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.
-
Higher Education
Reviewing and discontinuing low-enrollment undergraduate programs at public baccalaureate institutions.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 5909 creates a structured, transparent way to identify and either improve or phase out degree programs that serve very few students, while protecting those already enrolled. This legislation defines a “low-enrollment program” as an undergraduate program at a public baccalaureate institution graduating fewer than 10 students per year on average over the most recent five years. It requires each public university’s governing board to annually identify low-enrollment programs and place them on a list for potential review and action.
A program must appear on the low-enrollment list for three consecutive years before it is subject to a discontinuance review, preventing knee-jerk closures. If a board recommends discontinuing a program, it must adopt a teach‑out plan that gives currently enrolled students a reasonable opportunity to finish their degrees. Governing boards must consider extenuating circumstances before discontinuing a program, including new program status, access concerns, workforce demand or regional need, and accreditation or licensure requirements. If those factors justify keeping the program, the board may choose to continue it and must explain that decision, rather than being forced to close it solely due to numbers.
Institutions must submit an annual report to the legislature listing low-enrollment programs, actions taken, data used in the review, financial and student-outcome analysis, and the strategy for closure, consolidation, or continuance. This reporting improves public accountability, giving lawmakers and the public clear visibility into which programs are underperforming, why, and what institutions plan to do about them. The bill helps focus limited higher‑education resources on programs that actually serve students and workforce needs, while still protecting niche programs when there is a clear rationale for keeping them. It balances fiscal responsibility with student protection and transparency, making it easier to defend higher‑education spending to taxpayers and to ensure students are enrolled in sustainable, high‑value degree pathway.
Bill Summary
SB 5910 allows school boards to spend funds on communications to the general public “without limitation as to content, tenor, format, frequency, or medium of communication” to explain the instructional program and operations, and to explain the district’s ballot propositions. Districts can use “multiple media tools, channels, and methods, including social media, to capture the public’s attention” about curriculum, student achievement, safety, budgets, facility conditions, and funding sources such as ballot propositions. The bill Is a partisan Democratic bill specifically welcomed by school‑funding advocates as a way to let districts speak more freely during levy and bond campaigns.
Current law and guidance seek to distinguish neutral, factual information from persuasion when public agencies talk about ballot measures. SB 5910’s unlimited language invites districts to push right up to or beyond that line with emotionally loaded mailers, videos, and social‑media campaigns funded by taxpayers. School districts already have institutional advantages—staff, mailing lists, logos, and credibility. Giving them explicit statutory license to saturate voters with communications about their own levies and bonds makes it harder for skeptical taxpayers and grassroots campaigns opposing a bond or levy to be heard on equal footing. Every dollar spent on slick messaging, consultants, and ad‑style outreach is a dollar not going to classrooms, maintenance, or safety. Conservatives typically prefer tight limits on government self‑promotion and want agencies focused on performance, not spin.
-
Marriage & Family
Strengthening the financial stability of persons in the care of the Department of Children, Youth and Families.
Bill Summary
SB 5911 is aimed at helping 18–21 year‑olds who are still in the care of WA’s Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) to cover basic needs and build financial stability as they transition to adulthood, providing “launch support” for foster and extended‑care youth.
Youth aging out of foster care face much higher risks of homelessness, unemployment, and justice involvement compared to peers with family support. Targeted financial help directly addresses this gap. Modest, predictable cash or cash‑like support during ages 18–21 can stabilize housing, education, and work, which reduces reliance on emergency services and crisis systems later. Investing in stability at the transition to adulthood is generally cheaper for taxpayers than responding to downstream crises like shelter use, ER visits, and incarceration.
Most young adults rely heavily on family for rent, food, transportation, and school costs; foster and DCYF‑involved youth rarely have that safety net, so SB 5911 functions as a partial substitute for family support. The bill is framed to help a relatively small, clearly defined group that has already experienced state intervention and trauma. By focusing on people already in DCYF care, this legislation avoids creating a broad new entitlement and instead shores up support for those for whom the state has already assumed responsibility.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 5912 helps Washington respond to a growing constitutional and public‑safety problem by reinstating a focused task force to fix gaps in how poor people receive criminal defense services. This legislation reinstates the indigent defense task force originally created in 1988–1989 to study how Washington provides lawyers to people who cannot afford counsel at the trial level. It directs the task force to review current systems used across the state, including costs, caseloads, delays, and staffing impacts in indigent defense.
The right to counsel is a constitutional guarantee, but underfunded or overloaded public defense systems can effectively deny that right to low‑income defendants. A dedicated task force provides a structured way to diagnose where representation is inadequate or delayed and recommend concrete improvements, rather than relying on piecemeal fixes or lawsuits. The task force must consider public defense workload standards, recruitment needs in rural and underserved communities, and alternative models for delivering services. This focus helps address Washington’s public‑defender shortage and burnout, which directly affects case backlogs, plea pressure, and the quality of representation. Membership includes representatives from the governor’s office, Office of Financial Management, Office of Public Defense, the state supreme court, bar association, counties, cities, prosecutors, and both parties in the Legislature. This diverse structure makes it more likely that recommendations will be realistic, bipartisan, and sensitive to both fiscal constraints and civil‑rights concerns.
The task force must submit a detailed report by January 1, 2028, summarizing current practices statewide and offering recommendations for improvement, after which the authorizing section expires June 30, 2029. Because it is time‑limited and required to produce a written roadmap, the bill promotes targeted reform rather than creating a permanent bureaucracy. Supporting SB 5912 means supporting equal access to justice for people in Washington who cannot afford an attorney, while also improving system efficiency for courts, victims, and communities. The legislation is a bipartisan, relatively low‑cost way to obtain expert, statewide guidance on how to stabilize and strengthen Washington’s public defense system before problems deepen further.
Bill Summary
SB 5913 clarifies public defense caseload standards for local jurisdictions. It does not overhaul the criminal justice system or expand categories of crimes. Clear, realistic caseload standards help ensure that prosecutions and convictions are less vulnerable to appeal or reversal over ineffective assistance of counsel claims. When local governments operate under ambiguous or unrealistic standards, they are more exposed to costly litigation; clarifying standards can reduce that risk and improve predictability. By clarifying what is expected rather than centralizing defense services at the state level, the bill helps local jurisdictions manage their obligations while staying within constitutional guardrails. This legislation addresses how many cases a public defender can reasonably handle, not broader criminal justice policy battles, making it a practical governance fix rather than a partisan statement.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 5914 strengthens Washington’s public defense system by improving local accountability, gradually increasing state funding support, and tying that funding to real compliance with quality standards and Supreme Court caseload rules. This legislation updates RCW 10.101.050 so the Office of Public Defense (OPD) disburses state money to counties and cities specifically to improve the quality of public defense, while requiring detailed reporting on spending, caseloads, and current defense contracts. It also requires local governments to show, as practicable, that attorneys providing public defense are in compliance with Washington Supreme Court indigent defense standards, including caseload limits. Furthermore, it creates a new section requiring the state to gradually assume a larger share of trial-level public defense costs: at least 10% in fiscal year 2027, 15% in 2028, 20% in 2029, 25% in 2030, and 30% in 2031 and beyond. OPD and its advisory committee are empowered to review local systems, determine whether jurisdictions are in “substantial compliance,” and, if necessary, require corrective action as a condition of continued funding.
The legislation also directs OPD to prioritize distribution of funds to counties with the largest trial-level criminal public defense backlogs and the most vacant defender positions, until distributions meet or exceed each jurisdiction’s pro rata share. This focus aims state dollars where the constitutional and public-safety risks are greatest, helping reduce case delays and stabilize the defense workforce. SB 5914 moves Washington toward a more sustainable, statewide partnership where the state helps pay for the constitutional right to counsel instead of leaving small cities and rural counties to shoulder it alone. The bill trades increased state support for clear data, enforceable standards, and targeted relief to jurisdictions with the worst backlogs—strengthening both accountability and public trust in the criminal legal system.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 5917 would significantly expand the role of the Department of Corrections by authorizing it to acquire, distribute, and dispense abortion pills not only within its custody but to the general public, a function far outside its core mission. This bill effectively turns a corrections agency into a statewide pharmaceutical distributor of abortion pills that not only murders pre-born babies but jeopardizes the life and health of women who take abortion pills: about 1 out of every 10 women suffers a severe consequence to her physical health. Furthermore, this bill raises serious concerns about mission creep, accountability, and administrative competence. By exempting the department from standard wholesaler licensing requirements, the bill weakens long-standing regulatory safeguards designed to ensure drug safety, oversight, and transparency.
The legislation also allows medications to be provided at or below cost, with little clarity on fiscal impacts, cost recovery, or long-term taxpayer exposure. Declaring this policy change an “emergency” bypasses normal legislative deliberation and limits public scrutiny on an issue that is ethically, medically, and politically complex. Existing health care providers and pharmacies already have lawful authority and infrastructure to dispense abortion pills, making this expansion duplicative rather than necessary. The bill blurs clear lines between “public health” functions and correctional administration, setting a troubling precedent for future policy decisions, as well as a profound lack of protection for pre-born babies. For these reasons, Senate Bill 5917 represents an overreach of government authority and should be rejected.
Bill Summary
For years, taxpayers have greatly funded the government education system in Washington State: they already pay more than $20,000 per student. More money is not the root problem — yet this bill aims, once again, to increase funding for a system that has largely failed taxpayers in terms of actual education results. House Bill 2147 proposes a significant increase in state funding for school materials, supplies, and operating costs. While inflationary pressures are real, the bill permanently ratchets up per-pupil allocations and layers on automatic inflation adjustments that will drive long-term spending growth regardless of state revenue conditions. The proposal expands ongoing obligations in the basic education formula without identifying a dedicated or sustainable funding source, increasing the likelihood of future tax increases.
It also embeds new minimum allocations and floor payments that reduce legislative flexibility to respond to economic downturns or competing priorities. Although the bill adds reporting requirements, it largely trusts districts to spend the new funds appropriately without meaningful performance-based accountability tied to student outcomes. Much of the funding increase is explicitly restricted to operating costs, limiting local discretion to address district-specific needs in more strategic ways. The bill further centralizes education spending decisions at the state level, continuing a trend that diminishes local control and innovation. By locking in higher baseline costs, HB 2147 risks crowding out future investments in targeted reforms such as literacy, math recovery, or workforce-aligned programs. By opposing this bill, taxpayers can stand against the “more money, less results” pattern of recent years.
-
Environment & Disasters
Encouraging fire districts and insurance providers to develop voluntary incentives to promote best practices.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 5919 encourages collaboration between fire districts and insurance providers to develop voluntary incentives that promote wildfire mitigation best practices in agricultural areas located in unincorporated regions where wildfire danger is present. Rather than imposing new mandates or penalties, the bill explicitly states that any incentive programs created would be optional for insurers to offer and voluntary for farmers and policyholders to accept. It allows incentives to apply to crop insurance, fire insurance, or both, creating flexibility to tailor programs to the realities of agricultural operations. The legislation outlines examples of best practices that could qualify for incentives, including establishing and maintaining defensible space or fire breaks around property. It also highlights proper equipment storage, which can significantly reduce ignition risks during high fire conditions.
Additional eligible practices include installing and maintaining water tanks and owning wildfire mitigation equipment such as firefighting apparatuses, tractors, or disc harrows that can help stop a blaze from spreading. The bill even encourages notification systems for local red flag warnings, helping producers stay alert during critical fire weather events. By focusing on incentives instead of regulation, SB 5919 respects private property rights and the operational independence of agricultural producers. At the same time, it creates a pathway for lower insurance risk, potential premium benefits, and stronger coordination between local fire districts and the farming community. SB 5919 promotes practical wildfire prevention, strengthens rural resilience, and does so through voluntary, market-based solutions that reward responsible agricultural stewardship rather than imposing costly new requirements.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 5923 protects access to essential hospital services for island residents in Skagit County by allowing their local hospital to qualify for enhanced “critical access” Medicaid reimbursement under narrow, tailored criteria. This legislation provides a specific eligibility path for a hospital that is both certified as a critical access hospital on or after January 1, 2026, and located on an island within a public hospital district in Skagit County. It keeps in place the existing moratorium on new critical access hospital payments generally, but makes an exception so this particular rural island hospital can receive cost-based Medicaid payments like other qualifying critical access facilities.
Island communities face unique access challenges—limited hospitals, transportation barriers, and heavy reliance on a single facility for emergency and primary care—so losing or underfunding that hospital would put residents at serious risk. Enhanced Medicaid reimbursement helps stabilize the hospital’s finances despite low patient volume and high fixed costs, making it more likely the hospital can keep critical services open close to home. The bill does not open the door for unlimited new critical access designations statewide; it keeps the general moratorium but recognizes a single, clearly defined Skagit County island hospital as eligible. Because the criteria are tied to federal critical access certification and the hospital’s specific geography and public-district status, this is a targeted fix rather than a broad expansion of spending.
Legislative findings emphasize that small rural and critical access hospitals are essential to a viable statewide health system and that cost-based reimbursement is key to sustaining them. SB 5923 extends that same logic to a vulnerable island community in Skagit County, aligning Medicaid payment policy with long‑standing state goals for rural health access and financial stability. In review, this bill offers a practical, focused way to shore up the only nearby hospital many residents can realistically reach in an emergency. It leverages an existing federal program and a narrow statutory exception to support one high‑need community, rather than creating a broad new entitlement or statewide mandate.