After a decade of steep increases in overdose deaths, Snohomish County officials are debating a new strategy to help those struggling with their drug addiction. The new methods promote treatment and recovery from drugs and are an alternative to the controversial “Harm Reduction” drug policies that have been in place while drug-related deaths skyrocketed.

Snohomish County Councilmember Nate Nehring introduced four proposals that he has been working on for years with health officials, public safety leaders, and community members. “These proposals are about restoring balance by pairing compassion with accountability,” he said. “By prioritizing treatment and recovery, investing in behavioral health, and setting clear boundaries in public policy, we can make meaningful progress on addressing addiction in our communities.”

In less than a decade, Snohomish County’s drug overdose deaths have leaped 244% (from 103 in 2017 to 355 in 2023). Like the rest of our state, there has been a slight decline in the death rate (11%) in the past couple of years, yet it is far below the national 25% reduction. It is not acceptable that Washington continues to have one of the highest drug mortality rates in the country.

The National Institutes of Health states that the drug crisis not only impacts the addicts, but it is also very destructive for local communities. As more people become habitual users of fentanyl, methamphetamine, and heroin, local governments are faced with an increase in homelessness, crime, transmissible diseases (such as HIV), and work force strains on emergency and health services.

The “Harm Reduction” approach began with needle exchanges during the HIV/AIDS crisis in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Since then, it has developed into a community strategy that seeks to improve the safety of illegal drug use while rarely mentioning treatment or the benefits of recovery.

Critics of harm reduction point to the increasing number of drug-related deaths and say that while it works in preventing the spread of disease through shared needles, it is not an effective policy to combat a major drug crisis and help addicts find recovery.

Snohomish County’s Proposals

• With the federal government moving away from only supporting “Harm Reduction” drug policies (and the related “Housing First” homelessness policies), the first proposal removes restrictions so the county can support new approaches, including those that focus on treatment.

• Increase the amount of county funds available to support treatment centers. Currently only 12.2% of the county’s Affordable Housing and Behavioral Health Fund (about $3 million) goes toward treatment facilities. The proposal increases the amount to 20% (approximately $5 million).

• Prohibit the use of tax dollars to purchase and distribute pipes, syringes, foils, and other “harm reduction” drug paraphernalia. The county can still provide funding to organizations which pass out these materials, but that money cannot be used to purchase/distribute these “harm reduction” items.

• Add more lethal drugs covered under child exposure laws, thus making it illegal to leave the harmful drug, its residue, or smoke where a minor can encounter the substance. Currently, only methamphetamine is covered by this law. This proposal would add fentanyl, heroin, LSD, and other drugs to the list. It is based on a proposal that recently passed the Everett City Council with a 6 – 0 vote. Since 2019, Everett police have investigated 33 overdoses of minors.

Over the next few weeks, the proposals will be debated and voted on by the Snohomish County Council. Three of the measures are scheduled for discussion on June 10^th while the fourth (on drug paraphernalia) will likely be in front of the full council in the following weeks.

Surprisingly, a couple of the five county council members not only oppose these commonsense propositions but refuse to even discuss alternatives to Harm Reduction policies—despite the increase in overdose deaths while they have been in place.

Councilmember Megan Dunn stated at the May 12 Health & Community Services Committee meeting, “I would share the concern with having a public hearing because there is a lot of misinformation around harm reduction, and moving this forward would do more harm than good. Also, I don’t understand the problem it is trying to solve.”

Data clearly shows that more county resources are being spent, more crimes are being committed, and more people are dying under “Harm Reduction” policies. With the number of lives that have been ruined, we should be openly discussing Harm Reduction policies, not sweeping legitimate concerns under the rug as Councilmember Dunn suggests.

Councilmember Nehring’s proposals incorporate the suggestions of experts, policy makers, and community members to help those suffering from addiction. If Nehring and his colleagues are successful in passing the legislation, it will help the people on the street most in need and we can expect other local governments to do the same.

On a recent segment on her [un[Divided podcast, Brandi Kruse examined a current court case on how over-regulation by the City of Seattle has turned once profitable rental properties into investment losses. As a result, many property owners (especially smaller ones who can’t absorb the costs) have pulled their units from the market and investment in developing new rental units appears to be declining. This will mean higher rents in the future.

In late April, the Washington State Court of Appeals heard arguments in the GRE Downtowner v City of Seattle lawsuit. The plaintiffs, the owners of the Addison Apartments on 4^th Avenue South (a block north of Union Station), argued that the way the city quickly passed regulations onto landlords turned profitable properties into ones that are losing money. The owners of the Addison contend that this amounted to a “regulatory taking” and the property management company should be compensated for its losses. They contend they should not be one of the few who pay for the “societal benefit” regulators are attempting to achieve.

The Addison has 254 units available for low-income housing. The building had a good reputation for being well-maintained and had many long-term residents who received public assistance.

The case was originally filed in November 2024 and was dismissed by King County Superior Court over a technicality. Yet the Court of Appeals found enough merit in the case to hear arguments on whether this lawsuit should be heard by a jury.

In court documents, the lawyers for GRE Downtowner outlined the six regulations imposed on its property, which have cost them millions of dollars.

• February 2018 – Fair Chance Housing (prohibits denying a prospective tenant due to a criminal record)

• September 2019 – Roommate Ordinance (prohibits denying occupancy to any loosely defined “family member”)

• March 2020 – Pandemic eviction moratorium (both city and state moratorium on evictions until end of the COVID pandemic, City lifted on March 31, 2022)

• November 2021 – 180-day notice of rent increase (longest requirement in the country)

• July 2022 – Economic Displacement Relocation Assistance (landlords must help with moving costs if rent increase is 10% or more)

• June 2023 – Late fee cap (fees cannot exceed $10 a month and the tenant cannot be forced to pay for administrative costs associated with late fees and notices)

At the Addison, the result of these regulations is that many unchecked tenants refused to pay rent and caused significant damage to the units. Moreover, many long-term good tenants moved out due to safety concerns and the deteriorating condition of the building.

The once profitable Addison Apartments, which annually made $170,000 to $450,000, turned into an investment, losing $2,700,000 a year. While it previously collected rent from 93% of its units, after regulations, it was down to just 45%. Maintenance and security costs jumped 500%. They went from carrying $40,000 in bad debt to having more than $500,000 by the end of 2022.

In the Seattle rental market, the impact has been significant. Fewer investors are interested in funding apartment development, and thus, new unit construction has declined 50% (30,000 built in 2023 to just 15,000 in 2025). Smaller landlords (1 to 20 units) are selling their properties instead of renting them. This caused a 14% decline (4,000) in units available. With fewer units available in an already tight market, Redfin analysts concluded that reduced supply will cause rent to increase in the city.

If GRE Downtowner is successful in having its lawsuit heard and if they prevail in court, it will have a huge impact on Seattle’s rental market. Depending on how the court assesses the penalty and which of the city’s 1,500 landlords will be able to claim they should receive payments, this could be very costly for the City. There are many apartment complexes that have been impacted by the recent rush to regulate.

No matter the outcome, the data on the declining number of units available should raise concerns with city officials. Seattle currently ranks ninth in the country for being the most expensive city for renters (behind six California markets, Boston, and New York). These regulations have reduced the number of units available, and this will increase demand and rent costs, making Seattle too expensive for many current residents to afford.

The problem is that the landlord/tenant pendulum has swung so far towards the renters’ side that it is now hurting renters (especially those who are low-income) due to the reduction of housing units available.

City councilmembers should work more closely with those who invest, build, and manage rental properties to develop commonsense solutions. Together, they can figure out a method to ensure everyone is treated fairly in the application process while allowing landlords to have enough control over their property to ensure it is safe and well-maintained.

ChangeWA will continue monitoring the GRE Downtowner lawsuit. The case has already raised the public’s awareness of Seattle’s serious rental housing problem and how well-intended government regulations have backfired. As is often the case, more voices and perspectives need to be listened to in order to arrive at better solutions.

Recent headlines paint a troubling picture of King County’s regional homelessness system — one in turmoil, riddled with financial mismanagement, and lacks accountability to taxpayers.

• “$13M missing: Seattle leaders call attention to ‘egregious’ regional homeless audit“ — KOMO News, April 23, 2026

• “Councilmember Rivera, County Councilmember Dembowski call for KCRHA to be dissolved“ — Seattle Channel, April 23, 2026

• “Investigation uncovers $800k in payments to King County employee’s family members“ — Seattle Times, April 26, 2026

• “‘Damning’ audit finds lax King County oversight allowed potential fraud, improper payments to contractors“ — KUOW/NPR, August 25, 2025

• “Councilmember Dunn says he pushed audit for years before King County fraud revealed“ — KIRO NewsRadio, March 26, 2026

• “Homeless Authority CEO absent from most financial oversight meetings, millions in funds missing, audit shows” — Center Square, April 27, 2026

In the dozens of stories regarding the financial miscues revealed in the audits of the King County’s Department of Community and Human Services (DCHS) and the King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA), one key question is never discussed: Who is responsible for the worsening state of our region’s homelessness crisis?

There are many public officials who should take responsibility for the continuous rise in homelessness (increased 68% in past decade) despite the billions that have been annually spent. Yet there is one political figure who stands out for his lack of financial oversight and poor policy decisions that have caused the serious problems we face today – former King County Executive and current CEO of Sound Transit Dow Constantine.

The four-term county executive delivered many speeches regarding homelessness that were filled with well-crafted promises, which were never met. Such as the speech he gave February 17, 2022, to announce the formation of Partnership for Zero campaign (a KCRHA program that was shut down 18 months later due to poor results).

In the speech Constantine promised, “We are committed to the proposition that unsheltered homelessness is inhumane, unacceptable, and it must, and will be solved.” He went on to say, “Our approach is rooted in compassion and equity, as well as determinization, and data will prove its effectiveness.”

Yet, his actions and decisions never remotely lived up to this rhetoric. In fact, the “data” he referenced showed that unsheltered homelessness rose 247% (from 2,827 in 2009 to 9,810 in 2025) during Constantine’s time in office.

Here are a few examples of Constantine’s expansive role in the region’s homelessness efforts:

• In November 2015, when the homelessness population (both sheltered and unsheltered) was 10,047, Executive Constantine stood with then Seattle Mayor Ed Murray to declare homelessness an emergency and assert that all levels of government should spend more money combating the problem.

• Constantine championed the creation of the KCRHA, appointed several members of its original governing committee, and was the chair of the board, which oversaw all the authority’s activities.

• In his role as county executive, he oversaw the King County Department of Community and Human Services (with $1.8 billion in annual grants to provide homeless services) and the King County Sheriff’s Office (responsible for enforcement of anti-camping laws in unincorporated King County and in several communities, which contract with the county for law enforcement).

• During the COVID pandemic, Executive Constantine authorized purchasing 15 hotels across the county with a total of 1,600 units to provide supportive and emergency housing. The total cost, including initial modifications, came to over $455 million, or $333,000 per unit. This does not include ongoing maintenance or staff costs. From the Housing for Health website, it is difficult to determine how many of these 15 former hotels are currently accepting residents.

In November 2024, ChangeWA conducted an exclusive interview with then Executive Constantine, which revealed two critical facts:

• Constantine could not provide a dollar amount for how much money he had authorized to be spent on homelessness at King County or KCRHA. He could not provide even an estimate for any year in the past decade.

• Constantine could not provide any short-term goals for the KCRHA to achieve to justify taxpayers continuing to fund the controversial agency.

Constantine’s lax accounting and his absence of a clear vision appear to have doomed KCRHA from the start. Twice, it conducted nationwide searches to find qualified candidates to lead its efforts, and twice it had to settle for an appointment (Marc Dones in 2021 and Kelly Dennison in 2024) because qualified candidates dropped out of the interview process.

In the ten years following his emergency declaration, Constantine led the county’s DHCS while creating and leading the new regional homelessness authority. In that time, homeless numbers grew 68% to 16,868, and despite Seattle being the 18^th largest U.S. city by residents, it has the fourth largest homeless population in the country (just behind New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, which each have millions more inhabitants). And Washington state has America’s largest population of “chronically homeless” (those who refuse any help) in the country.

The $333,000+ per unit Constantine spent to buy hotel rooms to warehouse homeless people, many of whom are still active in their addictions, is equivalent to buying 1,600 homeless individuals a free one-bedroom condominium. No wonder our state has become a magnet for North America’s drug addicts and homeless people.

When hundreds of thousands of needles and buckets of foil squares (used to cook drugs) were regularly found at homeless encampments, Executive Constantine ignored this compelling evidence to say “it is wrong” to acknowledge that addiction is a major factor causing homelessness. Constatine also ignored the largest survey of homeless individuals, conducted by University of California San Francisco in 2023, that found that more than 2/3 of homeless respondents admitted to regular drug use.

Ignoring the strong evidence on the connection between drug/alcohol addiction and homelessness prevented our ability to attack the root cause of homelessness. Many experts have concluded that more treatment is needed if we want to reduce the homeless population count.

Despite his poor accounting methods and a disappointing record on homelessness, Constantine has become very wealthy as a public servant. Shortly after his ChangeWA interview in early 2025, he resigned from his job as King County Executive to become Sound Transit’s CEO. This includes a pay package that will add $6 million to Constantine’s bank account. While Sound Transit is struggling under its own financial crisis, its board, primarily consisting of local politicians appointed by Constantine, appeared to be unconcerned with Constantine’s lackluster fiscal management history and lack of results.

While it is frustrating to see Constantine prosper while thousands more suffer on our streets, it is doubtful history will be kind to the career politician. As he said in his 2022 speech, if “data will prove (his) effectiveness,” then the large increase in both sheltered and unsheltered homelessness and the many critical audits will be the “data” for which he will be judged.

Because Constantine’s ineffective views are no longer relevant and councilmembers are calling for KCRHA to be closed, there is a belief that significant improvements could soon take place in how King County tackles homelessness. But this will only occur if more treatment options are provided and success is no longer measured by money spent, but by the number of people who rise from homelessness to lead independent lives.

Findings from the recent audit of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA) have led to more calls to dismantle the controversial agency. These rare demands are due to the authority’s history of fiscal mismanagement and the never-ending increases to the homeless population in King County (risen 68% in the past 10 years and 43.5% since KCRHA was formed in early 2020).

Tuesday, King County Councilmember Rod Dembowski introduced legislation that would begin the 90-day process for it to be dissolved, and similar legislation on the Seattle side, from Councilmember Maritza Rivera is reportedly in the works.

ChangeWA has been among the many who have previously called for KCRHA to be dissolved. Today, because of not only the KCRHA audit, but also the recent audit of King County’s Department of Community and Human Services (DCHS), ChangeWA proposes a complete makeover of the region’s entire homelessness strategy. Bringing accountability to homelessness spending is only part of the solution. We must also replace the failed “Housing First” strategy with a plan that focuses more attention on helping those with debilitating addiction and mental health issues.

But most of all, we need to change the definition of success on the homelessness issue. For too long, we have determined success by how much money is spent when we should be focused on how many people have returned to an independent life due to recovery. Instead of spending billions on housing (where many continue to live in their addiction), we should follow experts’ advice and invest more resources in providing recovery treatment so people can return to a productive life.

The recently completed audit of KCRHA found more than $8 million unaccounted for and unauthorized spending of an additional $4.26 million. This follows a 2024 report by the Discovery Institute, which found that of the 19 groups receiving more than a million dollars from KCRHA in 2022, ten failed to provide the required paperwork stating what they did with the taxpayers’ money and how many people they have helped.

Those who have read ChangeWA’s December 2024 interview with then King County Executive Dow Constantine, are likely not surprised that so many problems have been found within both KCRHA and DCHS accounting systems, Constantine was asked to provide figures on the annual amounts of money he had authorized be spent on homelessness since he declared it an emergency in 2015. The four-term executive was unable to provide a figure – not even an estimate.

Analysis from communications executive and former president of 5G Americas Viet Q. Nguyen found that $534 million poured through KCRHA over its short existence, even after repeated audits found serious problems with the authority’s accounting methods.

The KCRHA Governance Committee met Friday, April 25 to determine their next course of action after the public release of the audit. KCRHA CEO Kelly Kinnison defended the actions of her team, which includes dozens of employees who receive more than a $100,000 annual salary, golden benefits, and unlimited vacations. Yet a former employee testified at the meeting that serious accounting problems were ignored by CEO Kinnison and other high-ranking KCRHA officials. There have since been media reports that Kinnison missed most of the twice-weekly oversight meetings that were designed to keep KCRHA leadership appraised of audit issues.

The Governing Committee adopted a few minor improvements, such as forming a finance committee and hiring a Chief Financial Officer. With these small improvements It will be interesting to see if other elected officials will join those who have called for KCRHA’s closure.

Here is where your voice is needed. We hope you will join ChangeWa in calling for:

• Dissolving the dysfunctional King County Regional Homelessness Authority.

• Improve accountability by installing best practices in its dispersal of taxpayer funds and bringing ethics training back to the county and KCRHA.

• Listening to experts’ advice and place more funds into addiction and mental health treatment and stop funding ineffective housing first programs.

This is a critical time for your councilmembers on both the Seattle City Council and King County Council to hear from you. You can look up and email your councilmember(s) at the links below:

Contact your Seattle City Councilmembers

Contact your King County Councilmember

It is up to the citizens to demand more accountability and better results from our government.

Most new political leaders set the agenda for their administration in their initial weeks in office through major speeches and announcements. While Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson’s blog has numerous mentions of her desire to increase Seattle’s public housing projects, there are no mentions of what the mayor will do to reduce the city’s serious crime problem and what her plans are to increase police staffing.

Using up to date FBI crime data, NeighborhoodScout.com ranks U.S. cities by various factors and currently lists Seattle at the very bottom on crime issues, stating 99% of U.S. cities are currently safer than Seattle. The website’s 2024-2025 data reveals that 57 out of 1,000 Seattle residents have been impacted by either violent crime (7.5/1,000) or property crime (49.5/1,000). By comparison, out of 1,000 New York City residents, 41.6 have been impacted by crime, Chicago scored 39/1,000, and Los Angeles 22/1,000.

Security.org used FBI crime data released last summer to tell a similar story. It shows that Seattle has the 4th-worst crime rate in the country, at 178% higher than the national average. Especially troublesome was property crime (burglary, auto theft, vandalism, etc.), where Seattle ranked behind just Memphis and Portland for the most per capita crime incidents in the country.

In the early 2000s, it would have been hard to imagine Seattle’s crime rate constantly on par (or worse than) New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. But a couple of decades of questionable policies (such as “defund the police”) have made Seattle a dangerous place to live and work.

The situation is even more difficult after the exodus of 700 police officers starting in 2020. While departures of well-trained officers has slowed considerably, Seattle is still at least 500 officers short of staffing levels (approximately 1,400 – 1,500 officers) of comparable cities. The FBI estimates that major U.S. cities have an average police-to-resident ratio of 2.6 officers per 1,000 residents. Seattle is half that at 1.3/1,000.

Crime and unsafe conditions are the top reasons for downtown Seattle’s record-breaking 35.6% vacancy rate. This has been a large reversal since 2019 when the vacancy rate was only 4.9%. Both office and retail businesses are moving to locations where their employees and customers feel safe.

Downtown Seattle has the highest property costs in the city, and the high vacancy rate is causing financial loss for local governments due to plummeting collections of both property and sales taxes. This is a major factor for why the City of Seattle has a significant budget deficit (at least $140 million) again this year, forcing possible 10% cuts in the city’s social programs.

Crime is impacting all neighborhoods in the city. Normally safe Magnolia has seen a sharp increase in retail crime since the start of 2026, which has led to community meetings where residents are demanding more help from the city. This has forced the Seattle Police Department (SPD) to redeploy more of its limited resources to increase neighborhood patrols.

Thus far most of Mayor Wilson’s public mentions of the SPD have been in her directives on how it should interact with federal immigration agents. These guidelines have raised concerns with Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) leaders that they will hamper their ability to keep the peace if future protests become violent. This latest disagreement is among the growing list of conflicts the union has with the new mayor. Previously:

• Then Mayor-elect Wilson appointed two controversial anti-police activists (Jesse Hagopian and Lisa Daugaard), to her transition team.

• A poorly developed memo from the mayor’s team led Chief of Police Shon Barnes and SPOG leaders to believe the mayor wanted to reverse the city’s procedures for drug possession and public use. Instead of threatening incarceration (to encourage the suspect to accept addiction treatment), the memo suggested placing the arrested suspects into controversial diversion programs.

• At a recent public forum, Mayor Wilson stated that due to the city’s large deficit, she is looking for “progressive revenue options” (i.e. more taxes on businesses) and she is including the police department as she considers 5% and 10% budget cuts.

SPOG is the voice of the rank-and-file police officers, and its views are generally aligned with those the city is attempting to recruit to the department. When the recruits do their research on job opportunities, it will not bode well for Seattle to see so many disputes between the mayor and the union that would represent them.

The lack of support from the city’s political leadership caused many officers to leave in the early 2020s. If the mayor’s relationship with SPOG does not improve, the same reason will stop the recruits from making Seattle their home.

Mayor Wilson made public safety a centerpiece of her campaign. Thus far, she has said very little about how she plans to make Seattle safer or how she will rebuild SPD’s workforce. Hopefully, this will change soon, and progress can be made in reversing the high crime rates, making residents feel safer, and rebuilding downtown Seattle’s retail community through creating a safer environment for employees to work and for consumers to shop.

Washington Democrats have spent years arguing that minors should be able to make life-altering medical decisions—like undergoing gender transition—without parental involvement. They’ve fought hard to repeal parental notification laws and override parents’ rights in the name of “teen autonomy.”

But now, they’re pushing House Bill 1111, a bill that allows violent offenders who committed crimes before age 18 to petition for early release at just 24 years old, claiming that brain development isn’t complete until 25.

So which is it? Are teenagers mature enough to make permanent, life-changing medical decisions, or are they so underdeveloped that they shouldn’t be held accountable for violent crimes?

If HB 1111 becomes law, expect:

• Violent offenders released back into communities years ahead of schedule.

• More legal contradictions where minors are considered mature for gender transitions but not for crime.

• A justice system that prioritizes offender rehabilitation over victims and public safety.

Democrats claim young offenders deserve a second chance. But when it comes to parental notification laws, they’re aggressively fighting a popular initiative that simply requires parents to be involved in medical decisions.

So why do parents need to be kept in the dark for medical procedures—but criminals need extra protections from their own sentencing?

What HB 1111 does

HB 1111 allows individuals who committed crimes before the age of 18 to petition for early release at 24 years old, regardless of the length of their original sentence.

• Previously, offenders had to serve at least 20 years before petitioning for release.

• Now, they would only have to wait until they reach 24, no matter their crime.

• The bill applies even to those convicted of violent crimes, unless specifically excluded under narrow sentencing laws.

Instead of serving the time they were sentenced to, offenders will get a shortcut back into society—based on the argument that their brains weren’t fully developed when they committed their crimes.

The hypocrisy of Washington Democrats

They claim minors can make medical decisions—but can’t be held responsible for violent crimes?

Democrats have been clear on one thing: Teenagers must be allowed to make permanent, life-changing medical decisions without parental consent—including gender transition procedures.

• They repealed parental notification laws for minors seeking gender-affirming care, claiming teenagers are mature enough to decide on their own.

• They argue that minors should have complete autonomy over medical decisions—because "they know what’s best for their bodies."

• They aggressively fight any attempt to require parents to be informed about these medical decisions.

But when it comes to criminal justice, they suddenly claim that 18-year-olds aren’t developed enough to take responsibility for their actions.

If the science says the brain isn’t fully developed until 25, why do Democrats insist that a 15-year-old can decide to undergo gender transition—but a 17-year-old who commits a violent crime shouldn’t be held accountable for it?

It puts criminals ahead of victims

HB 1111 is another example of Washington Democrats prioritizing offenders over victims.

• Families of victims were promised justice when offenders were sentenced. Now, those sentences could be reversed just a few years later.

• Lawmakers are more focused on easing prison sentences than on ensuring justice is served.

• The bill prioritizes offender rehabilitation over the rights of victims and their families.

They’re willing to override parental rights to push radical gender policies—but want to rewrite sentencing laws when it benefits convicted criminals.

It weakens deterrence for serious crimes

If young criminals know they won’t serve full sentences, what’s stopping them from committing serious crimes in the first place?

• This bill sends a message that long sentences don’t actually mean long sentences.

• It tells victims their suffering is less important than giving offenders another shot.

• It prioritizes the offender’s future over the damage they’ve done to society.

Instead of focusing on public safety, Washington lawmakers are reducing consequences for violent crimes.

Who benefits from this bill?

• Violent offenders, who get a second chance at freedom long before their original sentence is served.

• Criminal justice reform activists, who want more early release programs.

• Democrats looking for another way to appear "progressive" on sentencing reform.

Who doesn’t benefit?

• Victims and their families, who will see dangerous criminals walk free early.

• Law-abiding Washingtonians, who have to deal with the consequences of repeat offenders.

• Communities already struggling with rising crime rates.

This bill isn’t about justice—it’s about prioritizing criminals over victims while Democrats contradict themselves on brain development.

What’s next?

HB 1111 is currently under consideration in the House Community Safety Committee. If passed, expect:

• More convicted criminals petitioning for early release.

• More uncertainty for victims who thought justice had been served.

• A continued shift toward leniency in Washington’s criminal justice system.

Instead of focusing on keeping communities safe, Washington lawmakers are making it easier for offenders to get out early—while blocking parents from knowing what their kids are doing.

Washington Senate Democrats have passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5360, expanding criminal penalties for environmental law violations while increasing enforcement power for the state.

Supporters, led by Sen. Yasmin Trudeau (D-Tacoma), argue the bill is necessary to prevent environmental damage and hold corporations accountable. Opponents warn it could criminalize individuals and businesses who unknowingly violate complex regulations.

If SB 5360 becomes law, expect:

• More businesses and individuals facing felony charges for environmental violations

• Harsher penalties, including up to 10 years in prison for first-degree violations

• Stronger state enforcement as Washington moves away from federal environmental oversight

Democrats claim this bill ensures accountability. Republicans say it weaponizes environmental laws and increases the risk of overregulation.

What SB 5360 does

SB 5360 expands the definition of who can be prosecuted for violating Washington’s environmental laws, including the Water Pollution Control Act, Clean Air Act, and Hazardous Waste Management Act.

The bill:

• Broadens the definition of "person" to include corporations, public agencies, and cities.

• Holds organizations liable for violations by their employees or agents.

• Turns certain environmental violations into felonies, punishable by severe penalties.

New criminal penalties include:

• First-degree violations (Class B Felony) – Up to 10 years in prison and $20,000 in fines (on par with second-degree manslaughter and gun theft).

• Second-degree violations (Class C Felony) – Lower penalties but still a felony charge with prison time.

• Each day a violation occurs is considered a separate offense, dramatically increasing potential penalties.

This means a business or individual could unknowingly violate an environmental rule and face multiple felony charges—one for each day the violation persists.

Why this bill is dangerous

It creates felony charges for unintentional violations

Environmental laws are already complex, with countless rules and regulations. Many businesses, local governments, and even individuals could accidentally violate these laws without any intent to cause harm.

• Sen. Shelly Short (R-Addy) warned the bill could be weaponized against small businesses and individuals who unintentionally violate regulations.

• Sen. Jeff Holy (R-Cheney) argued for a misdemeanor first offense, saying, “The last thing the state needs is more felons.”

• Republicans tried to add protections for first-time violators, but Democrats rejected them.

It discourages economic growth and infrastructure projects

Washington already has some of the strictest environmental regulations in the country—and now, lawmakers are making it even riskier to build anything.

• Sen. John Braun (R-Centralia) warned that this bill could slow down major projects under the Climate Commitment Act and the Clean Energy Transformation Act.

• Developers and businesses will now face the risk of felony charges if a project inadvertently violates an environmental rule.

• This makes it even harder to build homes, infrastructure, and clean energy projects in Washington.

Instead of making it easier to transition to a cleaner economy, this bill adds legal risks to businesses trying to comply.

It moves Washington away from federal environmental oversight

Supporters argue SB 5360 is necessary because they don’t trust federal enforcement under the Trump administration.

• Sen. Trudeau admitted that federal enforcement under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could disappear.

• Instead of working with federal agencies, Washington is setting itself up as an environmental enforcer, creating stricter rules and harsher penalties.

This means the state—not the EPA—will now be pursuing felony charges for environmental violations.

Who benefits from this bill?

• State environmental regulators, who gain expanded enforcement powers.

• Trial lawyers, who will see more opportunities for environmental lawsuits.

• Activist groups, who want stricter environmental penalties.

Who doesn't benefit?

• Businesses, which will face more uncertainty and higher risks.

• Local governments, which could be penalized for failing to comply with ever-changing regulations.

• Workers, who may see fewer jobs in industries affected by overregulation.

This bill isn’t about holding polluters accountable—it’s about expanding government control and making compliance harder for everyone.

What’s next?

SB 5360 passed the Democrat-controlled Senate and now heads to the Washington House of Representatives for further debate.

If passed, expect:

• More felony prosecutions for environmental violations.

• Slower infrastructure development and job loss in affected industries.

• Washington taking an even more aggressive stance on environmental enforcement.

Instead of working toward responsible environmental policies, Washington lawmakers are choosing criminalization and regulation over cooperation and innovation.

Washington Senate Democrats have passed Substitute Senate Bill 5123, expanding antidiscrimination protections in public schools to include immigration status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and more—despite warnings that this move could put federal education funding at risk.

The bill comes as President Donald Trump vows to pull federal funding from states that refuse to follow his administration’s policies on transgender athletes, gender-affirming care, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in schools.

If SB 5123 becomes law, expect:

• A broader list of protected classes in Washington public schools

• A potential funding battle with the Trump administration

• More conflicts between parents, schools, and state government over classroom policies

Democrats say this bill ensures equal treatment for students. Republicans warn it’s another example of Washington picking a political fight instead of fixing failing schools.

What SB 5123 does

SB 5123 expands Washington’s public school antidiscrimination law by adding new protected classes, including:

• Immigration or citizenship status

• Homelessness

• Neurodivergence (such as autism and ADHD)

• Sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression (now listed separately as three distinct categories)

Sen. T’wina Nobles (D-Fircrest), the bill’s sponsor, argues that “these gaps” in current law impact students' ability to succeed and that passing SB 5123 could improve academic performance by fostering inclusion.

But Republicans say the bill doesn’t solve discrimination—it just creates new bureaucratic challenges while risking federal funding for Washington’s schools.

Why this bill is controversial

It puts federal education funding at risk

Trump has threatened to pull federal funding from states that refuse to follow his policies on:

• Transgender participation in school sports

• Gender-affirming care for minors

• DEI-based curriculum changes in public education

Republicans argue SB 5123 is Washington’s way of deliberately defying the federal government, setting the stage for a legal battle that could jeopardize billions in federal education dollars.

Sen. Leonard Christian (R-Spokane Valley) compared the move to a small dog picking a fight with a bigger one:

“I have this cute as a button dog … and we’ll go out for a walk, and he’ll occasionally go up to a big dog and start barking. Then, as soon as the big dog starts to look at him, he runs between my legs and stands there.”

Republicans warn that Washington’s refusal to comply with federal education policies could lead to massive funding cuts that hurt students, teachers, and schools.

It further politicizes education

Opponents argue this bill gives schools more control over politically charged issues while taking power away from parents.

• Sen. Jim McCune (R-Graham) called SB 5123 part of a broader trend of “DEI and gender ideology” overtaking public schools.

• He said the bill strips local school boards of authority and puts more power in the hands of state bureaucrats.

• Some Republicans argue the focus should be on academic performance, not expanding identity-based policies.

With test scores declining nationwide, critics say the Legislature should be prioritizing reading, math, and science—not more legal classifications.

It raises questions about how many protected classes are necessary

Republicans also questioned why new classifications keep being added.

Sen. Phil Fortunato (R-Auburn) asked:

“How many more categories are we going to add? This doesn’t do anything to end discrimination. It just creates a new situation where people are then going to be categorized.”

At what point, opponents ask, does expanding identity-based policies create more division than inclusion?

Who benefits from this bill?

• Progressive activists who want to expand identity-based policies in public schools

• Immigrant and LGBTQ advocacy groups that support stronger protections in schools

• Democratic lawmakers looking to position themselves against Trump’s education policies

Who doesn’t benefit?

• Parents who want more say in how sensitive issues are handled in schools

• Students who need stronger academics, not more bureaucracy

• Washington’s education system, which risks losing federal funding over state-level defiance

This isn’t just about protecting students—it’s about a political battle between state and federal governments.

What’s next?

SB 5123 passed the Democrat-controlled Senate and now heads to the Washington House of Representatives for further consideration.

If passed, expect:

• Continued fights over how schools handle gender identity, immigration status, and identity politics

• Legal challenges from parents who feel their rights are being undermined

• A potential federal backlash, putting Washington’s education funding at risk

Instead of focusing on failing test scores, teacher shortages, or discipline issues, Washington lawmakers have chosen another culture war battle.

Washington Democrats, led by Rep. Osman Salahuddin (D-Redmond), are pushing Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1875 (ESHB 1875), a bill that forces businesses to let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings—including deportation hearings.

Supporters claim this bill promotes equity and fairness, but in reality, it expands government mandates on private employers, creates an uneven playing field for different legal matters, and forces businesses to cover personal legal issues unrelated to health.

If ESHB 1875 becomes law, expect:

• Employers to be required to give paid leave for immigration cases while other legal matters—like child custody or divorce hearings—aren’t covered.

• Businesses to face new compliance burdens tracking yet another government-mandated benefit.

• A potential flood of paid sick leave claims for immigration cases, increasing costs for employers.

This isn’t about fairness—it’s about forcing businesses to absorb the consequences of federal immigration enforcement.

What ESHB 1875 does

ESHB 1875 modifies Washington’s paid sick leave laws by adding immigration proceedings—including deportation hearings—to the list of acceptable uses.

• Workers would be allowed to use their accrued sick leave to attend immigration-related court hearings or those of a family member.

• Employers would be required to accept documentation from attorneys, advocates, or clergy members as proof of proceedings.

• The law would apply across all industries, increasing regulatory burdens on private businesses.

Democrats claim this is about protecting immigrants from financial hardship, but in practice, it forces private employers to subsidize legal processes that have nothing to do with workplace health or safety.

Why this bill is unfair

It forces businesses to fund personal legal matters

Paid sick leave is meant for illness, medical care, and recovery. Under ESHB 1875, it would now be mandatory for businesses to cover time off for immigration hearings.

• Why should immigration cases qualify, but not other legal matters like child custody, divorce, or civil lawsuits?

• This bill unfairly prioritizes one group’s legal needs over another’s.

• It expands government control over private employment benefits, dictating how businesses must allocate resources.

Washington businesses are already struggling under one of the most burdensome regulatory environments in the country. Now, lawmakers want to force them to subsidize immigration court hearings as well.

It opens the door for abuse

Under current law, paid sick leave requires a doctor’s note or similar medical documentation. But under ESHB 1875:

• Employers must accept documentation from attorneys, advocates, or clergy members.

• Unlike medical leave, which has objective standards, immigration hearings can be subjective and drawn out.

• Businesses will have no way of verifying whether an employee is truly required to attend a proceeding.

This creates an incentive for fraudulent claims while tying employers’ hands in enforcing legitimate leave policies.

It prioritizes immigration cases over other legal proceedings

Republicans in the House proposed an amendment to limit sick leave use to qualifying legal proceedings like asylum, refugee, visa, and naturalization cases—but Democrats rejected it because it didn’t include deportation hearings.

• Workers can use sick leave to fight deportation, but not for a child custody battle.

• They can get paid time off for an asylum claim, but not for an adoption hearing.

• Divorce, family court, and other major life events are excluded—but immigration court is covered.

Even Rep. Deb Manjarrez (R-Grandview) questioned why immigration cases should get special treatment while other court cases aren’t covered under sick leave policies.

This bill isn’t about fairness—it’s about picking winners and losers.

Who benefits from this bill?

• Immigrant advocacy groups, who get state-sanctioned protections for their constituents.

• Labor unions, who gain another government-mandated benefit for workers.

• Politicians pushing open-border policies under the guise of “equity.”

Who doesn’t benefit?

• Small businesses, which will face higher compliance costs and a new type of leave to manage.

• Employees who need time off for other legal matters but aren’t covered.

• Consumers, who will see higher prices as businesses adjust to yet another government mandate.

This bill isn’t about “equity”—it’s about forcing private employers to absorb the costs of immigration enforcement.

What’s next?

The Washington House passed ESHB 1875 by a 58-39 vote, with all Republicans opposing it. The bill now heads to the Senate for further consideration.

If passed, expect:

• More financial strain on businesses forced to comply with another government mandate.

• A push to expand paid leave for other legal proceedings, opening the door to more regulation.

• A precedent that prioritizes immigration cases over other important legal matters.

Washington lawmakers should be focusing on economic relief and business-friendly policies—not forcing companies to cover legal proceedings unrelated to employment.

Washington lawmakers are advancing House Bill 1457, a bipartisan effort led by Rep. Dan Griffey (R-Allyn), aiming to mandate electronic monitoring of sexually violent predators granted conditional release. The bill recently passed the House with a unanimous vote of 96-0 and is now under consideration in the Senate's Law & Justice Committee.

If enacted, HB 1457 will tighten oversight on the state’s most dangerous sex offenders, ensuring that they remain under close supervision and do not pose an ongoing threat to communities.

Why this bill is necessary

Washington has faced numerous failures in tracking high-risk sex offenders, leading to repeat offenses and public safety concerns. Current law allows too much discretion in monitoring released offenders, often leaving communities vulnerable.

• A growing number of sexually violent predators are being granted conditional release. Without proper tracking, it is only a matter of time before another preventable tragedy occurs.

• Many past offenders have violated their release conditions. Weak oversight means they often go undetected for too long.

• Victims and their families live in fear knowing that violent predators are being placed into communities with little supervision.

HB 1457 reinforces the state’s commitment to prioritizing public safety and victim protection over the convenience of convicted predators.

What HB 1457 does

HB 1457 enhances oversight of sex offenders granted release from secure facilities by:

• Mandatory Electronic Monitoring: Requires real-time GPS tracking for sexually violent predators on conditional release, including programmable exclusion zones and tamper alerts.

• Residence Restrictions: Imposes a minimum 500-foot restriction from schools and childcare facilities for these individuals.

• Enhanced Supervision: Obliges service providers responsible for monitoring released offenders to submit regular compliance reports, ensuring adherence to release conditions.

Rather than loosening restrictions on sexually violent predators, this bill adds more safeguards to protect the public from repeat offenders.

Who benefits from this bill?

• Victims and communities, who will be better protected from repeat offenders.

• Law enforcement, who will have stronger tools to track and monitor high-risk individuals.

• Residents in vulnerable areas, who will no longer be subjected to unregulated offender placements.

Who doesn’t benefit?

• Sex offenders who would prefer not to be tracked.

• Advocacy groups pushing for softer sentences and fewer restrictions.

• Bureaucrats who would rather push responsibility onto underfunded social programs.

This isn’t about punishing offenders—it’s about protecting communities and making sure the justice system does its job.

What’s next?

With the House’s unanimous approval, HB 1457 now awaits further deliberation in the Senate's Law & Justice Committee. If enacted, the bill will strengthen oversight mechanisms for sexually violent predators on conditional release, reinforcing Washington's commitment to public safety.

Instead of allowing high-risk offenders to fall through the cracks, this bill ensures tracking and accountability measures are in place before release.

What can you do?

• Contact your legislator. Tell them yes to HB 1457 and yes to stronger monitoring of released offenders.

• Demand accountability in Washington’s legal system. Public safety should always come before offender convenience.

Washington lawmakers are taking steps to ensure sex offenders don’t disappear after release.

CONTACT YOUR LAWMAKER

Washington lawmakers, led by Rep. Sharon Wylie (D-Vancouver), are pushing House Bill 1841, which would create the "Own Your Own Art" purchase program, allowing people to take out state-funded, interest-free loans to buy artwork.

Supporters claim this will help "stimulate the arts economy," but in reality, it’s a government-backed credit program for luxury purchases, forcing taxpayers to subsidize private art collections.

If HB 1841 passes, expect:

• Your tax dollars funding art purchases instead of real priorities

• A state-run loan program that benefits a select group of buyers and artists

• More government overreach into personal finance decisions

This isn’t about supporting artists—it’s about politicians looking for ways to spend your money on pet projects while ignoring Washington’s real problems.

What HB 1841 does

HB 1841 creates a new state program where Washington residents can apply for interest-free or low-interest loans to buy artwork.

• The loans will range from $750 to $3,500 and must be repaid in 12 equal monthly installments.

• Only artwork created by Washington state artists is eligible for purchase under the program.

• The state will set up a loan collection process and charge late fees for missed payments.

• The program will receive a taxpayer-funded budget allocation from the state’s general fund.

This means the government will act as an art lender, handing out taxpayer-backed loans so people can buy paintings and sculptures instead of funding real priorities.

Why this bill is absurd

It’s a taxpayer-funded loan program for non-essential purchases

Washington is facing a housing crisis, skyrocketing living costs, and businesses leaving the state—but lawmakers think giving people no-interest loans for artwork is the best use of taxpayer dollars?

• Shouldn’t Washington prioritize housing, education, and public safety over subsidizing personal art collections?

• Why is the state acting like an art dealer instead of fixing the issues residents actually care about?

• If someone wants to buy artwork, shouldn’t they do so with their own money—not taxpayer-backed loans?

This bill prioritizes luxury purchases over real economic concerns.

It picks winners and losers in the art market

This program exclusively benefits Washington-based artists—meaning the state will actively discriminate against artists from outside the state.

• Why should the government decide which artists get funding and which don’t?

• What happens to artists who aren’t included in the state’s approved list?

• Is it really the government’s job to prop up a specific industry with state-backed loans?

Rather than letting the free market decide which artists succeed, HB 1841 creates an artificial government-backed advantage for select artists.

It expands government into personal finance decisions

The government has no business acting as a bank, but HB 1841 turns the state into a lender for discretionary purchases.

• What happens when borrowers default on these loans?

• How much taxpayer money will be wasted trying to collect payments?

• Will this set a precedent for future state-backed loan programs for other industries?

This bill opens the door for even more government interference in financial decisions.

Who benefits from this bill?

• Artists who will have a state-backed customer base.

• Collectors who want to buy artwork with no-interest loans.

• Politicians who can claim they "supported the arts" while ignoring real problems.

Who doesn’t benefit?

• Taxpayers, who will foot the bill for unnecessary government spending.

• People struggling with rent, groceries, and inflation—who don’t qualify for no-interest loans.

• Small businesses and other industries that don’t get taxpayer-backed funding.

This isn’t about promoting art—it’s about government overreach into private financial decisions.

What’s next?

If HB 1841 passes, expect:

• More unnecessary government-run loan programs.

• More wasteful spending that benefits a select few at taxpayer expense.

• A growing government role in areas it has no business regulating.

Instead of fixing Washington’s economic problems, lawmakers are turning the state into an interest-free lender for art collectors.

Washington lawmakers, led by Sen. Kevin Van De Wege (D-Sequim) in Senate Bill 5560, are pushing legislation to declare the Pacific razor clam (Siliqua patula) as the official state clam.

Supporters claim this will honor Washington’s coastal traditions, but in reality, it’s another example of lawmakers prioritizing symbolic gestures instead of solving real problems.

If SB 5560 passes, expect:

• Zero improvement in the daily lives of Washingtonians

• More wasted legislative time on issues that don’t matter

• A symbolic win for politicians, while nothing gets done on crime, housing, or taxes

This isn’t about state pride—it’s about politicians looking busy while avoiding real work.

What SB 5560 does

SB 5560 formally designates the Pacific razor clam as Washington’s official state clam.

• Lawmakers argue that razor clams are a cultural icon that have provided food, recreation, and economic benefits to coastal communities for centuries.

• The bill highlights the clam’s role in Washington’s identity and praises its importance as a wild food source.

• If passed, the Pacific razor clam will join the state bird, tree, and fish as an official state symbol.

There is no economic benefit, no regulatory impact, and no effect on fisheries or conservation—just a ceremonial designation that gives politicians something to talk about.

Why this bill is a waste of time

Washington has real problems lawmakers should be fixing

Instead of addressing rising crime, unaffordable housing, or the exodus of businesses from Washington, legislators are spending time and taxpayer resources debating shellfish classifications.

• Housing prices are at record highs, making homeownership unattainable for many families.

• Crime continues to surge while law enforcement faces staffing shortages.

• Jeff Bezos and other high-income earners are fleeing Washington due to its tax climate.

Yet, instead of tackling these crises, Olympia politicians are focused on clams.

This is performative lawmaking

SB 5560 is a classic example of feel-good legislation—a symbolic bill that does nothing to improve the lives of residents but gives lawmakers something to boast about.

• It won’t create jobs.

• It won’t fix Washington’s budget problems.

• It won’t make the state safer or more affordable.

But it will let legislators issue a press release celebrating the "historic" moment Washington officially recognizes a clam.

Why is the state involved in this at all?

Does Washington really need a government-mandated declaration about clams?

• If razor clams are important to the state’s culture, people will celebrate them naturally.

• Why does the Legislature need to get involved?

• What’s next—an official state barnacle?

This is government overreach into trivial matters while ignoring issues that actually affect people’s lives.

Who benefits from this bill?

• Lawmakers who want an easy, feel-good legislative win.

• Coastal tourism groups who can now market the "official state clam."

• People who enjoy collecting random state facts.

Who doesn’t benefit?

• Families struggling with Washington’s high cost of living.

• Law-abiding citizens dealing with rising crime.

• Businesses trying to stay afloat under Washington’s endless regulations and taxes.

This bill doesn’t make Washington a better place—it’s just a distraction from the real issues.

What’s next?

If SB 5560 passes, expect:

• More symbolic bills that waste legislative time.

• No meaningful solutions to Washington’s real problems.

• Lawmakers patting themselves on the back for "getting things done"—without actually doing anything.

Instead of playing marine biologist, legislators should focus on making Washington a better place to live.

Washington Democrats, led by Rep. Strom Peterson (D-Edmonds) and Sen. Liz Lovelett (D-Anacortes), are pushing House Bill 1608 and Senate Bill 5626, which would ban the farming, selling, and distribution of farmed octopus in Washington State.

While supporters claim this is about "animal welfare," in reality, this is a symbolic ban with little practical impact, driven more by emotional arguments than scientific evidence.

If these bills pass, expect:

• More government overreach into private industries

• Washington businesses losing economic opportunities in aquaculture

• Politicians patting themselves on the back for “solving” a nonexistent problem

This isn’t about protecting animals—it’s about virtue-signaling while ignoring Washington’s real problems.

What HB 1608 and SB 5626 do

These bills would:

• Prohibit the sale, transport, and distribution of farmed octopus in Washington State

• Ban the farming of any octopus species in Washington waters or facilities

• Impose fines of up to $10,000 for violations

Washington lawmakers are choosing to regulate an industry that doesn’t even exist in the state, effectively blocking future development in aquaculture based on speculative concerns.

Why this bill is absurd

It eliminates economic opportunities for Washington businesses

Aquaculture is a rapidly growing industry that has the potential to provide jobs, food security, and economic growth.But instead of fostering innovation, Washington lawmakers are banning an industry before it can even take off.

• Other countries and states are researching sustainable octopus farming—Washington is choosing to opt out entirely.

• This bill removes any chance of scientific progress in humane aquaculture methods.

• Banning industries before they exist sends a clear message: Washington is hostile to business.

It prioritizes emotion over science

Supporters claim that octopuses are too intelligent to farm, citing their ability to solve puzzles and escape enclosures. But:

• Many animals commonly raised for food—pigs, cows, and chickens—are also highly intelligent.

• Farmed octopus could be raised under humane, ethical conditions, just like other animals.

• The decision to farm or not should be based on scientific research, not arbitrary bans.

It’s a distraction from real issues

Washington is dealing with rising crime, out-of-control housing costs, and skyrocketing taxes—but lawmakers are spending time on a ban that affects no one.

• Is farmed octopus really the most pressing issue facing Washingtonians?

• How does this bill make life better for residents struggling with affordability?

• Why is the legislature focusing on hypothetical industries instead of fixing existing problems?

The answer? Because it’s easier to pass feel-good legislation than solve real problems.

Who benefits from this bill?

• Politicians who want to appear progressive on animal welfare.

• Activist groups pushing symbolic bans instead of scientific solutions.

• Regulators looking for new ways to expand government control.

Who doesn’t benefit?

• Washington businesses that could have explored sustainable aquaculture.

• Consumers who may want access to responsibly farmed seafood.

• Taxpayers, who fund lawmakers focused on niche issues instead of real challenges.

This bill isn’t about protecting animals—it’s about grandstanding while ignoring Washington’s real issues.

What’s next?

If HB 1608 and SB 5626 pass, expect:

• More unnecessary bans on industries that don’t even exist.

• Continued government interference in economic innovation.

• A signal to businesses that Washington is not a place for new ideas.

Instead of fostering responsible growth, lawmakers are choosing to regulate based on emotion, not facts.

Washington Democrats, led by Sen. Rebecca Saldaña (D-Seattle) and Rep. Liz Berry (D-Seattle), are pushing Senate Bill 5626 and House Bill 1773, two bills designed to increase union power, limit employer rights, impose costly new mandates on businesses, and create taxpayer-funded benefits for undocumented workers.

Supporters claim these bills will protect workers, but in reality, they will discourage job growth, force businesses to raise prices, and make Washington even less attractive for employers.

If these bills pass, expect:

• More government control over private labor negotiations

• Higher costs for businesses, leading to job losses and price hikes

• Stronger union influence at the expense of worker choice

• Unemployment benefits for undocumented workers, funded by payroll taxes on employers

This isn’t about fairness—it’s about giving unions more leverage, forcing businesses to subsidize illegal employment, and leaving Washington’s legal workforce and consumers on the losing end.

What SB 5626 and HB 1773 do

These bills increase government interference in labor relations while expanding benefits for undocumented workers.

• SB 5626 expands union rights in public sector bargaining, giving unions more influence over labor contracts and negotiations.

• HB 1773 creates a taxpayer-funded "wage replacement" program for undocumented workers who are unemployed and ineligible for traditional unemployment benefits.

• Both bills increase state oversight of labor disputes, putting the government in the middle of employer-worker relations and forcing businesses to comply with new costly mandates.

Instead of encouraging fair and voluntary negotiations, these bills tilt the playing field in favor of unions, increase government interference in private labor matters, and divert employer payroll taxes to fund unemployment benefits for those who aren’t even legally authorized to work.

Why these bills are dangerous

They create unemployment benefits for undocumented workers—funded by employers

Currently, undocumented workers are not eligible for state or federal unemployment benefits because they do not have legal work authorization. HB 1773 changes that by creating a state-funded wage replacement program specifically for undocumented workers.

• This program will be funded by a payroll tax surcharge on businesses, meaning legal employers will be forced to cover unemployment benefits for workers who were never eligible in the first place.

• This removes one of the few remaining barriers to illegal employment, incentivizing more undocumented workers to come to Washington for jobs.

• It creates an unfair system where undocumented workers get benefits funded by employers, while legal employees continue paying into an overburdened unemployment system.

If Washington already has one of the worst business climates in the country, why make it even harder for employers to stay afloat?

They give unions more power while limiting worker choice

These bills strengthen union influence over workplaces while reducing the ability of workers and employers to negotiate directly.

• More pressure on employees to join unions as collective bargaining rights are expanded.

• Less flexibility for workers who don’t want union representation.

• More government oversight in labor disputes, increasing bureaucratic control over hiring and firing decisions.

Instead of letting workers and employers negotiate freely, these bills inject the state into labor relations, making it harder for businesses to operate efficiently.

They make Washington even more hostile to employers

Washington already ranks among the worst states for business, thanks to high taxes and heavy regulations. These bills would:

• Discourage businesses from expanding or hiring more workers.

• Increase costs for employers, leading to higher prices for consumers.

• Drive more businesses out of state, following in the footsteps of companies like Boeing and Starbucks.

Instead of helping workers, these bills will hurt them by making jobs harder to find and keeping wages lower.

They force businesses to comply with unnecessary regulations

Under HB 1773, employers would be forced to disclose more information about workplace conditions, creating costly new compliance burdens for small businesses.

• Increased administrative costs for businesses already struggling with Washington’s regulations.

• More legal risks for employers, leading to more lawsuits and compliance issues.

• More government involvement in labor disputes, reducing private-sector autonomy.

This isn’t about transparency—it’s about making it harder for businesses to operate freely while forcing them to fund benefits for undocumented workers.

Who are the winners?

• Union bosses, who get more power over businesses and workers.

• Government bureaucrats, who expand their role in private labor negotiations.

• Undocumented workers, who will receive unemployment benefits for the first time—paid for by employers.

Who are the losers?

• Workers, who will see fewer job opportunities and less workplace flexibility.

• Small businesses, which will struggle to keep up with new mandates and payroll tax increases.

• Consumers, who will pay higher prices as businesses pass along new costs.

This isn’t about protecting workers—it’s about shifting power to unions, subsidizing illegal employment, and making it harder to run a business in Washington.

What’s next?

If SB 5626 and HB 1773 pass, expect:

• More government interference in labor relations.

• Higher business costs, leading to job losses and price increases.

• Unemployment benefits extended to undocumented workers, funded by employers.

Instead of helping workers and businesses thrive, these bills create more red tape and make Washington even less competitive.

Washington Democrats, led by Rep. Darya Farivar (D-Seattle), are pushing House Bill 1147, a bill that would grant incarcerated individuals the right to engage in political advocacy, form political organizations, and access state resources for civic engagement—all while still serving their sentences.

Supporters claim this will help "rehabilitate" prisoners by allowing them to "participate in democracy." But in reality, it turns prisons into political training grounds, forces taxpayers to fund activism behind bars, and now includes the threat of lawsuits for noncompliance.

If HB 1147 passes, expect:

• Inmates forming political organizations and lobbying from within prison walls.

• Taxpayer-funded civic engagement programs to "amplify" inmate voices.

• An expansion of government-funded political activism disguised as rehabilitation.

• Prisons and state agencies facing lawsuits if they don’t comply.

This isn’t about fairness—it’s about giving convicted criminals more political power while law-abiding citizens foot the bill.

What HB 1147 does

HB 1147 mandates that incarcerated individuals have access to state-funded civic engagement opportunities.

• Inmates will be allowed to form and participate in political advocacy groups while serving their sentences.

• State agencies will be required to facilitate civic engagement activities for inmates, including organizing meetings and providing access to advocacy organizations.

• The Office of Equity will oversee and enforce "civic engagement rights" for inmates.

• Prison staff will be prohibited from retaliating against inmates for engaging in political activism.

• If a person’s right to civic engagement is violated, they can sue for damages—including attorney’s fees—and courts may triple the damage award, up to $25,000.

This means prisons will become taxpayer-funded political hubs, where convicted criminals can organize, lobby, and advocate for policy changes—all while serving time. And if the prison doesn’t comply? It gets sued.

Why this bill is dangerous

It prioritizes criminals over law-abiding citizens

This bill grants inmates privileges that many law-abiding citizens don’t have.

• While many working-class Americans struggle to engage in civic activities due to time and financial constraints, prisoners will be given state-funded resources to organize politically.

• Victims of crime often feel ignored by the justice system—now their attackers will be given a bigger voice in shaping policies.

• Taxpayer dollars should go toward crime prevention and rehabilitation, not creating an activist class inside prisons.

It forces taxpayers to fund political activism in prisons

HB 1147 would require:

• State agencies to allocate resources for inmate political advocacy.

• Prison facilities to accommodate political organizing activities.

• Public employees to facilitate inmate lobbying efforts.

This isn’t about rehabilitation—it’s about creating a pipeline for taxpayer-funded political activism.

It allows inmates to sue the government for "violating" their political rights

Under HB 1147:

• If an inmate feels their right to civic engagement was violated, they can sue the state in superior court.

• The lawsuit can include damages, attorney’s fees, and a court-ordered injunction against the prison or state agency.

• The court can triple the damage award, up to $25,000.

This opens the floodgates for taxpayer-funded lawsuits, draining public resources and further burdening the legal system.

Who benefits from this bill?

• Political activist groups looking for a new base of support.

• Lawmakers who want to court radical criminal justice reformers.

• Bureaucrats who want to expand government-funded political programming.

• Trial lawyers who can now file lawsuits on behalf of inmates.

Who doesn’t benefit?

• Law-abiding citizens who don’t have the same access to government-funded activism.

• Victims of crime who will see criminals given even more influence over the legal system.

• Taxpayers who will foot the bill for lobbying efforts they may disagree with and lawsuits against their own government.

This bill isn’t about justice—it’s about expanding political power where it doesn’t belong.

What’s next?

If HB 1147 passes, expect:

• A surge of inmate-run political groups lobbying for softer sentences and more lenient laws.

• Increased costs as state agencies divert resources toward inmate civic engagement programs.

• More taxpayer money funneled into government-backed political activism.

• An explosion of lawsuits against the government from inmates claiming their political rights were violated.

This isn’t about rehabilitation—it’s about turning prisons into taxpayer-funded political headquarters with legal backing.

What can you do?

• Contact your lawmaker. Tell them no to HB 1147 and yes to keeping political lobbying out of prisons.

• Demand accountability for taxpayer-funded activism.

Tell Washington lawmakers to not use your tax dollars to fund political activism in prisons.

CONTACT YOUR LAWMAKER

State Sen. Marko Liias is the lead sponsor of Senate Bill 5400, which would impose a business tax surcharge on large software companies to fund local journalism.

Supporters claim this is about "saving journalism," but in reality, it’s a government bailout for struggling media outlets that undermines both press independence and economic fairness.

If SB 5400 passes, expect:

• Higher costs for businesses and consumers as Big Tech passes on the tax

• State-controlled media funding, giving the government more influence over the press

• A dangerous precedent for taxing industries to subsidize political allies

This bill isn’t about preserving local journalism—it’s about using taxpayer money to prop up news organizations that can’t survive on their own.

What SB 5400 does

SB 5400 creates a new tax on tech companies to fund "local journalism sustainability."

• Social media companies and search engines would be required to pay a percentage of their gross income to the state

• The money would be deposited into a new "Local Journalism Investment Account"

• State officials would then distribute these funds to "eligible news organizations"

In other words, the government will pick which media outlets get taxpayer money, creating a state-sponsored press system instead of a truly independent media.

A step toward state-controlled media?

Government-funded journalism raises serious concerns about press independence and the role of the state in controlling information.

• In communist regimes like the former Eastern Bloc, media outlets were state-funded and operated as tools for promoting government narratives while suppressing dissent.

• In modern China, the media is expected to serve as the “eyes, ears, mouth, and tongue” of the Communist Party, ensuring news coverage aligns with government priorities.

• Government control over funding leads to control over content—whether through direct censorship or more subtle financial incentives.

Washington lawmakers claim this tax will "support local journalism," but once news organizations rely on government funding, their ability to challenge state policies is compromised.

While SB 5400 doesn’t propose direct editorial control, the financial dependency it creates could pressure media outlets to align with the interests of those controlling the funding.

Why this bill is dangerous

It creates government-funded journalism

A free and independent press is supposed to hold the government accountable—not take money from it.

• When news outlets rely on government funding, their coverage inevitably becomes biased toward those in power.

• Politicians will influence which media organizations get funding—and which ones don’t.

• Journalists should answer to their readers, not to Olympia bureaucrats.

It punishes successful companies to subsidize failing ones

If local news organizations are struggling, it’s because readers aren’t supporting them.

• Instead of adapting to the modern media landscape, they want government handouts.

• Big Tech will pass this tax onto consumers and businesses, raising costs across the board.

• Successful businesses shouldn’t be forced to fund failing ones.

It sets a dangerous precedent for taxation

Today, they want to tax Big Tech to fund journalism.

• What’s next? A tax on Amazon to fund brick-and-mortar stores?

• A tax on Netflix to bail out movie theaters?

• A tax on electric cars to keep gas stations open?

Once the government starts picking winners and losers, there’s no limit to the industries they’ll target next.

Who benefits from this bill?

• Politicians who want more influence over the media

• Struggling news organizations that can’t compete in the free market

• State bureaucrats who get to decide which outlets get funding

Who doesn’t benefit?

• Consumers, who will pay higher prices as companies pass on the tax

• Small businesses, who rely on affordable online advertising

• Independent media, which will now have to compete with government-backed outlets

This bill isn’t about "saving local journalism"—it’s about expanding government power over the press.

What’s next?

If SB 5400 passes, expect:

• More state control over media funding

• Higher costs for businesses and consumers

• A dangerous precedent for future industry-specific taxes

This isn’t journalism—it’s a government subsidy disguised as media reform.

Washington Democrats are pushing House Bill 1217, a bill that would impose rent control statewide, limiting how much landlords can increase rent each year.

Supporters claim this will help struggling renters, but in reality, it will make Washington’s housing crisis even worse by discouraging new construction, driving landlords out of the market, and ultimately reducing the supply of affordable housing.

If HB 1217 passes, expect:

• Fewer available rental units as landlords sell off properties.

• Higher move-in costs as landlords raise security deposits and fees to compensate.

• Worse housing conditions as property owners cut back on maintenance.

Rent control has failed everywhere it has been tried—yet Washington lawmakers are determined to repeat the same mistakes.

What HB 1217 does

HB 1217 would:

• Cap rent increases at 7% per year statewide unless the unit meets certain exemptions.

• Restrict landlords from charging move-in fees and deposits beyond certain state-approved limits.

• Allow tenants to break leases early without penalty if the landlord raises rent beyond the state-imposed cap.

• Give the Attorney General new enforcement powers over landlord-tenant disputes.

Instead of making housing more affordable, this bill inserts the state into private contracts, discourages investment in rental housing, and makes it harder for property owners to cover costs.

Why this bill is dangerous

It will reduce the supply of rental housing

Rent control always leads to fewer rental units because:

• Landlords exit the market. If they can’t adjust rents to keep up with costs, they’ll sell their properties instead.

• Developers stop building new apartments. Why build in Washington when other states allow the market to function?

• Existing properties fall into disrepair. With limited revenue, landlords cut back on maintenance and upgrades.

This has happened in every city that has tried rent control, from New York to San Francisco to St. Paul, Minnesota—where a similar policy caused a 60% drop in new housing permits in just one year.

It will drive up move-in costs

If landlords can’t raise rent as needed, they’ll find other ways to offset the risk.

• Higher security deposits and move-in fees. Landlords will frontload costs since they can’t adjust rent later.

• Stricter tenant requirements. Expect higher credit score requirements and fewer rental options for lower-income applicants.

• More evictions for minor infractions. If landlords can’t raise rent, they may push out tenants for minor lease violations instead.

It won’t make housing more affordable

The real cause of Washington’s housing crisis is not enough supply. Rent control does nothing to fix that.

• Instead of encouraging new construction, this bill discourages investment in rental housing.

• Instead of making more units available, it will push landlords to sell properties or convert them into short-term rentals.

• Instead of helping renters, it will make finding an apartment even harder.

In the long run, this bill hurts the very people it claims to help.

Who benefits from this bill?

• Politicians looking for easy votes—it’s easier to pass rent control than to fix the real housing crisis.

• Government bureaucrats—more state control means more jobs enforcing new housing regulations.

• Wealthy homeowners—with fewer rentals available, home values will rise even further.

Who doesn’t benefit?

• Renters, who will struggle to find available housing.

• Small landlords, who will be squeezed out of the market.

• Future tenants, who will face higher costs and fewer options.

This bill is a political gimmick, not a real solution.

What’s next?

If HB 1217 passes, expect:

• Fewer available apartments and longer waitlists.

• More landlords selling off properties, leading to higher home prices.

• Declining housing quality as maintenance budgets shrink.

We’ve seen this play out before—rent control always fails.

If lawmakers actually cared about affordable housing, they’d focus on cutting regulations, reducing permitting delays, and encouraging more construction instead of punishing landlords for the state’s failures.

Washington lawmakers are pushing Senate Bill 5041, a bill that would allow striking workers to collect unemployment benefits, forcing taxpayers to subsidize labor disputes.

This isn’t about helping workers—it’s about giving unions more power by making sure striking employees can still collect a paycheck, even when they refuse to work.

If SB 5041 passes, expect:

• Higher unemployment taxes on businesses to cover these new benefits

• Longer and more frequent strikes since workers won’t feel the financial pinch of walking off the job

• More government intervention in private labor disputes

This bill doesn’t create fairness—it rigs the system in favor of unions while leaving businesses, consumers, and taxpayers on the hook.

What SB 5041 does

SB 5041 changes Washington’s unemployment system by allowing workers to collect benefits while on strike or locked out by their employer.

• Currently, workers who voluntarily leave their job—including for a strike—are ineligible for unemployment benefits.

• This bill would change that, making striking workers eligible to collect payments from the state’s unemployment insurance fund.

• Employers would have to pay more into the system, increasing costs for businesses already struggling with Washington’s high taxes and regulations.

This means businesses will be forced to fund the very strikes being used against them.

Why this bill is dangerous

Strikes will last longer and become more frequent

Under current law, unions have an incentive to negotiate in good faith because striking workers aren’t getting paid. But if those workers can collect unemployment while striking, what’s stopping them from dragging out disputes indefinitely?

• Labor disputes will become more common and last longer.

• Businesses will have less leverage to resolve disputes quickly.

• Consumers will face more disruptions as strikes increase across industries.

This isn’t about helping workers—it’s about empowering unions to strike without consequences.

Businesses and taxpayers will foot the bill

Unemployment benefits are funded by employers through payroll taxes. If SB 5041 passes:

• Businesses will be forced to pay higher unemployment insurance taxes to cover these new benefits.

• Taxpayers will be on the hook for labor disputes that have nothing to do with them.

• Companies will have fewer resources to create jobs and raise wages.

While union bosses celebrate, small businesses and workers will suffer the consequences.

Washington will become even more hostile to business

Washington already has one of the least business-friendly climates in the country, with:

• Sky-high taxes on employers

• Onerous labor regulations

• A growing list of anti-business policies

Now, lawmakers want to force businesses to fund the very strikes that hurt their bottom line.

If this bill passes, expect more companies to leave Washington for states that don’t penalize businesses for existing.

Who benefits from this bill?

• Union leaders, who gain more power in labor negotiations.

• Politicians looking for union endorsements.

• Government agencies that expand their control over labor disputes.

Who doesn’t benefit?

• Workers, who will face longer strikes and more job uncertainty.

• Small businesses, who will struggle under higher unemployment taxes.

• Consumers, who will deal with more disruptions in essential services.

This bill isn’t about fairness—it’s about giving one side of labor negotiations a government-funded advantage.

What’s next?

If SB 5041 passes, expect:

• More strikes, lasting longer, with no urgency to negotiate.

• Higher unemployment taxes on businesses, leading to job losses.

• A greater divide between businesses and workers as government takes sides.

Instead of helping businesses and employees work together, Washington lawmakers are pushing taxpayers to fund labor strikes.

Washington Democrats are once again trying to tax their way out of their own policy failures, this time by targeting hospital executives with a new "excess compensation tax" on nonprofit hospitals.

House Bill 1560, sponsored by Rep. Emily Alvarado (D-Seattle), would impose a tax on the five highest-paid employees at nonprofit hospitals—money that lawmakers claim will be used to “expand healthcare access.”

This tax does nothing to lower healthcare costs, improve hospital services, or attract top medical professionals. Instead, it further punishes businesses for operating in Washington—just as we’ve seen with high-profile exits like Jeff Bezos moving to Florida to escape Washington’s tax burden.

If HB 1560 passes, expect:

• Higher healthcare costs as hospitals pass the tax onto patients.

• Fewer qualified executives and top medical professionals in Washington.

• More businesses and high earners fleeing the state to avoid yet another tax.

This isn’t about fairness—it’s about expanding government control over the private sector.

The false promise of HB 1560

Supporters of the bill claim that hospital CEOs and top executives are overpaid and that taxing them will help fund healthcare for low-income Washingtonians.

But here’s the reality:

• Hospitals will pass this cost onto patients. Just like every other tax increase, businesses don’t absorb costs—they pass them along.

• Washington will lose top talent. High-performing executives and medical professionals will leave the state or refuse to work here.

• This tax sets a dangerous precedent. Once the state starts taxing “excess compensation,” who’s next? Tech executives? Small business owners?

Meanwhile, actual billionaires like Jeff Bezos are fleeing Washington to escape high taxes—while middle-class Washingtonians are left footing the bill.

Washington is driving businesses and talent out of the state

Washington’s hostile business climate is already pushing companies, executives, and job creators to other states.

• Bezos left Washington and saved $1 billion in taxes by moving to Florida. (MyNorthwest)

• Other high earners are following, taking jobs and investments with them.

• Small businesses are struggling under the weight of high taxes and regulations.

Instead of making Washington a place where businesses want to grow, lawmakers are making it less competitive, less attractive, and more hostile to success.

Who benefits from this bill?

• Politicians looking for easy talking points—it’s easier to blame "greedy executives" than to fix the healthcare system.

• Big government bureaucrats—more tax revenue means more money for wasteful government programs.

• Other states—which will gladly welcome the top talent and businesses fleeing Washington.

Who doesn’t benefit?

• Patients, who will see higher costs.

• Hospitals, which will have fewer resources to hire the best talent.

• Workers, who will face declining healthcare quality as hospitals struggle to recruit and retain leadership.

This bill isn’t about helping Washingtonians—it’s about punishing success.

What’s next?

If HB 1560 passes, expect:

• Higher healthcare prices as hospitals adjust for new taxes.

• More top medical professionals and executives leaving Washington.

• Another step toward a statewide income tax on all workers.

The state doesn’t have a revenue problem—it has a spending problem.

Instead of making Washington a business-friendly state where people want to live and work, lawmakers are doubling down on high taxes, overregulation, and anti-growth policies.

Washington lawmakers are once again meddling in your daily life, this time targeting how you keep warm in the winter.

Senate Bill 5174, sponsored by Sens. Shewmake, Nobles, and Wellman, imposes strict new regulations on wood-burning fireplaces, limiting their use, requiring compliance with new emissions standards, and giving state agencies more authority to restrict or even ban their operation in certain areas.

Lawmakers claim this bill is about air quality, but in reality, it’s about limiting consumer choice, expanding government control, and punishing homeowners who rely on fireplaces for heat and comfort.

If SB 5174 passes, expect:

• Stricter emissions regulations on wood-burning fireplaces, making many existing units illegal.

• More government oversight, requiring homeowners to comply with new state-mandated standards.

• Expanded burn bans, allowing the state to prohibit fireplace use more frequently and in more areas.

This bill isn’t about clean air—it’s about controlling how you live.

Why are they doing this?

Lawmakers claim Washington’s fireplace regulations aren’t strict enough and that EPA oversight isn’t working. Their argument:

• Wood-burning fireplaces contribute to air pollution.

• Current regulations don’t meet Washington’s new environmental goals.

• They want to limit fireplace use in certain areas to reduce emissions.

Instead of addressing real energy concerns, they’ve decided to crack down on one of the most affordable and reliable ways to heat a home.

What SB 5174 does

SB 5174 dramatically expands government control over wood-burning fireplaces. It does this by:

• Banning the installation of certain fireplaces in new or existing buildings unless they meet strict new emissions standards.

• Requiring homeowners to comply with updated state regulations that go beyond federal EPA standards.

• Allowing the Department of Ecology to impose additional restrictions on fireplace sales, use, and operation.

• Expanding burn ban authority, making it easier for state agencies to prohibit fireplace use for extended periods.

In short, this bill strips homeowners of autonomy, adds unnecessary red tape, and limits heating choices—all while ignoring Washington’s real energy affordability issues.

Who benefits? Not homeowners.

• Bureaucrats who want more control over how people heat their homes.

• Environmental lobbyists who push extreme regulations over practical energy solutions.

• Big manufacturers that can afford to meet expensive new compliance measures while smaller businesses struggle.

Who doesn’t benefit?

• Homeowners in rural and lower-income areas who rely on fireplaces for heat.

• Anyone who prefers to avoid high electricity and gas bills in the winter.

• Families that use fireplaces during power outages or for supplemental heating.

This bill isn’t about helping people—it’s about controlling them.

Washington’s war on home heating

SB 5174 fits into a broader pattern of Washington’s aggressive push against affordable energy.

• First, they raised gas prices.

• Then, they restricted natural gas in new buildings.

• Now, they’re coming for your wood-burning fireplace.

Washington lawmakers are systematically removing affordable heating options, making residents more dependent on expensive electricity and government-approved energy sources.

If they were serious about clean air, they’d be investing in better forest management to reduce wildfires, which produce far more emissions than residential fireplaces ever could.

What’s next?

If SB 5174 passes, expect:

• Fewer choices for home heating.

• More government oversight and red tape.

• More frequent and widespread burn bans.

Meanwhile, energy costs will continue to skyrocket and Washingtonians will have fewer reliable ways to stay warm in the winter.

What can you do?

• Call your legislators. Tell them no to SB 5174 and yes to protecting home heating freedom.

• Demand less government interference. The state should focus on real energy solutions, not punishing homeowners.

Washington lawmakers are coming for your fireplace.

Contact them and tell them to focus on solving real problems instead of fighting fake fires.

CONTACT YOUR LAWMAKER