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 1834 creates a new regulatory framework aimed at protecting minors online by restricting so-called “addictive feeds,” limiting data collection, and imposing strict design and notification rules on websites and apps likely to be accessed by minors. The bill requires businesses to estimate users’ ages with a “reasonable level of certainty” or apply minor-level privacy protections to everyone, effectively pushing companies toward broad age verification systems. It prohibits collecting, selling, or retaining personal information from minors under 13, heavily restricts profiling and precise location tracking, and bans the use of “dark patterns” that influence minors’ choices. It also makes it unlawful for platforms to provide algorithmically curated addictive feeds to users they know—or reasonably should know—are minors. The measure limits notifications to minors during late-night and school-day hours without parental consent and mandates high-default privacy settings across services. Violations are deemed unfair or deceptive acts under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, exposing companies to significant legal liability.
While protecting children online is a worthy goal, this bill places expansive compliance burdens on a broad range of online services, many of which are not traditional social media platforms. The vague standards around “materially detrimental” content and “reasonable” age determination create uncertainty that could chill innovation and limit access to beneficial educational and community tools. Requiring widespread age assurance could also increase data collection risks by forcing platforms to gather more identifying information than they otherwise would. For voters concerned about overly broad regulation, the surveillance state, unintended privacy tradeoffs, and costly compliance mandates that may not effectively solve the underlying problem, House Bill 1834 should be rejected.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1836 establishes the “Washington Local News Journalism Corps Program” and a broader “Local News Sustainability Program” inside the Department of Commerce to give grants to qualifying news organizations and to fund journalism fellowships at Washington State University. The bill Imposes a new 1.22% B&O tax surcharge on certain large social‑media platforms and search engines such as computing businesses, with the revenue dedicated to these media grants and fellowships; total surcharge liability is capped at 75 million dollars per year per business. Additionally, it directs Commerce to award grants for hiring and retaining local journalists who cover civic affairs in news deserts and underserved communities, and to administer fellowships that place WSU‑trained journalists into local outlets with state support.
This legislation is not about neutral tax relief; it is a straight subsidy scheme for newsrooms that meet state‑defined criteria, funded by a new, targeted tax on other businesses. That’s a textbook hand‑out—government extracting money from one sector to underwrite payroll in another. Putting local newsrooms on a state funding pipeline undermines the independence of the press and inevitably raises questions about favoritism, soft pressure, or bias in which outlets and beats get funded. A truly free press must be accountable to readers and advertisers, not to Commerce grant officers and political appointees.
Furthermore, the bill invents yet another B&O surcharge category, adding complexity to an already distortionary gross‑receipts tax and establishing the precedent that Olympia can use targeted B&O add‑ons whenever it wants to social‑engineer markets or fund pet programs. That is the opposite of a broad, low‑rate, pro‑growth tax structure. Forcing businesses to pay higher B&O taxes so politicians and bureaucrats can hand out journalism grants to favored newsrooms—this is not a free press, it’s a subsidized press. If local news is truly serving its community, readers and advertisers—not the government—should decide whether it survives; tax‑funded news corps programs are hand‑outs, not market solutions.
-
Housing & Property
Expanding opportunities for affordable housing developments on properties owned by religious organizations.
Bill Summary
HB 1859 deepens long‑term state control over private and religious property in the name of affordable housing, without fixing the regulatory and tax problems that made housing unaffordable in the first place. It nudges churches into a quasi-governmental role governed by state affordability rules for 50 years, expanding bureaucracy instead of empowering families, local communities, and free markets.
The bill requires that at least 20% of units be restricted for “low‑income” tenants for a minimum of 50 years, even if the religious organization sells the property, effectively locking land into state-defined use for half a century. That is a major erosion of long‑term property flexibility and makes religious groups de facto partners in a permanent state housing program rather than free civic actors.
Furthermore, the legislation builds on a model of income tests, rent caps, and regulatory conditions, rather than tackling high permitting costs, restrictive zoning, and high state and local taxes that drive Washington’s housing crisis. It grows the alphabet‑soup of affordable housing programs, instead of restoring a normal market where middle‑class families can afford homes without subsidy.
Finally, by tying church land use to detailed state rules and long‑term affordability mandates, HB 1859 encourages religious organizations to behave more like regulated social‑service agencies than independent ministries. Over time, that dependence on government frameworks can undermine religious autonomy and shift priorities away from evangelism, charity, and local discretion.
-
Jobs & Business
Creating a Washington state supply chain competitiveness infrastructure program.
Bill Summary
HB 1860 creates a Washington state supply chain competitiveness infrastructure program to prioritize and help finance key transportation projects that support ports and freight movement such as roads, rail, terminals and last‑mile links. It directs WSDOT to work with Commerce, the Washington Public Ports Association, FMSIB, tribes with port operations, and other supply‑chain stakeholders to set goals, performance metrics, and project criteria. Additionally, it establishes a dedicated program account, but does not itself appropriate new money or create a new standing commission; it uses existing agencies and existing funding streams that the Legislature can control each biennium. Any substantial funding still has to go through normal budget and appropriations processes where you can scrutinize and oppose new tax proposals if they arise.
Strong ports and efficient freight corridors keep Washington competitive in global trade, supporting private‑sector jobs in trucking, warehousing, agriculture, manufacturing, and export industries instead of expanding government payrolls. The bill ties projects to clear programmatic goals—improving freight movement, safety, and efficiency to and from ports and tribal port operations—rather than scattering money across unrelated local wish‑lists. Requiring performance metrics and collaborative planning makes it easier for legislators and the public to see what they’re getting for the dollars spent, aligning with conservative calls for measurable outcomes and return on investment. The bill has broad bipartisan sponsorship and passed the Senate 48‑0, signaling cross‑party agreement that this is practical infrastructure, not a partisan social program.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1909 establishes a Court Unification Task Force to study Washington’s court system and evaluate whether a more centralized structure should replace the current mix of local rules, funding models, and technology systems. The bill cites concerns about inconsistent local court rules, uneven technology adoption, disparities in indigent defense funding, and alleged inequities in outcomes as justification for a comprehensive statewide review. It creates a large, multi-year task force composed of legislators, judges, local government representatives, bar association members, advocacy organizations, and individuals with lived experience, with co-chairs drawn from the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee and the Chief Justice of the Washington Supreme Court.
The task force is empowered to form subcommittees on topics such as court technology, funding, rural courts, facilities, and legislative impacts, and it may compensate certain members and reimburse travel expenses at public cost. The group must meet at least twice per year, issue a preliminary report by mid-2027, deliver a final report with proposed structural reforms and a long-term strategic plan by mid-2028, and remain active through 2029. Although framed as a study effort, the clear intent is to lay the groundwork for significant structural consolidation or centralization of Washington’s courts.
It is reasonable to be concerned that this bill opens the door to state-level consolidation that could erode local control over municipal and district courts that are currently accountable to their communities. Smaller counties and cities, which already operate under tight budgets, may ultimately face mandates or restructuring costs flowing from the task force’s recommendations. The composition of the task force, heavily weighted toward institutional stakeholders and advocacy groups, risks predetermining an outcome favoring expansion of centralized authority rather than preserving local flexibility. At a time when court backlogs, public safety demands, and fiscal pressures require immediate operational improvements, dedicating years and taxpayer resources to another study delays tangible solutions.
Bill Summary
House Bill 1916 rewrites Washington’s voter registration challenge process by tightening who can challenge a voter, raising the burden of proof to “beyond a reasonable doubt,” imposing strict affidavit and personal knowledge requirements, limiting hearings unless probable cause is found, and creating criminal penalties for challengers who file without reasonable cause. The bill narrows the grounds and procedures for challenging a voter’s eligibility, requires challengers to submit detailed, signed affidavits under penalty of perjury, and mandates dismissal of challenges that do not strictly comply with prescribed forms. It also extends timelines for publishing challenges, requires county auditors to independently verify eligibility whenever possible, and bars challenges against voters who are already inactive.
In cases involving address disputes, it allows voters to correct their registration and still have portions of their ballots counted, while requiring auditors to confirm death records or out-of-state registrations before cancellations. The legislation further creates misdemeanor liability and potential fines up to $10,000 for challengers who knowingly provide false information or act without reasonable cause. While framed as protecting voters from harassment, the bill significantly raises procedural hurdles that make it far harder for ordinary citizens to question potentially improper registrations. By shifting the evidentiary standard from clear and convincing evidence to beyond a reasonable doubt, it effectively treats civil voter registration disputes like criminal prosecutions, which could discourage legitimate oversight. The added criminal penalties and rigid filing requirements may intimidate community members who notice genuine inaccuracies but fear legal consequences for minor errors. At a time when public confidence in elections depends on transparency and accountability, reducing accessible mechanisms for voter roll scrutiny risks eroding trust rather than strengthening it.
Bill Summary
HB 1969 establishes a “law enforcement aviation support grant program” administered by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The program provides financial assistance to local law‑enforcement aviation support units statewide. The bill directs DNR to work with a statewide association of law‑enforcement executives to identify and recognize local rotary‑wing aviation units that provide support to any jurisdiction reachable by their aircraft, not just their home county or city. It prioritizes funding for maintaining and operating helicopters (crew, maintenance, fuel, insurance, upgrades, training, acquisition, etc.), ensuring existing public‑safety air assets stay mission‑ready.
The bill requires that remaining funds each fiscal year be made available for recognized local aviation units to be reimbursed for all costs of search‑and‑rescue missions or SAR training, regardless of where in the state the mission occurred. This will reduce the disincentive for sheriffs and local agencies to launch helicopters quickly due to budget fears, supporting faster response for lost hikers, flood victims, and other life‑threatening emergencies. It ensures mission‑driven allocation: reimbursable SAR costs explicitly include fuel, training, and other necessary expenses, which encourages agencies to train adequately instead of cutting corners when budgets are tight.
In addition, HB 1969 allows state wildfire suppression funds to be used to support local fire departments and sheriffs’ offices that employ aviation assets for an initial attack on wildland fires. This requires that sheriffs’ offices using suppression funding operate aircraft they own or lease, and that personnel be trained on when and how to deploy aviation assets, tying funding to professional standards instead of ad‑hoc use. It codifies legislative intent that strategic early use of aviation can prevent fires from becoming uncontrollable and avoid costly state mobilizations, thereby protecting communities, natural resources, and air quality while saving money long‑term.
The legislation specifies that grant funds must supplement, not supplant, existing local funding for aviation units, preventing local governments from cutting their own contributions and backfilling with state money. It also requires DNR to report annually on aviation usage by local fire departments and sheriffs’ offices, including funding amounts, which agencies used funds, which fires were supported, and lessons learned, giving the Legislature tools for oversight and future policy adjustment.
In review, HB 1969 strengthens law‑enforcement and emergency‑response capabilities without creating new arrest powers or controversial policing mandates; it focuses on aviation capacity that directly saves lives (SAR, disaster response, fire support). It uses targeted grants and suppression funding with explicit guardrails (training requirements, non‑supplant language, statewide service expectation, annual reporting) rather than open‑ended entitlement spending, which fits a fiscally cautious but safety‑oriented framework. Lastly, it supports inter‑jurisdictional cooperation: recognized aviation units are expected to offer support to any reachable jurisdiction, helping small and rural counties benefit from assets they could never afford alone while still ensuring local skin in the game via required existing funding.
Bill Summary
HB 1974’s core purpose is to establish new land banking authorities, a level of public or quasi‑public land‑ownership structure that goes beyond traditional city or county powers and inserts a new layer into the property market. These authorities are designed to actively acquire, hold, and dispose of real property, which shifts decisions about land use and redevelopment from private owners and regular elected bodies to a specialized entity that can become insulated from voters. A land bank with the power to buy, assemble, and hold properties can crowd out private investors, shift risk away from politically connected projects, and favor certain uses – often affordable housing or other unpopular projects – over market‑driven development. Once assembled, these properties can be offered on preferential terms, effectively allowing government to pick winners and losers in real‑estate and development rather than letting competition and price signals allocate land.
Land banking typically requires ongoing public resources—capitalization, staff, maintenance of held properties, and write‑downs of properties transferred at below‑market value—creating long‑term obligations that may not appear clearly in standard budgets or fiscal notes. When projects fail or markets turn, taxpayers can be left holding depreciating assets and maintenance burdens, while politically favored developers or nonprofits walk away from failed deals with little consequence. Additionally, land banks often operate under special boards and governance structures; the more authority they are given, the more decisions about property and neighborhood change are pushed one step away from direct city‑council or county‑commission votes. This structure can undermine transparent public debate on controversial land deals, concentrating power in a body that can move faster than normal public‑process safeguards and is less vulnerable to electoral backlash.
Instead of building a new land‑control entity, a conservative approach would focus on streamlining permitting, reforming zoning, and reducing regulatory barriers so private owners and investors can rehabilitate and reuse properties without needing a government land bank. Targeted tools already available—such as nuisance‑abatement, tax‑foreclosure reforms, and time‑limited public‑private partnerships—can address blight or stalled parcels without empowering a permanent authority that accumulates land and expands government’s footprint in the real‑estate market.
-
Transportation
Implementing safe system approach strategies for active transportation infrastructure.
Bill Summary
HB 1992 is a Democrat sponsored, progressive policy push that directs the state to use a “safe system” approach for active transportation—primarily walking and biking—when planning and building transportation infrastructure. The safe system approach is tied to Vision Zero‑style thinking, which assumes government should systematically redesign roads, speeds, and driver behavior to eliminate deaths, often by lowering limits and re‑engineering streets, rather than focusing primarily on individual responsibility and enforcement of existing rules. By centering active transportation infrastructure, this legislation risks prioritizing bike and pedestrian projects in funding and design decisions over vehicle capacity and freight mobility that are critical for families, commuters, and businesses—especially outside dense urban cores.
Embedding safe system strategies into state planning can drive more money and staff time into studies, design changes, and active‑transportation add‑ons, which can mean less focus on basic maintenance, congestion relief, and safety improvements for motorists and commercial traffic. A statewide mandate for this philosophy risks imposing Seattle‑style street design standards on suburban and rural communities whose travel patterns, road types, and economic needs are very different. This safe system ideology is driven by urban advocacy groups, instead of letting local communities balance safety with mobility and economic needs. We do not need a partisan mandate that tilts planning and dollars away from drivers, freight, and rural residents toward a narrow set of advocacy priorities.
-
K–12 Education
Expanding opportunities for competency-based assessments in graduation pathway options.
Bill Summary
HB 2007 expands the use of competency-based assessments and performance-based learning experiences as graduation pathways, but it does so in a way that risks lowering academic consistency and integrity across Washington’s schools. The bill greatly broadens the definition of “competency-based assessments” that can satisfy core English and math graduation requirements. Without strong statewide guardrails, this creates wide variation in rigor from district to district. Two students earning diplomas under this pathway may demonstrate vastly different levels of academic proficiency, undermining the meaning and reliability of a diploma. This bill also encourages districts to create and evaluate highly individualized projects—films, exhibits, performances, community activities, and more—as proof of meeting state academic standards. These experiences can be valuable, but they are resource-intensive, subjective to evaluate, and prone to inconsistency. Well-resourced districts may be able to implement these pathways effectively, while under-resourced districts may struggle, widening existing opportunity gaps.
Allowing external parties to participate in academic assessment—even well-intentioned community partners—raises concerns about quality control, evaluator training, and fairness. Academic judgment must remain grounded in certified, trained educators who can ensure fidelity to state standards. Washington has spent years building more transparent, comparable graduation pathways to help students demonstrate readiness for college or careers. HB 2007 moves in the opposite direction, expanding options without corresponding accountability measures to ensure they truly reflect English and math proficiency. Most importantly, this legislation risks diluting academic expectations and creating uneven educational experiences.