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.
-
Crime & Public Safety
Prohibiting sexually violent predators from being placed in less restrictive alternatives located in areas with a high concentration of children.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2693 strengthens public safety by tightening where sexually violent predators can be conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative, explicitly steering placements away from areas with a high concentration of children. It does this by redefining “less restrictive alternative” (LRA) to require that any proposed placement be in a location where, within a 500-foot radius, the ratio of adults to children exceeds three to one, and by prohibiting use of the community protection program for these placements. The bill then carries that same “adult-to-child ratio” requirement into the minimum findings a court must make before approving conditional release, ensuring the standard is not optional or unevenly applied. It also updates the conditions section to require courts to impose, in addition to existing school and child care distance buffers, a verified placement location that meets the three-to-one ratio threshold.
By building the ratio test directly into RCW 71.09.020, 71.09.092, and 71.09.096, the legislature creates a clear, uniform rule that agencies and courts can administer consistently. The measure complements—rather than replaces—other safeguards like electronic monitoring with real-time tracking, exclusion zones, and individualized conditions tailored to risk factors. It preserves the fair-share framework so placements are not concentrated in a single community, while still prioritizing child safety in the immediate vicinity of a residence. Practically, this bill reduces the chance that an LRA site ends up next to parks, schools, youth-heavy neighborhoods, or other child-centered environments by forcing an objective demographic screen. It also gives communities greater confidence that conditional release decisions are being made with measurable, child-protective guardrails rather than vague assurances.
-
Crime & Public Safety
Prohibiting sexually violent predators from being placed in less restrictive alternatives within 500 feet of, or with a sight line to, certain facilities or schools.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2694 strengthens community safety by tightening siting rules for less restrictive alternative (LRA) residences for sexually violent predators under RCW 71.09.096. The bill keeps the existing framework for conditional release, including the requirement that the court find the placement adequately protects the community and that the person will be subject to electronic monitoring with real-time tracking and exclusion zones. Its key change is to prohibit an LRA residence from being within 500 feet of certain child-centered locations and, importantly, to also prohibit the residence from having a direct sight line to those locations. Specifically, the bill targets child care facilities, K–12 public or private schools, and “recreational facilities” as defined in RCW 36.69.010, recognizing that proximity alone is not the only risk factor when sensitive sites are visible and easily accessed.
By adding a sight-line restriction, the legislation closes a loophole where a residence might technically meet a distance rule but still directly overlook a playground, school grounds, or similar facility. The bill continues to require the Department of Corrections to investigate the proposed LRA and report within 60 days with individualized conditions tailored to the person’s risk factors and criminogenic needs. It preserves the existing ability for courts to impose additional conditions like treatment requirements, supervision, contact restrictions, and GPS monitoring as needed. It also leaves intact the broader fair-share principles intended to prevent any one community from bearing a disproportionate share of placements, while still prioritizing safety around places where children congregate. In practical terms, HB 2694 makes LRA placement decisions more commonsense and defensible by aligning the law with how communities actually experience risk—what is nearby and what is directly visible.
-
Crime & Public Safety
Requiring a less restrictive alternative placement to be owned and operated by the same individuals.
Bill Summary
HB 2696 requires the court to assess if a less restrictive alternative (LRA), such as community-based treatment or supervised release is appropriate for the individual, prioritizing their well-being and community safety. It mandates that the release plan include specific services such as discharge planning, assignment of a community care coordinator, regular contact with treatment providers, community escorts if needed, transition planning, and financial support for necessary housing. The court must provide a copy of the release conditions to the individual and designated service providers to ensure transparency and accountability.
A new section added to HB 2696 requires that, before approving an LRA, the court shall confirm that the residence is owned by the same person or persons who will be providing or monitoring the person’s treatment. This effectively bars arrangements where a neutral landlord owns the property and a separate licensed provider delivers services, potentially forcing residents into placements owned by treatment or monitoring entities and shrinking the pool of available housing. By tying ownership to the entity providing or monitoring treatment, the bill may consolidate power and revenue in a small number of specialized providers, reduce competition, and drive up costs to the state and to clients.
-
Crime & Public Safety
Requiring the court to consider recommendations from the prosecutor before approving a less restrictive alternative for a sexually violent predator.
Bill Summary
For context, House Bill 2698 is the fourth bill by Rep. Stephanie Barnard to address concerns about releasing sexually violent predators — see also HB 2687, HB 2693, and HB 2694. In this specific bill, HB 2698 strengthens the decision-making process for releasing sexually violent predators to less restrictive alternatives (LRA) by ensuring prosecutors have a formal voice before approval. Under current law, courts must make several findings about treatment, housing, supervision, and community safety, and this bill preserves all of those safeguards. The key change is that the court must now allow the local county prosecutor to make recommendations about whether the proposed housing is appropriate. Prosecutors are uniquely positioned to understand local conditions, victim concerns, and public safety risks tied to a specific neighborhood or facility.
The bill does not give prosecutors veto power, preserving judicial independence, but it does require the court to seriously consider their input. If a judge chooses to depart from the prosecutor’s recommendations, the court must explain its reasoning in writing, increasing transparency and accountability. This added step helps ensure that release decisions are better informed and more defensible to the public. By requiring written explanations for disagreements, the bill discourages arbitrary decisions and builds trust in the process. HB 2698 balances rehabilitation goals with community protection rather than prioritizing one at the expense of the other. It is a measured, common-sense reform that strengthens public confidence without undermining due process.
-
Judicial
Establishing a process for adjudicating tort claims against the state of Washington and its political subdivisions.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2700 establishes a process so that tort claims against the state and its political subdivisions (cities, counties, special districts) go through civil arbitration before they are scheduled for trial, regardless of dollar amount. The legislation makes arbitration mandatory for older claims: when more than ten years have passed since the claim arose for adults, or more than ten years after a minor reaches adulthood for claims arising when the person was a minor. It also makes arbitration optional for newer claims under that ten‑year threshold; parties can still choose court as under current law. It helps control liability exposure and insurance pressures on local governments that cannot simply stop providing services like police, fire, roads, or parks when legal expenses spike; the bill is explicitly pitched as a way to “help local governments at no cost to the state” while still compensating victims.
The bill requires legislative hearings within 12 months after any tort judgment or settlement against the state of at least 5 million dollars from the Liability Account, including an Attorney General report on what happened and what policy changes might avoid similar liability. Additionally, it orders the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) to study the arbitration requirement, gather claims/lawsuit/payout data from the Office of Risk Management and local entities, and report back to the Legislature by December 31, 2032. It usses arbitration to promote quicker, “right‑sized” resolutions for long‑pending claims, reducing the risk of unpredictable mega‑verdicts years after the fact when evidence is stale and personnel have turned over. Furthermore, it puts some guardrails around very old cases by routing them out of full jury trial by default, which aligns with a rule‑of‑law instinct that claims should be resolved in a timely way rather than weaponized decades later.
-
Taxes & Financial
Removing a tax exemption for the replacement of equipment for data centers.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2708 removes or prematurely expires existing sales and use tax exemptions for data center equipment. This is a targeted tax increase on a productive, capital‑intensive sector that Washington has deliberately courted for years. By cutting back the sales and use tax exemptions for data‑center equipment and shortening previously promised timeframes, the bill helps backfill state spending rather than tackling the underlying problem of a budget that keeps growing faster than family incomes. It raises more money from one politically disfavored industry without offering any broad‑based relief to households, small businesses, or property owners.
From a fiscal‑conservative standpoint, HB 2708 also sends a damaging signal about Washington’s reliability. Data‑center projects require massive up‑front investment on the assumption that tax policy will be stable over many years. Changing the rules mid‑stream—especially by taxing ongoing replacement equipment—tells employers that when Olympia wants more revenue, long‑term commitments are negotiable. That kind of policy whiplash undermines our state’s competitiveness, encourages future data‑center growth and jobs to go to other states, and ultimately leaves Washington families paying more for the digital services they rely on while getting no meaningful tax relief in return.
-
Taxes & Financial
Imposing a business and occupation tax surcharge on the operators of private detention facilities.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2713 imposes a new B&O surcharge specifically on operators of private detention facilities, not because they evade tax, but likely because Democratic legislators dislike their line of work. Once lawmakers normalize punitive, viewpoint‑driven taxes, the same approach could be applied to Christian schools, faith‑based nonprofits, pregnancy centers, or other ministries that are politically unpopular. If the state believes private detention contracts are wrong, the appropriate route is to ban or regulate them directly through clear statutes and contract rules, not to tax them out of existence with a special tax. This blurs the line between neutral taxation and policy punishment, weakening the rule‑of‑law norm that people and businesses should be governed by clear, generally applicable rules.
Detention contracts are paid by governments; a new surcharge will either be built into bids thereby raising taxpayer costs or cause operators to leave the state, forcing rushed public expansion. Rapid shifts or overcrowding can worsen conditions for detainees—including children and families—undercutting the stated moral goal of better treatment. Every detainee bears God’s image and deserves humane treatment, while still rejecting a policy that fights perceived injustice by weaponizing taxes against a particular group. Scripture warns against partiality; singling out one lawful sector for special fiscal punishment, rather than applying just standards even‑handedly, risks becoming a tool of political retribution rather than true reform.
Bill Summary
HB 2724 is titled “Establishing a tax on millionaires” and is sponsored exclusively by Democratic legislators who have long pushed for state‑level income and wealth taxes. The bill is plainly an income tax bill, not a sales or excise tax tweak. Washington voters have repeatedly rejected state income tax proposals at the ballot, signaling a clear, long‑standing taxpayer mandate against this kind of tax. Once an income‑tax framework exists in statute and is upheld in court, thresholds can be lowered over time, converting what starts as a “millionaire tax” into a tax on everyone, a pattern critics are warning about with SB 6346. High‑earner income and wealth taxes are associated with capital flight and relocation of entrepreneurs, investors, and business owners to lower‑tax states, which can shrink the long‑term tax base and private‑sector job growth rather than strengthen it.
This legislation fits a broader agenda of using new income‑style taxes to grow permanent state spending, rather than prioritizing budget discipline, regulatory reform, or pro‑growth policies that increase revenue through private‑sector expansion. Washington’s no‑income‑tax status rests on a combination of voter rejection and constitutional/property‑tax reasoning; creating a new income‑tax statute invites litigation that could weaken or overturn these protections statewide. Major structural tax changes should go to the people as a constitutional amendment or direct vote, not be pushed through by a simple partisan majority in a single session. Instead of creating a new income‑tax bureaucracy and chasing away job creators, the Legislature should live within its means and focus on regulatory relief and economic growth.
Finally, we note the bill’s negative impact upon charitable contributions. Section 307 allows taxpayers to deduct charitable donations only up to $50,000 per year when calculating their Washington taxable income. This cap applies even if the taxpayer gave more and even if federal law allows a larger deduction. For married spouses or domestic partners, the $50,000 limit is combined, meaning: They are capped at $50,000 total, not $50,000 each, whether they file jointly or separately. In effect, the bill decouples Washington’s deduction from the federal charitable deduction and imposes a hard ceiling. Any charitable contributions above $50,000 receive no state tax benefit under this new tax. Such a reduction is further evidence that the bill aims to grow government itself, and not charitable organizations.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2725 keeps the new higher exclusion so that estates under roughly 3 million dollars remain tax‑free, but reduces the punitive top rates that were just increased in 2025. For large estates, the 2025 law pushed the top marginal rate up to 35% on amounts over 9 million dollars. It rolls those back to a top rate of 20%, and similarly trims the 26–30% brackets down into the high‑teens range. The bill applies to estates of decedents dying on or after mid‑2026, so it is clearly aimed at reversing a recent tax increase, not creating a new tax or loophole.
This legislation reverses a steep tax hike on success and wealth creation. Olympia just hiked upper‑bracket estate rates to 26–35% last year; however, this bill pushes them back down and re‑establishes a lower, flatter top rate structure. It keeps protection for small and mid‑size estates in place: the 3 million dollar exclusion stays, which means ordinary families and many small business or farm estates stay out of the tax entirely while the fight is focused on the most confiscatory brackets. The new 35% top rate, stacked on top of a 40% federal estate tax, encourages wealthy residents and investors to leave Washington. HB 2725 directly tackles that concern by cutting the state top rate almost in half. The Department of Revenue’s fiscal note projects a hundreds‑of‑millions reduction in future estate‑tax collections to the Education Legacy Trust Account, which is another way of saying the bill returns that money to families instead of government.
Every Republican Senator voted for it because it rolls back a tax increase and cuts rates, even if it doesn’t repeal the estate tax outright; however, in the current political environment, eliminating the estate tax is not on the table. This legislation is a realistic incremental win that lowers rates now and confirms the new, higher 2025 rates were excessive. In review, HB 2725 is a net tax cut that undoes part of a recent, aggressive estate‑tax hike while preserving relief for smaller estates. Supporting it is consistent with lowering tax burdens, improving Washington’s competitiveness, and resisting the trend toward ever‑higher “soak the rich” rates, even if we ultimately prefer full repeal of the estate tax.
Bill Summary
In light of recent student protests against ICE, House Bill 2732 allows such events to be considered excused absences. It requires school districts to treat student participation in certain civic activities as excused absences by amending RCW 28A.225.055. It allows up to one day per academic term for activities such as legislative visits, advocacy days, conventions, and meetings with elected officials, provided parents approve and paperwork is submitted in advance. While framed as encouraging civic engagement, the bill shifts attendance policy from local discretion to a state mandate. This creates administrative burdens for schools, including new forms, timelines, and compliance rules that consume staff time without improving instruction.
The bill also risks politicizing school attendance by requiring schools to excuse absences tied to organized advocacy and political activity, even when those activities are unrelated to coursework. Although districts may set procedural requirements, they are explicitly barred from denying requests for reasons outside the narrow criteria, limiting common-sense judgment calls. This undermines the ability of educators to prioritize consistent classroom participation and academic continuity. Students already have numerous excused absence categories, and expanding them further weakens expectations around regular attendance. Civic learning is better accomplished through classroom instruction, debate, and structured programs rather than missed school days.