to produce real housing outcomes. By reducing construction costs while locking in decades of affordability, House Bill 1717 is a fiscally responsible, results-driven tool to address Washington’s housing shortage and deserves support.
-
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.
-
Elections
Creating guidelines for voter suppression and vote dilution claims under the Washington voting rights act.
Bill Summary
HB 1750 redefines “voter suppression” and “vote dilution” in an overly broad way, making local governments vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits. The bill fails to acknowledge that voter participation is often influenced by individual choice rather than systemic barriers, meaning even minor differences in turnout among demographic groups could be weaponized in court. Furthermore, it explicitly prohibits certain common-sense defenses, such as election integrity measures designed to prevent fraud, unless those measures are backed by “substantial evidence,” another ill-defined and subjective requirement.
The bill introduces unnecessary regulations that could severely disrupt local election processes. This legislation expands government overreach by prohibiting political subdivisions from implementing or enforcing election policies that result in what it defines as a “material disparate burden” on protected classes, a vague and subjective standard that opens the door for endless litigation. The bill does not require proof of intent to discriminate, meaning jurisdictions could face lawsuits simply based on statistical disparities, even if no discriminatory intent exists.
Bill Summary
Finally, a bill all Washingtonians can support! House Bill 1759 is a ‘fun’ bill that proposes amending Washington state law to officially recognize December 12th as “Day of the 12s,” a celebration of the Seattle Seahawks’ dedicated fans. The bill’s supporting section highlights the Seahawks fans’ legendary enthusiasm, their impact on the team’s success, and their role in fostering community.
The bill also highlights the historical significance of the 12s, including their record-setting crowd noise and the unique bond they share as a community. The legislature emphasizes the importance of this day as a celebration of the unity and pride among Seahawks fans, who come together to support their team and foster a sense of belonging. The bill aims to honor the legacy of the 12s and their impact on both the team and the broader Washington community.
-
K–12 Education
Addressing restraint or isolation of students in public schools and educational programs.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1795 substantially tightens rules on isolating and restraining students in Washington public education settings, with strong protections for students and new obligations and liability risks for districts and staff. The bill sharply restricts isolation and many forms of restraint, even in genuine emergencies, which may leave staff with fewer safe, lawful options to stop dangerous behavior in the moment. For programs serving students with severe behavioral needs, these limits may increase risk of injury to other students and staff if de‑escalation fails and no timely alternative is available. The legislation layers on extensive reporting, notification, data‑disaggregation, and review requirements after every isolation, restraint, or room clear, adding significant paperwork to principals and teachers who are already overloaded. And, it mandates large‑scale, ongoing trainings, plans, updates, and audits that will consume professional development time and district resources, without guaranteeing stable, long‑term funding beyond “subject to appropriation” language and a null‑and‑void clause.
In addition, statewide definitions, prohibitions, and timelines leave little room for local discretion, even though districts face very different student populations, facility constraints, and staffing realities. Furthermore, the bill prescribes detailed processes for incident review, behavior plans, and training priorities from Olympia, which may crowd out locally developed approaches that are already working well. Special education programs will carry much of the burden, since the bill prioritizes them for training and tightly regulates how they can respond to extreme behavior, potentially making it harder to serve some students in‑district. Ultimately, the added complexity and risk around isolation and restraint may incentivize more frequent suspensions, emergency removals, or law‑enforcement involvement when staff feel constrained in how they can intervene.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1823 refines the purpose of the Transportation Improvement Account (TIA) to emphasize improving mobility, supporting economic development, and preserving previous transportation investments, without expanding eligible spending categories. The bill keeps the existing local‑match framework and reaffirms that projects must be consistent with the Growth Management Act, Clean Air Act conformity, Commute Trip Reduction law, and high‑capacity transit planning, and must consider congestion and safety. It maintains the requirement that local governments/private partners put skin in the game, with priority to projects that bring the highest local or private match.
The legislation leaves the overall board size at 21 members and preserves the existing balance of county, city, transit, port, private sector, and special‑needs voices, while updating some terminology and definitions. Additionally, the bill clarifies that staff and administrative costs are paid from the transportation improvement account via the biennial appropriation, rather than tapping a separate public transportation systems account. A sunset on unused bonds prevents agencies from sitting on stale borrowing authority that could otherwise encourage unnecessary debt in future biennia.
HB 1823 updates the TIB membership statute to reflect current practice and definitions. It keeps geographic balance and local‑official representation requirements, so urban and rural counties and cities still all have a seat at the table, which can be useful if you care about smaller jurisdictions not being steamrolled by Seattle‑area priorities. The legislation repeals two outdated provisions: the old long‑range arterial construction planning—arterial inventory data statute and a 1974 legislative declaration on bicycle routes. Removing these obsolete sections tightens the code around actual operative authority instead of leaving dead language that can confuse interpretation or be selectively quoted to justify new programs later.
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.