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
Senate Bill 2161 significantly expands the Attorney General’s pre-suit investigative authority by authorizing written civil investigative demands (CIDs) for documents, interrogatory answers, and oral testimony across a wide range of constitutional and statutory subject areas. Although framed as a civil tool, it effectively gives the Attorney General subpoena-like discovery powers before any lawsuit is filed, increasing leverage against individuals, nonprofits, and businesses without the normal procedural safeguards that come with an active court case. The bill’s scope is broad, covering investigations tied to multiple chapters of state law and constitutional claims, which risks turning CIDs into a routine first step rather than an exceptional measure. While the bill says demands cannot require privileged material and cannot be “unreasonable,” the practical burden of collecting, reviewing, and producing large volumes of records can still be costly and disruptive, especially for small entities. It centralizes key challenges in court proceedings by requiring recipients to move quickly—often within 20 days or before the return date—to modify, extend, or set aside a demand, creating a tight timeline that favors the issuing authority.
It also allows the Attorney General to conduct depositions under civil-rule procedures and to exclude everyone but the witness, counsel, and the officer, which can intensify pressure and reduce transparency. Most concerning, the bill authorizes court-approved nondisclosure provisions and makes it a misdemeanor for many recipients to disclose the existence or content of a CID, effectively creating a gag order regime that can chill speech and public accountability. Even with “prior court approval,” criminalizing disclosure can prevent affected parties from seeking community support, alerting stakeholders, or correcting misinformation while an investigation is pending. The confidentiality rules also allow sharing CID materials with federal or other state enforcement officials under agreements, increasing the reach and downstream consequences of compelled information beyond the original investigation.
-
Community Concerns
Expanding the public records exemption for personal information of family home child care providers to all licensed or certified child care providers.
Bill Summary
Opposition to SB 5926 can be grounded in accountability, transparency, and lessons from the recent Minnesota daycare fraud crisis. The bill broadly exempts names and any other personally identifying information of all licensed or certified child care providers from disclosure, not just home addresses and clearly sensitive data. In practice, this could make it harder for journalists, watchdogs, and parents to connect specific people and entities to publicly funded centers, undermining public oversight of how taxpayer money is used. By hiding names and other identifiers for all providers, the bill could unintentionally shield operators who misuse funds, cut corners on safety, or run non‑operational “ghost” centers—patterns highlighted in Minnesota. Fraud schemes there involved providers billing for care that did not occur and exploiting subsidy programs; stronger transparency, not weaker, is essential to detect similar conduct early in Washington.
In Minnesota, alleged large-scale fraud in day cares led federal officials to freeze child care funding and demand comprehensive audits, after outside scrutiny and media investigations raised alarms. Those investigations depended on identifying who runs specific centers and how they operate; limiting access to identifying information in Washington risks replicating the conditions that allowed fraud to flourish in Minnesota before it was exposed. Washington law already protects genuinely sensitive personal information for vulnerable individuals and in‑home caregivers, such as addresses, Social Security numbers, and bank details, while still allowing key oversight information to be public. Instead of expanding secrecy, the state could narrowly tailor protections (for example, shielding home addresses and direct contact details) while keeping names and organizational ties public so parents and taxpayers can evaluate providers and report concerns.
The bill has been prefiled in Washington at the same time national attention is focused on alleged daycare fraud in Minnesota and a federal funding freeze there, prompting critics to question whether it is designed to reduce scrutiny of publicly funded providers. Moving to expand public records exemptions amid a national fraud investigation sends the wrong message: that the priority is to protect institutions and operators from scrutiny, rather than to ensure rigorous transparency for families and taxpayers.
-
Taxes & Financial
Capping the rate of increase for future workers’ compensation cost-of-living adjustments.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 5927 slows the growth of certain workers’ compensation pension benefits by capping future cost‑of‑living adjustments (COLAs) at 3% a year, with the stated goal of stabilizing Washington’s workers’ comp system for employers and the state over time. It imposes the cap on COLAs applied to specified workers’ compensation pension benefits, even when the statewide average monthly wage grows faster than that. Legislative findings note recent volatility in COLAs—ranging from about 2% to over 10% in some years—and say that a cap is inCOLAs for injured workers are tied to the state average wage, which has produced large increases (for example, roughly 5.9% for 2024–2025 and 6.8% for 2025–2026), driving up long‑term pension costs significantly. By limiting pension COLA growth, the bill helps protect the solvency and predictability of the workers’ compensation system, which is funded by premiums paid by employers and, in some cases, workers.
More predictable COLA growth can make it easier for businesses—especially small employers—to budget for workers’ comp premiums and avoid sudden rate spikes after years with high wage inflation. The bill targets only the rate of increase in certain pension calculations rather than cutting existing base benefits, which proponents may frame as a compromise between injured‑worker protections and long‑term system affordability. This 3% cap is a reasonable guardrail that keeps benefits growing, but at a slower and more predictable pace.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 5928 requires property insurers that use a wildfire risk score or classification to tell the homeowner what the score is, the score range, who created it, when it was created, and what key factors hurt the score plus steps to improve it, all in plain language. It also requires insurers to update a property’s wildfire risk score or classification within 30 days when the owner provides documentation of completed, science‑based mitigation work or nearby community‑level mitigation. The bill is requested by the Insurance Commissioner and has bipartisan sponsorship demonstrating it’s a practical consumer‑protection and risk‑management bill, not a partisan messaging piece.
This legislation mandates that insurers build these mitigation actions into their risk models and pricing or, if they do not, to offer discounts or other premium adjustments to policyholders who can show such mitigation work has been done. It forces insurers, in rate filings, to explain to the Insurance Commissioner how their wildfire models account for state and local mitigation efforts, while treating detailed model information as confidential trade secrets. In addition, it directs insurers to maintain a website listing the specific mitigation actions that can earn a discount or incentive and the amount associated with each, giving homeowners a clear to‑do list for lowering risk and cost.
Homeowners who invest in making their property safer from wildfire must be able to see their score and get credit for mitigation work instead of being punished by opaque, black‑box models. The bill does not cap rates or micromanage pricing; it forces insurers to disclose how risk is being measured and to connect mitigation to premiums, which strengthens a functioning market. By making discounts and scoring improvements contingent on documented, science‑based mitigation, the bill reinforces the idea that people and communities can lower risk—and premiums—through their own actions rather than expecting post‑disaster bailouts.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 2223 clarifies Washington’s conflict-of-interest law as it applies to irrigation district directors to address unintended consequences that have disproportionately affected small rural communities. The bill recognizes that the current statute has been interpreted so broadly that it can disqualify otherwise qualified individuals from serving simply because of unavoidable, minor business relationships in small local economies. SB 2223 preserves core ethical protections by maintaining the prohibition on directors voting on contracts in which they have a beneficial interest and requiring full disclosure of any such interests in the public record. At the same time, it refines statutory exceptions to better reflect the realities of rural irrigation districts, where limited vendor pools and overlapping community roles are common. Strong irrigation district governance is critical to rural economies, farmland productivity, and water reliability across the state.
-
Higher Education
Concerning workforce education investment accountability and oversight board administrative changes.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 5931 makes administrative changes to the Workforce Education Investment Accountability and Oversight Board created under the existing Workforce Education Investment Act; it does not reopen or expand that tax package. The bill, requested by the Washington Student Achievement Council, largely codifies process items the board has already developed in practice over the last year, such as meeting procedures, reporting timelines, and coordination with other agencies. It has bipartisan sponsorship with no separate tax or spending section and, as of now, no available fiscal note flagging new costs.
The Workforce Education Investment Act already sends hundreds of millions in earmarked funds into higher‑ed and training. SB 5931 focuses on improving the accountability and oversight board that tracks whether that money is used as promised. Nothing in the bill creates a new benefit, program, or tax category; it adjusts board governance so that legislators and the public get clearer, more reliable information about workforce‑education outcomes from dollars already being collected. As conservatives, we want strong accountability for every dollar already being collected. This bill helps the oversight board do its job better, with clearer processes and reporting.
-
Energy & Utilities
Providing certainty for the development of low-to-zero carbon alternative jet fuel production in Washington state.
Bill Summary
SB 5932 targets low‑to‑zero carbon alternative jet fuel and ties eligibility to a substantial reduction in lifecycle carbon emissions compared to conventional jet fuel, using Ecology‑certified carbon‑intensity scores and existing clean‑fuels rules. The bill amends several tax statutes to authorize time‑limited business‑and‑occupation and public‑utility tax credits per gallon of qualifying alternative jet fuel. It scales the per‑gallon credit with emissions performance: a base credit for at least a 50% CO₂‑equivalent reduction, plus 2 cents more for each additional percentage point of reduction, capped at 2 dollars per gallon.
This legislation creates a predictable, statute‑based incentive so companies can justify multi‑hundred‑million‑dollar investments in refineries, blending facilities, and supporting infrastructure in Washington instead of siting them in Texas, the Gulf Coast, or British Columbia. It focuses narrowly on jet fuel, which is a strategic sector for Washington because of Boeing, Sea‑Tac, Joint Base Lewis‑McChord flight operations, and the broader aerospace supply chain—meaning more skilled blue‑collar and technical jobs rather than just office‑park “green” consulting. It also assesses tax credits rather than direct grants, so the state only gives the incentive when there is actual production and tax liability, which fits a “no production, no subsidy” philosophy.
This bill does not create a new climate mandate; it responds to policies that already exist by making sure Washington gets the plants, payrolls, and property‑tax base instead of watching that activity go to other jurisdiction. This is targeted, performance‑based tax relief for industrial production, not a consumer‑facing tax hike or a general expansion of bureaucracy. Companies must prove both emissions reductions and in‑state production to qualify. Given the political reality that aviation decarbonization rules are not going away, SB 5932 is a way to protect Washington’s aerospace and agricultural sectors by encouraging in‑state production of alternative jet fuel derived from feedstocks like ag byproducts, forest residues, or renewable gases.
-
Addiction & Mental Health
Facilitating the rapid sharing of overdose mapping information for overdose prevention.
Bill Summary
SB 5933 directs the Department of Health to send Washington’s EMS overdose data into the national Overdose Detection Mapping Application Program (ODMAP), covering both fatal and nonfatal opioid overdoses. It also clarifies how EMS agencies report overdose incidents into the state system so that information can be mapped and shared rapidly. The legislation will: improve coordination among public safety, public health, and treatment providers; prevent accidental overdoses; and target resources to the highest‑risk communities.
Faster overdose mapping lets local law enforcement, EMS, and public health see overdose spikes in near real time, which can trigger rapid responses like outreach, naloxone distribution, and alerts to hospitals and community partners. By identifying hot spots and emerging clusters, agencies can act before a wave of overdoses becomes a mass‑casualty event, especially when a contaminated drug supply enters a community. The bill is about prevention and situational awareness, not criminalization; it uses data to save lives and guide responses, not to increase penalties for people with substance use disorder.
SB 5933 is explicit about reducing duplicative reporting requirements across local, county, state, public safety, and health care agencies by formalizing collaboration around one shared mapping platform. A single, consistent reporting and mapping system means agencies spend less time reconciling conflicting datasets and more time responding to the crisis on the ground. Local responders can see not just their own calls, but patterns across neighboring jurisdictions, which matters when people move between counties or overdose trends cross city‑county lines. The bill requires that information sharing be done while protecting and respecting the privacy rights of individuals, and it is built around EMS overdose incident data rather than broad new surveillance powers. ODMAP is designed for limited, role‑based access for first responders and public health officials, not for public release of identifiable personal information. This framework gives policymakers timely situational data without exposing individuals’ identities in public databases.
Bill Summary
SB 5936 creates a new business entity liability section so companies can be criminally prosecuted for human‑trafficking offenses when trafficking is part of a pattern tied to their operations, with fines up to 1,000,000 dollars per offense, profit disgorgement, and debarment from government contracts. The bill also expands public‑records exemptions to cover more identifying information about child sexual‑assault and commercial‑sexual‑exploitation victims, and extends confidentiality to images and identities of trafficking victims and their families in investigations and prosecutions.
While protecting identities is important, broadening exemptions in the Public Records Act around child‑sexual‑assault and trafficking cases makes it harder for watchdogs, journalists, and even families to scrutinize how police, prosecutors, and agencies are handling abuse and exploitation claims. Complex business‑entity liability with million‑dollar fines and debarment can push legitimate shelters, hotels, online platforms, and service providers to over‑police or cut off at‑risk women (for example, homeless or prostituted women) out of fear of being accused of “patterns” of trafficking connected to their premises.
The T‑ and U‑visa certification language effectively turns local agencies into gateways for federal immigration relief, creating pressure to classify more situations as trafficking or qualifying crimes to satisfy advocates and avoid lawsuits, which can blur lines between true trafficking and other forms of exploitation.This expanded role can incentivize intermediaries—lawyers, NGOs, or even abusers—to coach stories or keep women tethered to the system in order to preserve immigration benefits, rather than prioritizing rapid, safe exit and long‑term healing for the victim and her children.
True protectors of women and children should push for: tough enforcement against actual traffickers; robust transparency around agency performance; and direct, accountable services for survivors, instead of new corporate‑criminal theories and wider secrecy rules. Reform should be focused on faster rescue, safe housing, family‑support services, and long‑term recovery programs, while keeping records as open as possible – with narrow redaction of victim identifiers – so the public can ensure that institutions are not failing or re‑victimizing women and kids.
-
Technology & Privacy
Concerning the use of a smart access system in a residential property subject to the residential landlord-tenant act.
Bill Summary
SB 5937 modernizes building entry technology while putting strong, clear protections in place for tenants’ privacy, security, and basic housing rights. The bill defines how smart access systems such as app-based keys, key fobs, or biometric entry can be used in rental housing covered by the Residential Landlord‑Tenant Act. In addition, it specifies what kinds of personal data a landlord or system can collect and limits it to what is needed for access and security. It also Integrates these rules directly into chapter 59.18 RCW, so they are enforceable as part of existing landlord‑tenant protections.
The bill restricts smart‑access data to narrow categories such as a user’s name, unit, access device identifier, and time/method of access, and recognizes that biometric identifiers may be involved. By defining this information in law, it creates a framework to prevent misuse of detailed entry logs or sensitive identifiers (like biometrics) for tracking or harassment beyond legitimate security purposes. SB 5937 is layered onto existing landlord duties to provide habitable, safe housing under the Residential Landlord‑Tenant Act, rather than replacing them.
As more buildings in Washington adopt app‑based and biometric entry systems, tenants currently have little explicit statutory protection about how this technology is used or what happens to their data. SB 5937 gets ahead of that trend by setting ground rules now, so renters can benefit from convenience and security improvements without sacrificing privacy, safety, or control over their personal information.