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.
-
Elections
Shifting general elections for local governments to even-numbered years to increase voter participation.
Bill Summary
Every November, Washington holds a statewide general election. In years that end in an even number, the election includes general elections for federal, state, and county officers, as well as state or local ballot measures such as initiatives, referenda, and constitutional amendments. In years that end in an odd number, general elections are held for city, town, and special purpose district officers and school board members. In addition, odd-year elections may include elections for: filling the remainder of unexpired terms for state legislators, supreme court justices, superior court judges, and federal, state, and county officers; county officers in a county governed by a charter that provides for odd-year elections; and state ballot measures. State ballot measures must appear on the ballot at the next regular general election, and therefore they may appear in either even- or odd-numbered years. Special elections and recall elections also may occur in either even- or odd-numbered years.
While purporting to increase voter participation, SB 5373 would likely result in a decrease in voter participation. City and county councils and school board elections will end up at the bottom of lengthy ballots and voters will often choose just to vote for federal and county officers. Furthermore, these same local candidates will be forced to compete against federal and state officials for campaign contributions, advertising opportunities and civic presentations. Lastly, the overwhelming number of federal, state, county, city and school board candidates will potentially lead to even greater “political burnout” for voters.
Bill Summary
The Washington State Catholic Conference opposes the legislation. The conference is the “public policy voice” of the Catholic Bishops of the Archdiocese of Seattle, the Diocese of Spokane, and the Diocese of Yakima. “We remain willing to have clergy as mandatory reporters but Catholic priests cannot reveal what is said in the confessional,” wrote Jean Welch Hill, the organization’s executive director. The WSCC welcomes narrowing the clergy-penitent privilege to sacramental confession only and they support mandatory reporting for situations outside of confession. Hill adds, “If they comply with the bill as it is written, the priest will be automatically excommunicated. To demand that a priest choose between compliance with the law or the loss of his lifelong vocation is exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to protect against.”
Abolishing the clergy-penitent privilege would likely prevent abusers from confessing and hinder priests’ efforts to instruct offenders to turn themselves in. The U.S. Constitution protects the clergy-penitent privilege. In addition, the Ninth Circuit, which includes Washington state, recognizes that no state or federal court has ever approved government invasion of the sacrament of confession. The United States Supreme Court has held that “suits cannot be maintained which would require a disclosure of the confidences of the confessional…” Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 107 (1875). Legally speaking, removing the clergy-penitent privilege would be an unconstitutional violation of civil liberties and would violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause because it would threaten priests with legal sanctions unless they violate their religious vows. In effect, It would say that it’s good for lawyers to keep confessions secret for secular reasons, but it’s illegal for priests to keep confessions secret for religious reasons.
For three years, protection of what is said in the confessional has been the dividing line between the Senate and the House. Proponents of the bill insist that no religious law should be above state law. “It is traumatizing to have colleagues who I love and trust and have respect for tell me to my face that freedom of religion is more important than protecting children,” said Sen. Frame. Last year, Frame crafted what she described as a “delicate” and “very narrowly defined compromise” with the Washington State Catholic Conference. It preserved the clergy-penitent privilege. But, under the legislation, if a religious leader heard a child may be at imminent risk of harm in a confession and in another setting, when they were not carrying out their work as a religious leader, they had a responsibility to contact authorities. The Senate passed the bill but it lapsed in a House committee.
-
Elections
Concerning requirements pertaining to signatures and addresses of ballot measure petitioners and petition signature gatherers.
Bill Summary
Senate Bill 5382 would require those gathering initiative signatures to sign a declaration under penalty of false swearing that information written by signers is accurate and they were not paid for their signature. It also directs the Secretary of State, in validating signatures, to verify the address listed by a person on an initiative or referendum petition is the same as the one that is on their voter registration card. Specifically, if there is no address match or if the address is not specified, the signature will not be considered valid.
Sen. Javier Valdez, D-Seattle, the bill’s prime sponsor, said it will bolster accountability and reduce the potential for bad actors to improperly influence the initiative process. Proponents of the bill report that paid signature gathering can incentivize fraudulent practices, such as encouraging unqualified people to sign petitions or signing the same petition multiple times. Opponents of the legislation argue it would impede voters’ ability to engage in the initiative process, which allows citizens to propose changes in law on the ballot or to the Legislature. Republican lawmakers said the bill is a reaction to the seven citizen initiatives challenging Democratic policies that qualified for the ballot last year.
“It’s absolutely chilling,” said Sen. Shelly Short, R-Addy. “I think it’s a really sad day when we start taking away the ability of those who disagree with us and make it harder for them to initiate something to do about it.” Brian Heywood, founder of Let’s Go Washington, blasted the bill’s approval. “The legislature is showing what they really think about 3 million voters engaging in citizen advocacy,” he said in a statement. “This bill is politically motivated to solidify the power of the majority and silence anyone who questions their authority.”
Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, a Democrat, added his voice to the opposition on Tuesday. He said anything that adds barriers or impediments to the initiative process “is not helpful to Washingtonians. Adding a voter’s residential address to the process of validating voters’ eligibility to sign an initiative petition is unnecessary and won’t help voters in any demonstrative way,” Hobbs said.The Secretary of State is responsible for verifying and canvassing the names of registered voters who have signed an initiative or referendum petition. It uses statistical sampling to determine if enough signatures are submitted to qualify a measure for the ballot. This past fall the state Supreme Court rebuffed a bid by an alliance of unions and progressive groups to force the Secretary of State to redo its certification of last year’s measures by reconfirming that the hundreds of thousands of people who signed petitions were legal voters. In a unanimous ruling in October they said the state constitution “does not require any particular signature verification procedure.”
Senate Minority Leader John Braun, R-Centralia, and House Minority Leader Drew Stokesbary, R-Auburn, also railed against the bill. “This is a bill we refer to as the ‘initiative-killer’,” Braun said. “It’s not clear this bill is even constitutional.” The co-sponsors of this bill should tell you everything you need to know. Please oppose this legislation.
-
Parenting
Supporting survivors of sexual assault in public elementary and secondary schools.
Bill Summary
Bill Summary
SB 5387 is a misguided attempt at regulating the corporate practice of health care that will ultimately harm patient access and innovation. By restricting ownership and financial investment in health care practices to only licensed professionals, the bill limits opportunities for much-needed private investment in medical facilities. Many health care providers rely on management service organizations (MSOs) to handle administrative and financial tasks, allowing doctors to focus on patient care—this bill jeopardizes those partnerships. Without external investment, smaller practices and tele-health providers will struggle to survive, leading to fewer health care options, especially in rural and underserved areas.
The bill also duplicates existing restrictions on corporate influence in medicine, creating unnecessary bureaucracy without addressing the root issues of rising healthcare costs. Furthermore, SB 5387 fails to recognize that not all corporate involvement is bad—many partnerships have led to advancements in medical technology, expanded access to care, and improved patient outcomes. The broad language of the bill may inadvertently restrict beneficial collaborations between health care providers and organizations that support them. By discouraging financial support for medical practices, this legislation could result in higher costs for patients and fewer available providers.