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.
-
Environment
Strengthening Washington’s leadership and accountability on climate policy by transitioning to annual reporting of statewide emissions data.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 5036 aims to strengthen Washington’s climate policy leadership through enhanced accountability and annual emissions reporting of statewide greenhouse gas data. The bill amends existing laws to ensure consistent tracking and reporting, which is essential for achieving the emission reductions goals. It sets specific emission reduction targets for the state through 2050, alongside a goal of achieving net-zero emissions. The legislation intends for Washington to participate in a regional market-based system, recognizing the state’s unique position in energy conservation and environmental stewardship, and it seeks to ensure that the state continues to lead in climate change policy through accountability measures.. The revenues generated by any market system will be used to further these goals and support clean energy initiatives. Annual reports will be due each year starting in 2026, detailing greenhouse gas emissions, including those from wildfires.
Key amendments include the establishment of specific emission reduction targets for the years 2030, 2040, and 2050, with updated metrics for these goals. Additionally, the reporting frequency is changed to every year starting in 2026, rather than every two years, to ensure timely tracking of progress. The bill also clarifies that emissions from certain biomass sources will not be classified as greenhouse gases, provided that the region’s silvicultural sequestration capacity is maintained or increased.
Bill Summary
Sen. Manka Dhingra, D-Redmond, is proposing a new law that would expand when citizens can be charged with crimes motivated by bias even though bias was only part of the motive behind them committing the crime. Senate Bill 5038 seeks to amend the definition of a hate crime.
As it stands now, a person is guilty of a hate crime if they commit an act “because of” their belief about another person’s race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics. The proposed change would modify the phrase “because of” to “in whole or in part because of,” ensuring that jurors can convict if bias is a partial, but not sole, motivation.
Dhingra believes that hate crimes often have mixed motives. They range from minor offenses, such as spitting on someone because of his or her race, to serious acts of vandalism. Sadly, these “perceived offenses” can include a church member speaking about the evils of homosexuality or a teacher refusing to address a student by their preferred pronoun. There is no stop to what can be charged as a ‘hate crime’ if ‘bias’ is defined by the ‘victim’.
It will, if passed, place Washington alongside several other states which include California, Colorado, Connecticut, New York, and Wisconsin, which have already adopted similar language in combating mixed motives in hate crimes. Please oppose this horrendous bill.
-
Safety
Expanding the definition of uniformed personnel to all law enforcement officers employed by a city, town, county, or governing body of a municipal airport operating under the provisions of chapter 14.08 RCW.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 5040 seeks to expand the definition of “uniformed personnel” to include all law enforcement officers employed by the governing bodies of cities, towns, counties, and municipal airports. Specifically, it removes the previous population requirements for cities and counties, which stipulated that only law enforcement officers from cities with a population of 2,500 or more and counties with a population of 10,000 or more were included. The new language explicitly includes law enforcement officers from municipal airports, thereby broadening the scope of personnel recognized under this classification. This legislative change aims to enhance the collective bargaining rights and protections for a wider range of uniformed personnel in Washington State.
Expanding the definition of “uniformed personnel” to include all law enforcement officers employed by cities, towns, counties, or municipal airports could lead to unintended consequences. This change will likely create an unnecessary expansion of collective bargaining rights, which may increase costs for local governments and create logistical challenges in negotiating with a larger group of employees under the same framework. Additionally, the broadening of the scope could dilute the distinction between different types of law enforcement personnel, making it harder to tailor specific policies, benefits, and duties for different roles within the law enforcement community.
Bill Summary
SB 5041 seeks to alter unemployment insurance benefits for workers involved in strikes or lockouts. It incentivizes going on strike because it would allow workers who become unemployed due to participating in a strike to receive unemployment insurance benefits after a specific disqualification period and waiting week. The bill stipulates that if a strike is not later ruled illegal, the disqualification ends either on the second Sunday following the strike’s start or when the strike ends, whichever comes first. It further removes the disqualification for workers locked out in multi-employer bargaining units, effectively broadening eligibility for benefits. By easing these restrictions, the legislation rewards labor actions by ensuring a safety net for striking or lockout workers.
Elizabeth New of the Washington Policy Center testified against this bill: “Unemployment insurance is meant for workers who lose jobs through no fault of their own and who are ready and looking for work. Jeopardizing the fund is irresponsible. This bill is a favor to unions at the expense of some unionized workers, non-union employees, employers, and consumers. Washington is already one of the most difficult places to run a business. Don’t make it harder.”
This change risks encouraging strikes by reducing the financial consequences workers might face when they disrupt operations. It also undermines the discipline of the current unemployment insurance benefits system, which was designed to deter avoidable labor disruptions. Moreover, employers may see higher costs imposed on their experience rating accounts, potentially affecting wages and job security for all employees. The bill introduces a loophole that could lead to more frequent and potentially frivolous strike actions, destabilizing local economies. It diminishes accountability by protecting workers financially even when their actions contribute to broader economic disruptions. Additionally, it shifts the financial burden of these benefits to employers and taxpayers alike.
The proposed adjustments could create an imbalance in labor negotiations, favoring workers at the expense of business sustainability. There is a significant risk that these changes will encourage reckless labor practices, harming productivity and market stability. The uncertainty about the legal status of strikes under this bill further complicates matters and may lead to costly legal disputes. For these reasons, voting against SB 5041 is the prudent choice to protect both economic stability and the integrity of our unemployment insurance system.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 5049 amends RCW 42.56.140 to enhance the accountability of the Public Records Exemptions Accountability Committee, which is tasked with reviewing exemptions from public disclosure. The committee will consist of thirteen members appointed by various state officials, including the governor, attorney general, and legislative leaders, with a focus on diversity in viewpoint and geography. The bill specifies that the committee must meet at least four times a year, a change from the previous requirement of meeting once a quarter, and mandates that all meetings be open to the public.
Furthermore, the bill introduces new provisions that make committee members subject to the regulations outlined in chapter 42.52 RCW, which pertains to the ethics in public service. The committee will review exemptions to public disclosure laws, develop review criteria and then provide recommendations on whether each public disclosure exemption should be continued, modified, scheduled for sunset review, or terminated, with these recommendations to be submitted annually to the governor, attorney general, and relevant legislative committees. Funding and travel reimbursement for committee members are also detailed.