SHB 1146
In CommitteeHouse
Voting in jails, hospitals
Improving access and removing barriers to voting in jails and state hospitals.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill ensures that people in jails and state hospitals can register and vote by requiring counties, jails, and state hospitals to create and follow voting plans, provide access to ballots and materials, and track voting activity. It also gives the Attorney General authority to enforce compliance and imposes financial penalties for violations.
- Defines 'jail', 'state hospital', and 'people who are incarcerated' to include those detained in jails or patients in state hospitals.
- Requires each county auditor to appoint a jail and (if applicable) state hospital voting coordinator, and each jail and state hospital to appoint its own voting coordinator.
- Mandates that county auditors, in collaboration with jails and state hospitals, develop and adopt detailed voting plans by January 1, 2026, reviewed every two years—covering voter registration, ballot access, privacy, accommodations for disabilities, and complaint tracking.
- Requires jails and state hospitals to provide voter registration and ballot materials to people at least 8 days before elections, allow election officials to enter facilities for outreach, and treat election mail as high priority.
- Requires facilities to collect and report data on voter registration and ballot returns to the Secretary of State, who must publish it annually.
- Authorizes the Attorney General to investigate and sue for violations, with courts able to award $25,000 per intentional violation, with funds going to the Secretary of State to improve voting access.
Who is affected
- People who are incarcerated (including those in jails and state hospitals) — People currently detained in county jails or receiving treatment in state hospitals, who gain clearer rights and support to register and vote, including access to ballots, voting materials, and assistance.
- County auditors, jail administrators, and state hospital staff — Must designate voting coordinators, develop and implement voting plans, provide access to voter materials, and cooperate with election officials—while balancing security and operational needs.
- State and local government agencies (e.g., Department of Corrections, Department of Health) — Must ensure voting access for people in correctional or psychiatric facilities, including outreach, materials, and accommodations for disabilities, and may face enforcement if they fail to comply.
- Secretary of State's office — Will receive annual public data on voting activity by incarcerated people and may use funds from penalties to improve access.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Establishes a robust framework to ensure incarcerated and hospitalized individuals can register and vote—including private ballot completion, ID assistance, and voting rights restoration info—restoring or affirming a fundamental constitutional right that many states effectively deny to people in custody.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(a)-(f)Requires ballots to be made accessible at least 8 days before elections and mandates ballot access at release—ensuring that time-constrained or transient individuals (e.g., short-term detainees or those leaving facilities near election deadlines) are not disenfranchised by administrative timing.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 5(1), (4)Mandates data collection and public reporting on voting activity by incarcerated people, increasing transparency and accountability—helping advocates, researchers, and officials identify disparities and track progress in civic inclusion, which supports evidence-based reform.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 5(6)-(7)Grants the Attorney General enforcement authority and authorizes $25,000 per intentional violation penalties—creating a credible deterrent against noncompliance and ensuring the right to vote in these settings is not merely symbolic.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 7(1)-(4)Requires appointment of dedicated voting coordinators in jails and state hospitals, which institutionalizes civic access as part of standard operations—reducing ad hoc or inconsistent efforts and building long-term capacity for compliance.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandates equal access to candidates for campaigning in jails and state hospitals, which could create logistical and security burdens for facility staff and potentially expose vulnerable individuals to political pressure or coercion during sensitive treatment or detention periods.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(f)Requires jails and state hospitals to permit election officials to enter facilities 30 days before each election, which may strain already limited staffing and security resources—especially in rural or under-resourced counties—without additional funding to offset operational costs.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 5(2)Requires facilities to provide accessible voting devices and accommodate disabilities, but does not allocate dedicated funding for training staff, procuring adaptive equipment, or maintaining compliance—potentially diverting limited correctional or psychiatric resources from core safety or clinical functions.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(e) and (3)(a)Imposes $25,000 per intentional violation penalties that counties, jails, or hospitals must pay—costs that may be passed through to local budgets, potentially reducing funds for other essential services like mental health care, rehabilitation, or public safety—particularly in small or fiscally strained jurisdictions.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 7(3)-(4)Requires the Secretary of State to contract with the University of Washington for a study, but funding is contingent on appropriation—meaning success depends on future legislative budget decisions, introducing uncertainty about whether the promised evaluation and recommendations will materialize in a timely or comprehensive way.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 9
Who Is Most Affected
Incarcerated individuals and state hospital patients—especially those awaiting trial, serving short sentences, or receiving long-term psychiatric care—gain the strongest direct benefit: clearer pathways to register and vote, with privacy and support. This restores a fundamental right that many currently cannot exercise, particularly for those not disenfranchised by felony conviction (e.g., misdemeanants or pretrial detainees).
County auditors and jail/hospital staff face new administrative duties (coordinators, plan development, data reporting), but the bill provides a clear framework and avoids imposing unfunded mandates by tying enforcement to existing election infrastructure. Small counties may face disproportionate burden due to limited staff, but the requirement to coordinate with the Secretary of State offers technical support.
State agencies (e.g., Department of Corrections, Department of Health) must ensure compliance across facilities, but the bill does not create new oversight layers—instead, it leverages existing county-level election coordination. The main cost is coordination effort, not new bureaucracy. The penalty structure (Sec. 7) applies equally to local and state actors, reducing special favoritism.
The Secretary of State gains enforcement support (via AG authority), data collection authority, and a dedicated revenue stream ($25K/violation) to improve access—strengthening its role as election administrator. The University of Washington study (Sec. 9) enhances its evidence base for future policy, but funding is not guaranteed.
Advocacy groups (e.g., ACLU, voting rights coalitions) benefit from the transparency mandate (public data reporting) and enforcement teeth (AG authority), enabling more effective monitoring and litigation support. However, the bill does not directly fund grassroots outreach, so impact is indirect.