SHB 1339
In CommitteeHouse
Even-numbered year elections
Shifting general elections for local governments to even-numbered years to increase voter participation.
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 lets Washington’s local governments hold regular elections in even-numbered years instead of odd-numbered years to boost voter turnout, especially among younger, lower-income, and disabled voters. It amends multiple state laws to allow jurisdictions to transition to even-year elections through local ordinances or voter approval, with specific rules for managing term lengths during the transition.
- Allows cities, towns, and special purpose districts to move their regular elections from odd-numbered to even-numbered years by adopting an ordinance, charter amendment, or voter-approved initiative.
- Requires jurisdictions that opt to shift elections to hold two public hearings at least 30 days apart and adopt the change by January 15 of an odd-numbered year to begin transition that year.
- Mandates a transitional term adjustment—either one year shorter or longer—so that after the transition, elections resume on standard term lengths starting in an even-numbered year.
- Requires all elected positions in a jurisdiction to move to even-year elections if any are shifted; cannot selectively move only some offices.
- Allows jurisdictions that reverse the decision to return to odd-year elections, using a one-year term adjustment to transition back.
- Amends multiple statutes governing election timing for different types of local governments (e.g., commission cities, council-manager cities, second-class cities, towns, unclassified cities, code cities, and municipal courts) to align with the new option.
Who is affected
- Residents of local jurisdictions — Residents of cities, towns, and special purpose districts that choose to shift elections to even-numbered years will have higher-turnout elections that include more diverse voters, potentially leading to more representative outcomes.
- Local governments and their governing bodies — Local governments (cities, towns, and special purpose districts) must follow new procedures to transition elections to even-numbered years, including public hearings, voter approval, and adjusting term lengths temporarily during transition.
- County auditors — County auditors will manage elections for jurisdictions that opt into even-year elections and ensure compliance with updated election timing and procedural rules.
- Current and future local elected officials — Elected officials in odd-year election jurisdictions may see their terms adjusted temporarily during transition to even-year elections, and future elections will align with higher-turnout cycles.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
By shifting local elections to even-year cycles—when turnout is ~80% vs. ~40.5% in odd years—the bill significantly increases voter participation, especially among younger, lower-income, and disabled voters, leading to more representative and legitimate local decision-making on public safety issues like policing and emergency response.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (Findings) & Sec. 2(6)Increases political equality by ensuring that historically underrepresented groups (youth, low-income, disabled) have their voices heard in local elections, reducing the risk that policy outcomes are skewed toward narrow, high-turnout, older, wealthier cohorts in odd-year contests.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (Findings)Consolidating local elections with federal/state cycles may reduce per-election administrative costs over time—lowering ballot printing, staffing, and infrastructure expenses for county auditors and local governments, freeing resources for other public services.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (Findings) & Fiscal ImpactRequires *all* elected positions in a jurisdiction to move to even-year elections together—preventing fragmentation of the electorate and ensuring coherent, unified local representation rather than piecemeal elections that confuse voters.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(6)(c)Mandates two public hearings with 30-day gap before adoption—ensuring meaningful community input and transparency in the transition process, strengthening democratic legitimacy of the shift.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(6)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandates that if any elected position in a jurisdiction shifts to even-year elections, *all* positions must follow—eliminating local flexibility to phase in changes incrementally or retain staggered terms for stability. This increases administrative complexity for smaller jurisdictions with limited staff and legal resources.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(c)Requires jurisdictions to hold two public hearings at least 30 days apart and adopt the change by January 15 of an odd-numbered year—creating a narrow, inflexible window that may disproportionately burden small towns and rural districts with fewer staff and lower administrative capacity.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(b) & (e)Transitional term adjustments (±1 year) may disrupt democratic continuity—e.g., shortening a 4-year term to 3 years could reduce voter accountability time, while extending it to 5 years may dilute regular electoral feedback. This risks short-term democratic instability during transition.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(b)Allows jurisdictions to reverse course and return to odd-year elections—but only by *shortening* terms by one year, with no option to lengthen them. This asymmetry creates a structural bias *against* reverting, limiting local self-determination.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(d)While the bill notes potential long-term cost savings from consolidated elections, it explicitly states that *initial transition costs* (e.g., additional hearings, voter education, possible special elections) are not specified—placing fiscal risk on cash-strapped local governments and county auditors.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Fiscal Impact (unspecified)
Who Is Most Affected
Residents in low-turnout jurisdictions—especially younger, lower-income, and disabled voters—are most likely to benefit from increased participation and more representative outcomes. However, residents in small, rural towns may face higher relative administrative burden if their local governments lack resources to manage transition.
Small towns and special districts with limited staff and budget may face disproportionate administrative costs during transition, while larger cities may absorb costs more easily. All local governments must comply with new procedural requirements, but capacity varies widely.
County auditors will manage elections for jurisdictions that opt in, potentially reducing long-term per-election costs but facing upfront administrative strain during transition. Larger counties with robust election infrastructure may adapt more easily than rural ones.
Current officials may see term adjustments (±1 year), which could disrupt career plans or continuity. Future elections will be more inclusive, potentially altering the demographic and policy priorities of future officeholders—benefiting candidates from diverse backgrounds.