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
HB 1696 is a reparations bill. It creates a taxpayer-funded giveaway of up to $150,000 for people to buy a home. It is a misguided expansion of the Covenant Homeownership Program that raises serious concerns about fairness, fiscal responsibility, and the long-term impact on housing markets. By increasing eligibility to those earning up to 140% of the area median income (AMI), the bill shifts assistance away from truly low-income families who need it most. The program was originally designed to help those historically excluded from homeownership, but this expansion broadens it beyond its intended scope, reducing its effectiveness.
Additionally, allowing full loan forgiveness after just five years could encourage misuse or exploitation of the program. Instead of addressing the root causes of housing affordability, such as zoning restrictions and supply shortages, HB 1696 relies on subsidies that fail to create lasting solutions. Furthermore, expanding eligibility and offering quick “loan forgiveness” could drive up home prices, making housing even less affordable for those outside the program. Finally, it places a major financial burden on taxpayers without clear measures to ensure long-term benefits for communities. Previous injustices are not “repaired” by creating present injustices against those who are innocent. Please stand against HB 1696.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1702 authorizes counties in Washington State to impose a public utility tax on the gross income of utilities providing services within their jurisdiction. The tax rate cannot exceed three percent, and utilities must add this tax to their service charges, clearly stating it on customer billings as a separate line item. Counties can only implement this tax at the beginning of a calendar quarter and must provide at least 75 days’ notice after adopting the relevant ordinance. Additionally, counties have the discretion to exempt certain business customers from this tax, but cannot offer a general exemption for residential customers unless similar exemptions are provided for business customers. Furthermore, counties must allow a credit against the tax for any similar utility tax imposed by cities or towns.
The bill also establishes definitions for various types of utilities, including cable service, electrical power, gas, sewer, solid waste, telephone, and water utilities, ensuring clarity in the application of the tax. The provisions of this bill will be codified as a new chapter in Title 36 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
This tax is being imposed because the State of Washington clearly does not tax its citizens enough already. Read our lips … NO NEW TAXES! Please oppose this legislation.
-
Environment
Establishing a review process before the state noxious weed control board may list certain agricultural crops as noxious weeds.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1707 establishes a review process that mandates the State Noxious Weed Control Board hold public hearings before listing any agricultural crops as noxious weeds. It emphasizes the importance of communication between agricultural producers and regulators, particularly in light of current economic strains on the agricultural sector. The legislature recognizes the current challenges facing agricultural producers and wants to ensure that before any agricultural crop can be designated as a noxious weed, the Board must first convene a work group convened by the Department of Agriculture and composed of agricultural producers and at least one Board member. This work group will develop recommendations, and the board must then hold a public hearing to discuss these recommendations before taking any action.
The bill aims to create a more collaborative and transparent process that considers both potential invasive qualities and economic benefits of agricultural crops. Specifically, the bill requires the Board to develop guidelines that prohibit listing an agricultural crop as a noxious weed without first going through this new review process, which includes scientific data collection, input from affected producers, and a public hearing. This approach is intended to protect agricultural interests and ensure that any decisions about noxious weed classifications are made with careful consideration and stakeholder input.
-
Health Care
Addressing the care of students with adrenal insufficiency by parent-designated adults.
Bill Summary
HB 1709 is a needed step toward protecting students with adrenal insufficiency by allowing trained parent-designated adults (PDAs) to provide life-saving care in schools. Just as students with diabetes and seizure disorders already benefit from similar policies, this bill ensures that children facing adrenal crises—potentially life-threatening emergencies—have immediate access to treatment from trusted, trained caregivers. HB 1709 advocates for student safety, giving families peace of mind, and ensuring schools are prepared for medical emergencies.
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.