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
House Bill 2033 is a tax on nicotine products. It proposes an expansion of the definition of “tobacco products” in Washington State law to include any product containing nicotine—whether derived from tobacco or synthetically manufactured. By taxing these products, the bill aims to subject a much broader range of nicotine-containing items to the existing Other Tobacco Products (OTP) tax. This includes not only traditional products like cigars and moist snuff, but also modern nicotine alternatives like pouches, lozenges, and possibly even nicotine gums or patches used for smoking cessation.
Here are the rates: for cigars except little cigars, 95 percent of the taxable sales price of cigars, not to exceed 65 cents per cigar; for little cigars, 15.125 cents per stick; for moist snuff: cans that weigh 1.2 oz or less, $2.526 per can; or cans that weigh more than 1.2 oz, $2.105 per oz; and for all other tobacco products, 95 percent of the taxable sales price.
Supporters argue the bill ensures fairness in taxation and discourages nicotine use, but in practice, it could have damaging consequences for public health and small businesses alike. This measure would impose a heavy tax burden on consumers seeking safer alternatives to cigarettes, such as nicotine pouches and non-combustible products. These products, often used by individuals trying to quit smoking, would now be taxed at the same high rate as traditional tobacco products, potentially disincentivizing their use and slowing smoking cessation progress. Furthermore, HB 2033 would place local vape and tobacco retailers under greater strain, raising prices and making it harder for small businesses to compete. The state should promote smarter, evidence-based policy—not blanket taxation that could drive consumers away from safer options and into the black market. For these reasons, citizens should oppose HB 2033.
-
Taxes
Establishing the youth behavioral health account and funding the account through the imposition of a business and occupation additional tax on the operation of social media platforms.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2038 is another tax — this time it’s on businesses that operate social media. It proposes creating a Youth Behavioral Health Account, which would be funded through an additional 0.4% business and occupation (B&O) tax. The bill intends to use the revenue to support mental and behavioral health programs for individuals aged prenatal to 25, including school-based telehealth and services managed by the Office of the Governor.
Citizens should oppose HB 2038 for at least four reasons: First, we do not need nor want more left-wing government influence upon the minds of our youth. Second, it sets a precedent for singling out specific industries to fund public “services” that often merely grow an already bloated government. Third, the bill also hurts businesses and consumers. It increases costs for small tech companies and startups that meet the bill’s broad definition of a social media platform, even if they’re not major players such as Facebook or TikTok. These added costs may ultimately be passed on to consumers or lead to reduced services. And fourth, HB 2038 bypasses the normal 10-year sunset clause and accountability review process (JLARC), limiting oversight and inviting future misuse of funds without thorough evaluation. We hope you can see that this bill is a “feel-good solution” that may under-deliver long-term and unfairly target one slice of the business landscape. Please register CON.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2039 delays crucial financial support for Washington’s most vulnerable families. At its core, this bill postpones by over three years a law already passed in 2024 that would ensure families on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) receive all of the current child support collected on their behalf. That law was set to take effect in January 2026, reflecting a strong bipartisan commitment to helping low-income families keep more of the money legally owed to their children. By pushing the implementation date to July 2029, HB 2039 undermines that progress and delays economic relief to struggling parents and children.
Currently, Washington only passes through a small portion—$50 to $100 a month—of child support payments to families on TANF. The rest is kept by the state and shared with the federal government. That’s money meant for kids, not government coffers. The 2024 legislation rightly changed that, promising that all current child support would go directly to the families, where it can help cover essentials like food, clothing, rent, and child care. HB 2039 erases that promise—at least for the next several years. Families receiving TANF are among the poorest in our state; they shouldn’t be forced to wait until 2029 to receive money that is rightfully theirs. Supporters of the bill may point to budgetary concerns or administrative challenges, but those are weak justifications when weighed against the harm caused to real people—especially children—by continued diversion of their support payments. The Legislature needs to keep the promise it made in 2024 and ensure struggling families receive the full support they deserve now, not three years from now.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2041 cuts vital health care coverage for postpartum individuals in Washington, reducing eligibility from 12 months to just 6 months after the end of a pregnancy. This rollback is not just a budget decision—it’s a potential threat to the health and wellbeing of new parents and their babies during one of the most vulnerable times in their lives. The current 12-month coverage under Apple Health ensures that postpartum individuals—especially those with low income—have access to essential medical services like mental health care, follow-up appointments, contraception, and treatment for chronic conditions that may arise or worsen after childbirth. Halving that coverage window could lead to untreated health conditions, increased maternal complications, and even higher rates of maternal mortality.
This bill is also out of step with medical recommendations. National health organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, stress that comprehensive care is crucial through the entire first year postpartum. Cutting off support at six months ignores the real and often delayed health challenges many new parents face. From a fiscal perspective, while this bill might offer short-term budget savings, it will likely lead to greater long-term costs. Untreated postpartum health issues can result in more emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and long-term health complications that are far more expensive to treat.
Bill Summary
House Bill 2044 is a “soft-on-truancy” bill. It proposes eliminating the requirement for school districts in Washington State to file truancy petitions with juvenile courts after repeated unexcused student absences. Instead, the bill would rely on community engagement boards as the primary intervention method. While it aims to reduce the criminalization of youth and streamline support through community-based solutions, the bill effectively removes one of the few remaining formal accountability mechanisms available to schools and families. Opposing this bill is essential because it undermines the seriousness of chronic absenteeism. By eliminating the truancy petition requirement, the bill removes a critical tool that has historically compelled action and helped re-engage students before they fall irreparably behind.
Moreover, the bill repeals a wide range of statutes that provided structured pathways to accountability and support—including judicial oversight, data reporting on petitions, and the ability to order interventions such as substance testing when needed. Removing these requirements may lead to more students slipping through the cracks, especially vulnerable youth who need more intensive oversight than a voluntary community board can offer. The bill goes too far in stripping away effective escalation routes against truancy. Accountability matters, especially for our youth — please register CON.