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.
-
Crime & Public Safety
Prohibiting sexually violent predators from being placed in less restrictive alternatives within 500 feet of, or with a sight line to, certain facilities or schools.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 6337 strengthens community safety by tightening siting rules for less restrictive alternative (LRA) residences for sexually violent predators under RCW 71.09.096. The bill keeps the existing framework for conditional release, including the requirement that the court find the placement adequately protects the community and that the person will be subject to electronic monitoring with real-time tracking and exclusion zones. Its key change is to prohibit an LRA residence from being within 500 feet of certain child-centered locations and, importantly, to also prohibit the residence from having a direct sight line to those locations. Specifically, the bill targets child care facilities, K–12 public or private schools, and “recreational facilities” as defined in RCW 36.69.010, recognizing that proximity alone is not the only risk factor when sensitive sites are visible and easily accessed.
By adding a sight-line restriction, the legislation closes a loophole where a residence might technically meet a distance rule but still directly overlook a playground, school grounds, or similar facility. The bill continues to require the Department of Corrections to investigate the proposed LRA and report within 60 days with individualized conditions tailored to the person’s risk factors and criminogenic needs. It preserves the existing ability for courts to impose additional conditions like treatment requirements, supervision, contact restrictions, and GPS monitoring as needed. It also leaves intact the broader fair-share principles intended to prevent any one community from bearing a disproportionate share of placements, while still prioritizing safety around places where children congregate. In practical terms, SB 6337 makes LRA placement decisions more commonsense and defensible by aligning the law with how communities actually experience risk—what is nearby and what is directly visible.
-
Crime & Public Safety
Requiring the court to consider recommendations from the prosecutor before approving a less restrictive alternative for a sexually violent predator.
Bill Summary
For context, Senate Bill 6338 is the fourth bill by Sen. Nikki Torres to address concerns about releasing sexually violent predators — see also SB 6334, SB 6336, and SB 6337. In this specific bill, SB 6338 strengthens the decision-making process for releasing sexually violent predators to less restrictive alternatives (LRA) by ensuring prosecutors have a formal voice before approval. Under current law, courts must make several findings about treatment, housing, supervision, and community safety, and this bill preserves all of those safeguards. The key change is that the court must now allow the local county prosecutor to make recommendations about whether the proposed housing is appropriate. Prosecutors are uniquely positioned to understand local conditions, victim concerns, and public safety risks tied to a specific neighborhood or facility.
The bill does not give prosecutors veto power, preserving judicial independence, but it does require the court to seriously consider their input. If a judge chooses to depart from the prosecutor’s recommendations, the court must explain its reasoning in writing, increasing transparency and accountability. This added step helps ensure that release decisions are better informed and more defensible to the public. By requiring written explanations for disagreements, the bill discourages arbitrary decisions and builds trust in the process. SB 6338 balances rehabilitation goals with community protection rather than prioritizing one at the expense of the other. It is a measured, common-sense reform that strengthens public confidence without undermining due process.
-
Crime & Public Safety
Requiring a less restrictive alternative placement to be owned and operated by the same individuals.
Bill Summary
SB 6339 limits where released sexually violent predators can reside. It requires the court to assess if a less restrictive alternative (LRA), such as community-based treatment or supervised release, is appropriate for the individual, prioritizing their well-being and community safety. It mandates that the release plan include specific services such as discharge planning, assignment of a community care coordinator, regular contact with treatment providers, community escorts if needed, transition planning, and financial support for necessary housing. The court must provide a copy of the release conditions to the individual and designated service providers to ensure transparency and accountability.
A new section added to SB 6339 requires that, before approving an LRA, the court shall confirm that the residence is owned by the same person or persons who will be providing or monitoring the person’s treatment. This effectively bars arrangements where a neutral landlord owns the property and a separate licensed provider delivers services, potentially forcing residents into placements owned by treatment or monitoring entities and shrinking the pool of available housing. By tying ownership to the entity providing or monitoring treatment, the bill may consolidate power and revenue in a small number of specialized providers, reduce competition, and drive up costs to the state and to clients.
-
Crime & Public Safety
Concerning residential restrictions for conditional release to a less restrictive alternative.
Bill Summary
SB 6340 amends the sexually violent predator (SVP) less restrictive alternative (LRA) statute to add explicit residential‑proximity restrictions for conditionally released SVPs. When a court orders conditional release, it must impose limits on how close the person’s residence may be to public or private schools and other sensitive locations, and it can also keep the person from returning to their original county if that would endanger victims. Before approving a less restrictive alternative, the court must consider victim‑safety concerns, the availability of appropriate treatment and supervision, and whether GPS and exclusion‑zone technology can adequately protect the community. If the court finds that going back to the county of commitment would put victims or the community at risk, it can require placement in another county and order exclusion zones around schools or other areas where children and victims are likely to be. The Department of Corrections and the Department of Social and Health Services must investigate and recommend specific conditions tailored to the offender’s risk factors, including residence restrictions and GPS monitoring with alerts if they enter exclusion zones.
This important legislation puts the safety of victims, children, and neighborhoods ahead of the convenience of dangerous offenders by requiring the court to actively manage where SVPs are allowed to live. It supports law enforcement with clearer statutory authority to use GPS and exclusion zones and to object to placements that they believe are unsafe, rather than leaving these decisions in a gray area. Additionally, it reinforces the message that “less restrictive” does not mean “no restrictions”: even when SVPs are outside the fence line of the Special Commitment Center, they remain under tight, court‑enforced limits designed to prevent new victims.
Bill Summary
SB 6346 is titled “Establishing a tax on millionaires” and is sponsored exclusively by Democratic legislators who have long pushed for state‑level income and wealth taxes. The bill is plainly an income tax bill, not a sales or excise tax tweak. Washington voters have repeatedly rejected state income tax proposals at the ballot, signaling a clear, long‑standing taxpayer mandate against this kind of tax. Once an income‑tax framework exists in statute and is upheld in court, thresholds can be lowered over time, converting what starts as a “millionaire tax” into a tax on everyone, a pattern critics are warning about with SB 6346. High‑earner income and wealth taxes are associated with capital flight and relocation of entrepreneurs, investors, and business owners to lower‑tax states, which can shrink the long‑term tax base and private‑sector job growth rather than strengthen it.
This legislation fits a broader agenda of using new income‑style taxes to grow permanent state spending, rather than prioritizing budget discipline, regulatory reform, or pro‑growth policies that increase revenue through private‑sector expansion. Washington’s no‑income‑tax status rests on a combination of voter rejection and constitutional/property‑tax reasoning; creating a new income‑tax statute invites litigation that could weaken or overturn these protections statewide. Major structural tax changes should go to the people as a constitutional amendment or direct vote, not be pushed through by a simple partisan majority in a single session. Instead of creating a new income‑tax bureaucracy and chasing away job creators, the Legislature should live within its means and focus on regulatory relief and economic growth.
Finally, we note the bill’s negative impact upon charitable contributions. Section 307 allows taxpayers to deduct charitable donations only up to $50,000 per year when calculating their Washington taxable income. This cap applies even if the taxpayer gave more and even if federal law allows a larger deduction. For married spouses or domestic partners, the $50,000 limit is combined, meaning: They are capped at $50,000 total, not $50,000 each, whether they file jointly or separately. In effect, the bill decouples Washington’s deduction from the federal charitable deduction and imposes a hard ceiling. Any charitable contributions above $50,000 receive no state tax benefit under this new tax. Such a reduction is further evidence that the bill aims to grow government itself, and not charitable organizations.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 6347 keeps the new higher exclusion so that estates under roughly 3 million dollars remain tax‑free, but reduces the punitive top rates that were just increased in 2025. For large estates, the 2025 law pushed the top marginal rate up to 35% on amounts over 9 million dollars. It rolls those back to a top rate of 20%, and similarly trims the 26–30% brackets down into the high‑teens range. The bill applies to estates of decedents dying on or after mid‑2026, so it is clearly aimed at reversing a recent tax increase, not creating a new tax or loophole.
This legislation reverses a steep tax hike on success and wealth creation. Olympia just hiked upper‑bracket estate rates to 26–35% last year; however, this bill pushes them back down and re‑establishes a lower, flatter top rate structure. It keeps protection for small and mid‑size estates in place: the 3 million dollar exclusion stays, which means ordinary families and many small business or farm estates stay out of the tax entirely while the fight is focused on the most confiscatory brackets. The new 35% top rate, stacked on top of a 40% federal estate tax, encourages wealthy residents and investors to leave Washington. SB 6347 directly tackles that concern by cutting the state top rate almost in half. The Department of Revenue’s fiscal note projects a hundreds‑of‑millions reduction in future estate‑tax collections to the Education Legacy Trust Account, which is another way of saying the bill returns that money to families instead of government.
Every Republican Senator voted for it because it rolls back a tax increase and cuts rates, even if it doesn’t repeal the estate tax outright; however, in the current political environment, eliminating the estate tax is not on the table. This legislation is a realistic incremental win that lowers rates now and confirms the new, higher 2025 rates were excessive. In review, SB 6347 is a net tax cut that undoes part of a recent, aggressive estate‑tax hike while preserving relief for smaller estates. Supporting it is consistent with lowering tax burdens, improving Washington’s competitiveness, and resisting the trend toward ever‑higher “soak the rich” rates, even if we ultimately prefer full repeal of the estate tax.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 6355 creates a new Washington Electric Transmission Authority in state government, charged with planning, facilitating, financing, and even owning electric transmission projects to meet clean‑energy and climate goals. It directs the authority to pursue goals like achieving clean electricity requirements and greenhouse gas emissions limits, expanding access to low‑cost renewables, and encouraging advanced transmission technologies to support the state’s decarbonization agenda. The bill gives the authority powers to coordinate with utilities, independent developers, tribes, regional markets, and federal entities, including the ability to plan projects, select qualified transmission builders, and in some cases step in and build or own lines itself.
The legislation allows the authority to own electric transmission equipment and systems, with a plan to later divest and to sell state‑owned transmission projects at any stage of development. It creates an electric transmission capital account and electric transmission operating account in the state treasury to support the authority’s work, with links into a large list of state funds and accounts. SB 6355 builds an entirely new quasi‑public authority layered on top of existing utilities, transmission owners, and regional planning processes, instead of fixing regulatory barriers or improving permitting within current structures. The authority is explicitly tasked with broad planning, coordination, and ownership roles, which pulls more decision‑making into Olympia and away from local utilities, private builders, and market signals.
Although the bill says the authority’s ownership may not exceed the extent and duration necessary, the authority itself decides when its ownership is no longer necessary, which invites mission creep and permanent state footprint in the grid. The authority must avoid impacts to overburdened communities, support good jobs, and protect cultural and natural resources, which sounds reasonable but effectively bakes an environmental‑justice and pro‑union filter into every project decision. A separate section directs the Department of Commerce to create a Washington state tribal clean energy strategy and identify tribal partnership, ownership, and investment frameworks, tying transmission policy to a favored set of clean‑energy and tribal‑partnership priorities rather than neutral reliability and cost.
The bill creates dedicated capital and operating accounts for the authority, opening the door to future appropriations, bonding structures, and complex financing arrangements that shift risk from private investors to taxpayers and ratepayers. The authority can build, finance, acquire, or sell projects and can proceed to construct a project itself if it deems there is a pressing need and no willing private builder, which encourages state‑driven mega-projects with political rather than economic timelines. While the text includes language about not creating state debt or lending the credit of the state, the very purpose of the authority is to mobilize public resources and coordination to push projects that might not otherwise pencil out in a normal market.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 6358 has been dubbed the “Stop Brian Heywood Bill,” clearly signaling a political intent to block a specific conservative donor and his initiative campaigns rather than neutrally regulate corporate law. The bill creates new definitions of ballot measure activity and election activity that cover any contribution or expenditure to directly or indirectly support or oppose ballot measures or candidates. It applies these rules across virtually all entities whose existence or limited liability comes from state law, not just one narrow corporate form. The bill explicitly states that corporations are not granted any power to engage in ballot measure activity or election activity. Political spending to support or oppose candidates and ballot measures is treated as protected speech under federal jurisprudence. This bill attempts to strip that from corporations by redefining their powers rather than amending the constitution.
Many conservative advocacy groups, business associations, churches’ affiliated entities, and issue coalitions are organized as corporations or nonprofits that rely on the ability to speak collectively in elections and on ballot measures. This legislation would silence them as entities. Any corporate act outside the newly defined powers is deemed ultra vires and void, and a corporation that exercises such a power forfeits all corporate privileges, including limited liability and perpetual duration. This means a mistaken or disputed political expenditure by a company or nonprofit could, in theory, expose owners, board members, or donors to personal liability and destroy the entity’s legal existence, which is massively disproportionate and will chill lawful political engagement. The bill states that even foreign or out‑of‑state corporations that undertake, finance, or direct election or ballot measure activity in Washington are conclusively deemed to be transacting business in the state for jurisdiction and enforcement, inviting aggressive litigation and forum‑shopping against national conservative groups.
Initiative campaigns like those funded by Future 42 and similar conservative efforts often depend on corporate structures to raise and deploy funds efficiently; banning ballot measure activity by corporations directly undermines this strategy while leaving unions and other structures that can route money differently relatively advantaged. Many churches and ministries use incorporated or nonprofit entities to engage in issue advocacy and sometimes ballot measure work, for example on parental rights, tax limits, or abortion. SB 6358’s broad corporate definitions and penalties could deter faith‑based entities from speaking on these issues for fear of losing limited liability. Because it revokes all powers, privileges, and capacities previously granted and then rebuilds them with express exclusions for election and ballot activity, the proposed legislation shifts the presumption from free to speak unless prohibited to gagged unless specially authorized, which runs counter to a constitutional, liberty‑first approach. If enacted, SB 6358 will likely trigger federal constitutional challenges, but in the meantime it could be weaponized by regulators or political opponents to threaten conservative‑leaning organizations and donors, creating asymmetric risk until courts act.
Bill Summary
SJM 8006 is a joint memorial, not a bill with the force of law. It simply asks the Washington Supreme Court to act and does not itself change statutes, create programs, or spend money. The Court is being petitioned to reverse its decision to sunset the Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) program and resume issuing new licenses. It further asks the Court to expand LLLTs’ scope into: administrative hearings, eviction proceedings, and debt‑collection matters, and to study how LLLTs could help defendants in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal and district courts. There is no new tax, no new agency, and no direct new mandate on the executive branch—only a request to the judiciary to use a tool it already created.
This service uses a market‑style, licensed‑professional model rather than a government entitlement. LLLTs are private providers who charge fees for service; the memorial does not create a new right to taxpayer‑funded counsel in civil cases. It addresses a real access problem without watering down legal standards. Half or more of litigants in some courts are representing themselves, often doing it poorly, which wastes court time and leads to bad outcomes. LLLTs can handle routine tasks—forms, basic procedure, document review—so judges, prosecutors, and full attorneys can focus on higher‑stakes work.
A mid‑level license allows trained non‑lawyers to handle defined, lower‑risk work under strict rules, just as nurse practitioners extend care without replacing physicians. That’s a classic conservative efficiency play—right‑sizing the professional for the task. It respects judicial independence and separation of powers. The memorial acknowledges that the Court, not the Legislature, controls the practice‑of‑law rules and simply asks the Court to reconsider and refine its own program. It does not criminalize new behavior or expand government enforcement power. The memorial is about licensing and legal‑service delivery, not new crimes, penalties, or regulatory fines.
Bill Summary
Senate Joint Memorial 8014 is a formal request from the Washington Legislature urging the federal government—addressed to the President, Congress, the State Department, and the Department of Justice—to open a transparent, thorough, and independent U.S.-led investigation into the 2024 killing of Washington-raised U.S. citizen Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi in the West Bank by Israeli military forces. The memorial recounts Eygi’s background in Seattle, her education and community service, and her activism in domestic and international human-rights and environmental causes, framing her death as an unjust killing while she served as a peaceful observer. It also references the 2003 death of Washington activist Rachel Corrie in Gaza, arguing that her family never received accountability and drawing a parallel to support the call for renewed federal action.
The core policy ask is not a change in Washington law, funding, or enforcement, but a message to federal authorities to prioritize accountability for U.S. citizens killed abroad through an independent investigation. A point against this memorial is the fact that it asks the state legislature to take an official position on an extraordinarily sensitive and contested international conflict where Washington has limited authority and where facts and jurisdictional issues are complex and disputed. Turning a tragedy into a state-issued diplomatic demand risks inflaming tensions, hardening partisan divisions, and undermining constructive engagement that might better support credible fact-finding and protection of Americans overseas.
The memorial’s one-sided narrative and emotionally charged framing can be read as adjudicating culpability in advance, which is precisely the kind of conclusion an investigation is supposed to determine. Even if you want accountability, the most effective levers—consular protection, criminal jurisdiction, intelligence coordination, and diplomatic negotiations—are federal tools best pursued through targeted congressional oversight and executive-branch channels rather than state political statements. Washington can honor victims and support affected families without inserting the legislature into foreign-policy signaling that may reduce, rather than increase, the likelihood of cooperation and transparency. Opposition respects the gravity of the loss while keeping the legislature focused on actions within its competency and avoiding symbolic measures that may produce more heat than results.