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 6084 rewrites the statute so “election” clearly means any general, primary, or special election, and “same election” means any election held on the same date, regardless of what’s on the ballot. Current law already makes intentionally voting more than once in an election, or in both this state and another state, a class C felony, but that language was just undercut by the Padrta decision. In State v. Padrta (Jan. 6, 2026), the Court of Appeals overturned a conviction where a person voted in both Washington and Oregon in November 2022, because the court read “election” to mean a specific slate of candidates or issues, not the voting day. SB 6084 restores and clarifies that protection: if someone intentionally votes in Washington and another state on the same election date, it is clearly a felony, even if the ballot content is different.
The bill does not create new crimes, new penalties, or new enforcement agencies; it tightens the definitions so existing felony and civil infraction provisions actually work as intended. It also keeps the existing distinction between intentional violations (felony) and reckless/negligent violations (civil infraction), which can be framed as proportionate accountability rather than over‑criminalization. SB 6084 also clarifies that when a special election is held on the same day as a primary or general, those are not the same election, so eligible voters can still vote in both without fear of prosecution. In review, the bill protects honest voters while sharpening the law against those who would exploit timing or jurisdiction to cast more than one ballot.
-
Crime & Public Safety
Strengthening security for Washington State judicial officers and court personnel.
Bill Summary
SB 6086 expands “eligible individual” privacy protections so that courts can quickly seal and shield personal information (home address, phone, etc.) for a wide array of judicial officers, court staff, law enforcement employees, prosecutors, and corrections staff, plus their immediate family, when disclosure is deemed a safety threat. It amends the criminal harassment statute and related communication‑harassment provision to broaden what counts as threatening or distressing communications. The bill also creates a new role for court security consultants in the Administrative Office of the Courts to conduct threat assessments, with “founded threats” referred to local law enforcement for further action.
Sadly, the bill’s protections are asymmetrical: they strongly protect government actors but do not acknowledge how initiative signature gatherers, pro‑life sidewalk counselors, church‑based pregnancy centers, or people publicly supporting ICE are frequently harassed, doxed, or threatened in Washington. In the current political climate—where immigration agents and pro‑enforcement voices are vilified and pro‑life activists are sometimes treated as security problems—expanding harassment concepts around “emotional distress” and “history” invites biased interpretation against Christian, pro‑life, or pro‑enforcement speech. The statute gives a wide set of officials enhanced privacy and a formal threat‑assessment channel, but the same system could be used to characterize firm but peaceful advocacy (emails, calls, protests) as “harassment” whenever it makes an official uncomfortable.
The harassment language hinges on subjective effects (“emotional distress,” “fear for safety”) rather than clear, objective threats, and specifically instructs courts to factor in the sender’s “history,” which can include prior activism or unpopular views. When threat assessments by court security consultants are formalized in statute and founded threats are handed to law enforcement, there is a risk that repeated, morally urgent protest or public criticism of judges on abortion or immigration cases could be swept into a soft‑policing regime. The bill also amends criminal‑records dissemination rules to expand who can access nonconviction data under certain agreements, which can further entangle citizens with law‑enforcement databases even when they have not been convicted of a crime.
Government should not shield itself from robust, peaceful moral critique while remaining indifferent to hostility directed toward believers and those who support enforcement. SB 6086 moves Washington further toward a two‑tier system where those inside the judicial‑law‑enforcement network receive escalating protections and tools, while ordinary citizens—especially those with unpopular convictions—face greater risk of being labeled harassers for speaking boldly. Instead of building trust and equal protection, the bill deepens the divide between governed and governors at precisely the moment when pro‑life and pro‑ICE voices already see their views treated as suspect by the state. If the Democratic sponsors want to address harassment, it should protect all Washingtonians equally, including people of faith, not only those in government.
-
Criminal Justice
Concerning liability protections for donations of baby items that are less than five years old.
Bill Summary
SB 6087 creates liability protections for donors and qualified organizations that donate or distribute baby items such as cribs, car seats, strollers, and other gear that are less than five years old. It clarifies that as long as items are not knowingly unsafe, donors and nonprofits are generally shielded from civil liability just for giving the items away, similar to “Good Samaritan” food‑donation protections. The bill relies on private generosity—families, churches, pregnancy centers, and community groups sharing baby gear—rather than expanding state welfare programs, which fits a conservative preference for voluntary charity over government expansion. By limiting the protection to items under five years old and excluding donations made with actual knowledge of a defect, it balances personal responsibility with common‑sense legal protection, instead of offering a blanket shield for negligence. The measure helps new and struggling parents access safe, usable baby items at little or no cost, relieving financial pressure without new taxes or long‑term obligations on the state budget. In addition, encouraging reuse of baby items also reduces waste in landfills and supports good stewardship of resources, achieved through simple legal clarity rather than new regulations or mandates.
-
Environment & Disasters
Protecting the public from water quality impacts of publicly owned or operated game farms.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 2343 responds to documented nitrate contamination of private drinking water wells by closing a regulatory gap that has allowed publicly owned game farms to operate without the same manure and nutrient management requirements imposed on comparable private facilities. The bill is grounded in clear evidence from Lewis County and Centralia investigations showing that manure from a state-operated pheasant farm contributed to groundwater nitrate levels exceeding federal safety standards. To protect public health, the bill requires publicly owned or operated game farms, including those run by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, to obtain concentrated animal feeding operation permits when they exceed established animal thresholds. It directs the Department of Ecology to explicitly include pheasants and similar game birds in its CAFO permitting framework, ensuring modern regulations reflect real environmental risks.
The legislation mandates comprehensive manure pollution prevention plans, groundwater monitoring, record keeping, and reporting to prevent further contamination of drinking water aquifers. It also prohibits discharges that violate water quality standards and subjects public facilities to the same enforcement authority that applies to private operators. By setting a clear threshold of more than 5,000 game birds as a large CAFO, the bill applies the most protective water quality standards where risks are greatest. To note, this measure does not single out private agriculture but instead holds state and local government operations to the same environmental expectations they impose on others. The bill helps to protect drinking water, safeguard public health, and ensure the state leads by example in responsible environmental management.
Bill Summary
SB 6090 establishes a heritage orchard program housed at Washington State University (WSU). It directs WSU to identify, preserve, and maintain historic or culturally significant orchards across the state. These orchards will be used as sites for education, research, and community outreach related to tree fruit, horticulture, and agricultural history. The bill will provide hands‑on training sites for students and incumbent workers in tree fruit production, horticulture, and orchard management, helping address skilled‑labor needs in the ag sector. It supports applied research on topics like varietal performance, disease resistance, and water or input efficiency in real‑world orchard settings. Additionally, it helps WSU Extension and local partners offer workshops and demonstrations that directly benefit commercial growers and small orchardists.
This bill recognizes and preserves historic orchards that reflect Washington’s agricultural heritage, including sites important to local communities and under‑represented groups. It encourages agritourism by creating designated heritage sites that can draw visitors to rural communities and support small businesses. Furthermore, it strengthens local pride and historical continuity in regions where tree fruit has been central to the economy and identity for generations. The bill has broad bipartisan sponsorship signaling consensus that this legislation is a modest, non‑controversial way to support agriculture and education. The program is housed within existing WSU structures, leveraging current expertise and infrastructure rather than creating a new standalone agency. Implementation relies on partnerships, grants, and collaboration with landowners and communities, which helps limit ongoing state costs relative to the benefits.
-
Housing & Property
Prohibiting real estate brokers from marketing residential properties to an exclusive group of prospective buyers or real estate brokers.
Bill Summary
SB 6091 prohibits Washington‑licensed real estate brokers from marketing a residential property only to an exclusive group of buyers or brokers; if they market it at all, they must simultaneously make it available to the general public and all other licensees. Violations are grounds for discipline under the real estate licensing laws, and the required real‑estate disclosure pamphlet must inform consumers that listing brokers must publicly market residential properties with very narrow safety exceptions. This legislation applies to all residential listings for sale or rent handled by Washington brokers, regardless of which MLS or platform they use, so large firms cannot use private or office exclusive channels to gain a timing advantage. The bill pushes the market toward open, non‑deceptive practices by preventing brokers from quietly steering opportunities to a select circle, which aligns with a Christian concern for honest, above‑board transactions and equal treatment of neighbors.
Public, concurrent marketing means more buyers actually see available homes, which can be especially important for first‑time buyers, military families, or lower‑income households who don’t have elite connections. The legislation does not expand taxes or create a new agency; it sets a clear, narrow guardrail on how licensed professionals may market residential property, a kind of rule conservatives often accept to preserve open, competitive markets. When more buyers can see and bid on a home, prices and terms are set in a more genuine market, rather than through closed‑door deals that can favor big players over regular families. SB 6091 passed the Senate 49–0, with strong support from Washington Realtors and consumer‑protection advocates, signaling broad agreement that this is about fairness and transparency in the housing market.
-
Taxes & Financial
Enacting an excise tax on large operating companies on the amount of payroll expenses above the minimum wage threshold of the additional medicare tax to fund services to benefit Washingtonians and establishing the Well Washington fund account.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 6093 is not just a tax on giant corporations. The bill impacts any “large operating company” with more than 20 employees and over $5 million in gross receipts. That covers a huge range of mid-sized local employers—clinics, contractors, startups, and nonprofits. These are the very organizations that create good jobs in our communities. This bill penalizes high-wage work. It imposes a 5 percent payroll tax on wages above $125,000 per employee. That is a clear incentive to cap salaries, move high-paying jobs out of Washington, or reclassify employees as contractors. If we want people to build their careers and raise families here, we should not turn salary growth into a taxable liability.
In addition, this bill ties long-term commitments—Medicaid, higher education, housing and energy programs—to a narrow, volatile tax base: high-earner payroll in a single state. When there’s a downturn, a layoff, or relocation, the revenue disappears, but the need for those services does not. That is not stable budgeting. Furthermore, this new tax employs some of the harshest collection tools available: broad liens, seizure and sale of property, successor liability, and even injunctions to stop an employer from doing business. For a brand-new, untested tax tied to a federal threshold we don’t control, these powers are excessive and chilling.
Permanent tax policy should not be built on speculative and highly political assumptions about future federal actions and specific officeholders. We support protecting vulnerable Washingtonians; however, SB 6093 does so in a way that undermines job creation, destabilizes revenue, and raises the risk of doing business in our state.
Bill Summary
SB 6096 would require any city or town that charges water or sewer connection fees to create a program to defer those charges for single‑family and multifamily residential construction by 2030. The bill requires a deferral mechanism tied to building permits and allows payment to be made later in the process, such as at certificate of occupancy or equivalent, rather than all up front Connection fees can run into tens of thousands of dollars per project and are often due right when builders are carrying land and construction costs, making it harder to finance especially smaller infill and “missing middle” projects. By shifting payment to the end of construction, SB 6096 improves builder cash flow without changing the underlying fee amount, which can make marginal projects pencil out and increase overall housing production.
The bill does not waive or reduce connection charges; it only changes timing, and it keeps in place the existing requirement that connection fees must be “reasonable” and tied to the property’s equitable share of system costs. Cities and towns can still charge interest on deferred amounts, within existing statutory limits, and fees collected remain utility system revenue, protecting long‑term infrastructure funding. The bill gives local governments until 2030 to adopt and maintain deferral systems, which provides time to update billing systems, internal policies, and coordination with permitting and inspection staff. In addition, the bill allows jurisdictions to use withholding of final inspection or certificate of occupancy as enforcement leverage, ensuring connection fees are fully paid before a unit is occupied.
The measure has bipartisan sponsorship, signaling cross‑party agreement that fee‑timing reforms are a reasonable, targeted way to support homebuilding. Because it does not mandate fee reductions or general fund subsidies, SB 6096 is likely to be more acceptable to fiscally cautious lawmakers and local officials while still advancing a pro‑housing agenda Supporting it is consistent with pro‑housing, pro‑production policy without shifting costs away from utilities in the long run.
Bill Summary
SB 6104 formally declares that maintaining a stable food supply and healthy agricultural economy is a state policy priority, citing that WA farmers have had declining income, negative farm income, and an average of two farms a day closing since 2017. The big requires the main natural‑resource agencies (Ecology, DNR, WDFW, Labor & Industries, Commerce, State Conservation Commission, Forest Practices Board) to integrate agricultural viability into their planning and decision‑making, instead of treating agriculture as an afterthought to environmental regulation. It also directs agencies to use interdisciplinary methods and to develop procedures so agricultural impacts are weighed alongside regulatory, economic, and technical factors whenever they act on issues that affect agriculture.
For any agency request legislation, legislative reports, major rule‑makings, or policy development that significantly affect agriculture, the bill requires an “agricultural impact statement” detailing economic impacts on farming, unavoidable adverse effects, alternatives, long‑term productivity implications, and mitigation proposals. These impact statements must be informed by an agricultural economist (from a land‑grant university or the Department of Agriculture), adding technical rigor and making it harder to push anti‑agriculture rules through on ideology alone. Agencies must also study and describe alternatives when their actions create conflicts over resource use, including mitigation for loss of land use or commercial opportunities due to agency actions. Additionally, the Office of Financial Management (OFM), in cooperation with the Legislature, must create a mechanism to calculate the fiscal impact of proposed legislation that would increase or decrease regulatory costs on entities engaged in agriculture. When a legislator requests it, OFM must produce a fiscal note showing the total impact on the agricultural economy for the first two years and a six‑year forecast, and must consult an agricultural economist at the Department of Agriculture for accuracy. This makes it much easier for lawmakers and the public to see when new bills increase regulatory burdens on farmers and farm‑related businesses.
If DNR, WDFW, Ecology, the Forest Practices Board, or Commerce propose an action that deprives agricultural or natural‑resource‑based property of its beneficial use to the point of losing financial benefit, they must follow a mitigation hierarchy: first avoid impacts, then minimize by providing permanent access to replacement acreage, and if that is not possible, compensate with in‑kind or financial mitigation funded through the habitat conservation account. The habitat conservation account statute is amended so any leftover funds in its categories can be used to fulfill these mitigation obligations, giving a clear funding source instead of leaving farmers uncompensated. The bill is expressly named the “food economics, availability, and security over time act,” emphasizing long‑term food security and recognition that taking land or uses from farmers has economic and food‑supply consequences.
Cities, towns, code cities, and counties must complete an agricultural impact statement before annexations or zoning amendments that change land out of agriculture, and if agricultural land is lost, they must mitigate by conserving comparable farmland; if adjacent land is not available, mitigation must occur at a rate of three acres conserved or restored for every acre lost. When counties adjust urban growth areas under the Growth Management Act, if the revision touches land currently zoned for agriculture, they must complete an agricultural impact statement and meet additional requirements to ensure agricultural and resource lands of long‑term commercial significance are preserved or replaced. These provisions directly address documented loss of 640,000 acres of land in farms between 2002 and 2017, aiming to stop quiet erosion of farmland through annexation and zoning decisions that traditionally favored development over agriculture.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 6113 is another tax increase. It is presented as a technical cleanup bill requested by the Department of Revenue that purports not to affect overall state or local tax collections, yet it makes sweeping amendments across numerous sections of Title 82 RCW that materially expand and redefine what constitutes a “sale at retail”. The bill adjusts the administration of the $5 per tire fee by directing the Department of Revenue to incorporate reconciliation audits into its regular audit cycle and to collect additional reporting data from tire retailers, increasing compliance burdens on small businesses. It substantially revises the definition of retail sale to include a wide array of personal and professional services, digital products, digital automated services, advertising services, live presentations, athletic and fitness activities, and temporary staffing services, thereby broadening the tax base in ways that go far beyond mere “technical corrections”.
By narrowing exclusions for affiliated group transactions and clarifying sourcing rules when local attribution is unclear, the bill gives the Department greater discretion in allocating and enforcing tax liability, which may expose businesses to higher audit risk and interpretive uncertainty. The measure also continues and modifies the workforce education investment surcharge structure for select advanced computing businesses, including a significant rate increase beginning in 2026, reinforcing Washington’s already high marginal tax burden on large technology firms. In addition, it adjusts the additional business and occupation tax imposed on specified financial institutions, locking in elevated rates that could ultimately be passed along to consumers through higher fees or reduced lending flexibility.
Although characterized as revenue-neutral, expanding definitions and clarifying taxable categories often results in more aggressive enforcement and fewer ambiguities resolved in favor of taxpayers. Businesses that rely on digital services, online platforms, fitness facilities, event operations, or technology-based offerings may face new compliance complexities and increased administrative costs under the bill’s expanded statutory language. The cumulative effect is a more intricate and expansive tax code that consolidates authority within the Department of Revenue while reducing flexibility for employers, entrepreneurs, and service providers across the state. For these reasons, and because it quietly broadens taxable activities under the guise of technical refinement, citizens concerned about regulatory growth and business climate competitiveness should oppose SB 6113.