wa-law.org > bill > 2025-26 > HB 2591 > Original Bill
The legislature recognizes that the "legislative authority of the State of Washington shall be vested in the legislature," that "no laws shall be enacted except by bill" and that the legislature "may determine the rules of its own proceedings." The legislature determines that these duties must be guarded against fraud and mistake and that reasonable procedural safeguards are necessary to promote the integrity and proper functioning of the legislative process.
The legislature finds that:
As stated in RCW 9A.68.050, "A person is guilty of trading in special influence if: . . . He or she offers, confers, or agrees to confer any pecuniary benefit upon another person pursuant to an agreement or understanding that such other person will offer or confer a benefit upon a public servant or procure another to do so with intent thereby to secure or attempt to secure a particular result in a particular matter." Nevertheless, paying another person to offer a benefit upon a public servant to secure a particular result has proliferated in Washington state and is routinely used by special interest groups to affect or influence legislative bills;
Currently, the law does not effectively deter special interest groups from affecting or influencing legislative bills by trading in special influence. The legislature finds that such trading in special influence results in misrepresentation or concealment of the content of many legislative bills;
Washington's record shows a recurring pattern of bad public policy results following from trading in special influence. In 2015, the center for public integrity, which is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit news organization that investigates systems and circumstances that contribute to inequality in our country, graded states based on the laws and systems states have in place to deter corruption. Washington received an "F" for access to public information and executive accountability and an overall grade of D+ in its state integrity investigation. In 2025, the Washington coalition for open government sued the state legislature for withholding critical documents from public review under the controversial theory of "legislative privilege;"
In November 2025, a state court in Thurston county upheld the legislature's claims of "legislative privilege." But the issue remains a divisive controversy and various government transparency advocacy entities have pledged to continue the court challenges, in order to restore public trust in the state's legislative processes;
More recently, the state auditor's ordinary review of state government activities has failed to detect instances of fraud. However, multistate advocacy entities that operate in Washington have been implicated in fraudulent or criminal activities occurring in other states;
Washington's increasingly active legislative environment also compounds this concern. In recent years, the number of legislative bills filed in the state house and state senate has proliferated. These growing numbers of bills create intense pressure on advocacy entities to prioritize speed and volume. This environment rewards high-output tactics and raises the risk of fraud, error, and misrepresentation of the contents of legislative bills;
To adequately guard the people's inherent political power against fraud and mistake, the legislature determines that limiting the number of legislative bills filed every year is necessary; and
Other states, including California, Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Florida, and Louisiana, have adopted restrictions on how many bills may be introduced or the manner in which legislators may introduce bills. Restricting the number of bills filed during any given legislative session has not reduced access to the ballot or the people's inherent political power.
Additionally, the legislature finds that:
In recent years, numerous legislative bills with minimal or no public support have been repeatedly filed with the office of the code reviser, including some near-identical versions of the same legislation;
These duplicative and low-support pieces of legislation are often filed in an attempt to test titles or create confusion among legislators or certain advocacy entities. These tactics undermine the integrity and fairness of the legislative process by encouraging strategic manipulation of filing procedures, increasing the risk of inconsistent bill titles for substantively identical pieces of legislation; and
The filing of multiple bills with minimal public support imposes a substantial burden and cost on the office of the code reviser. In recent filing cycles, that office has expended significant staff resources reviewing and processing duplicative proposed pieces of legislation.
Based on these findings, the legislature determines that requiring a legislator sponsoring a bill to gather at least 1,000 signatures from registered voters in support of the proposed bill before filing the proposed legislation with the office of the code reviser will alleviate these burdens by ensuring that only proposals with a minimal threshold of public support proceed through the legislative process, and facilitate the legislative process by limiting title-testing and political strategies that cause confusion. The legislature notes that other states impose various bill drafting requirements before a piece of legislation may be filed, demonstrating that such requirements facilitate the legislative process.
In accordance with RCW 9A.68.050, it is unlawful to provide or receive money or other consideration to offer or confer a benefit upon a public servant or procure another to do so with intent to thereby secure or attempt to secure a particular legislative result in a particular legislative matter. Nothing herein prohibits providing or receiving money or other consideration to an advocacy entity for the purpose of lobbying the legislature so long as such activities do not constitute the crime of trading in special influence.
[Empty]
A person who has reason to believe that this section has been violated may bring a citizen's action in the name of the state for an appropriate civil remedy including, but not limited to, civil penalties, against any bill sponsor or advocacy entity that violates this section.
If the person who brings the citizen's action prevails, the judgment awarded shall escheat to the state, but he or she shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs from the defendant as fixed by the court.
In the case of a citizen's action that is dismissed and that the court also finds was brought frivolously or in bad faith, the court may order the person commencing the action to pay all reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the defendant.
Civil penalties may not exceed $10,000 for each violation of this section.
Any action provided for in this section may be brought in the superior court of the county of residence of the bill sponsor or advocacy entity or the superior court of the county in which a violation occurred.
Any action brought under the provisions of this section must be commenced within two years after the date when the violation occurred.
If any member of the legislature desires to file a bill, resolution, memorial, or any other piece of legislation, he or she shall file with the secretary of state:
A legible copy of the proposed legislation;
A signed affidavit, or electronic submission, that the sponsor is a member of the legislature; and
A petition, bearing the signatures of at least 1,000 registered voters, in support of the proposed legislation, including the legal voter's name and the address, city, and county in which he or she is registered to vote. The signature sheets used to collect signatures as required by this subsection must meet the requirements of RCW 29A.72.100. These requirements do not apply to amendments or proposed substitutes to bills meeting the requirements of this section that are proposed during the regular or special legislative session.
[Empty]
The secretary of state shall, before submitting a copy of the proposed legislation to the office of the code reviser for introduction, verify and canvass the signatures and names of the legal voters submitted under subsection (1) of this section. The secretary of state shall, by rule, establish procedures to implement this subsection.
The secretary of state may use statistical sampling techniques authorized under RCW 29A.72.230 to verify whether a petition contains the required number of signatures of legal voters.
The secretary of state may not accept for processing any proposed legislation submitted under this section if:
The sponsor fails to submit the documents required under subsection (1)(a) and (b) of this section;
The sponsor fails to submit the petition required under subsection (1)(c) of this section; or
The petition required under subsection (1)(c) of this section clearly bears insufficient signatures.
Upon verifying that the petition in support of the proposed legislative bill contains the number of signatures required, the secretary of state shall submit a copy thereof to the office of the code reviser and give notice to the sponsor and the clerk of the appropriate legislative chamber of such verification and transmittal. After that notice has been sent, the legislative bill will proceed under the rules and practices of each legislative chamber.
The definitions in this section apply throughout sections 1 through 3 of this act unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
"Advocacy entity" means a person or entity that advocates, promotes, or lobbies for a particular legislative result in a particular legislative matter.
"Bill," "legislation," "memorial," and "resolution" mean a proposed law presented to the legislature for consideration.
"Entity" has the same meaning as in RCW 23B.01.400.
"Person" has the same meaning as in RCW 29B.10.400.
If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.
Sections 1 through 4 of this act are each added to chapter 44.20 RCW.