HB 1928
In CommitteeHouse
Supreme court vacancies
Requiring senate confirmation of gubernatorial appointments to vacancies on the supreme court.
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 requires that all gubernatorial appointments to the Washington Supreme Court be confirmed by a two-thirds vote of the state senate before taking effect, and sets deadlines for when that vote must occur. It also bars reappointment of rejected nominees for two years and makes the law’s start date dependent on voters approving a constitutional amendment allowing such confirmation requirements.
- Requires the governor to appoint Supreme Court justices only after the state senate confirms the nominee by a two-thirds majority vote.
- Sets strict timelines for Senate votes: if the appointment is made during a regular legislative session, the vote must occur before the session ends; if made outside a regular session, the vote must happen at the next session or a specially called one.
- Bars reappointment of any nominee rejected by the Senate for at least two years.
- Clarifies that appointees do not assume office until confirmed, and if rejected, they must leave the position and cannot be reappointed to the same role for two years.
- Makes the bill’s effective date contingent on voter approval of a proposed constitutional amendment (HJR 1236/25) in the next general election—otherwise, the law is void.
Who is affected
- Governor of Washington — The governor must now submit Supreme Court appointments to the state senate for approval before the appointee can officially take office; this adds a layer of legislative oversight to judicial appointments.
- Washington State Senate — Senate members gain the authority to approve or reject gubernatorial appointments to the state’s highest court, requiring a supermajority vote (two-thirds) for confirmation.
- Supreme Court nominees — Individuals nominated to the Washington Supreme Court must now undergo a public confirmation process and may be rejected, delaying or blocking their appointment.
- Washington voters — Washington voters will decide in the next general election whether to approve a constitutional amendment that would permanently require Senate confirmation for Supreme Court appointments.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Enhances legislative oversight of the judiciary by requiring supermajority Senate approval, potentially improving accountability and encouraging bipartisan consensus on judicial candidates.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 1(4)Establishes clear deadlines for Senate votes, promoting timeliness and reducing indefinite delays in confirming justices, which supports judicial functionality.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2)–(3)Clarifies that appointees do not assume office until confirmed, reinforcing checks on executive power and ensuring judicial legitimacy through democratic process.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(5), Sec. 4The two-year reappointment ban may reduce partisan retaliation and encourage governors to nominate consensus candidates rather than ideologically extreme ones.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(6), Sec. 4Requiring voter approval via constitutional amendment ensures the public has a direct say in altering the structure of judicial appointments, enhancing democratic legitimacy.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 4
Potential Concerns (5)
Delays and potential blocking of Supreme Court appointments could impair timely resolution of critical legal issues and reduce judicial capacity, especially if vacancies persist due to political gridlock.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2)–(3), Sec. 1(6)Requiring a two-thirds Senate vote for confirmation creates a high threshold that may enable a minority of senators to block nominees, increasing politicization of judicial appointments and potentially undermining judicial independence.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(4), Sec. 4The two-year reappointment ban may prevent qualified individuals from serving due to partisan opposition, reducing the pool of experienced jurists and potentially weakening the court’s institutional knowledge.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(6), Sec. 4Making the law contingent on voter approval of a constitutional amendment adds uncertainty and delays implementation until 2026—if at all—limiting the state’s ability to modernize its judicial appointment process in the near term.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 4The bill creates a dual-track system where judicial appointments are subject to Senate confirmation but other gubernatorial appointments are not, potentially increasing administrative complexity and inconsistency in oversight.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2(2)
Who Is Most Affected
The governor loses unilateral appointment authority, requiring negotiation with the Senate; this may reduce executive influence over judicial direction but could improve bipartisan legitimacy of appointees.
The Senate gains significant leverage over judicial composition, potentially increasing its political influence over the judiciary; however, the supermajority requirement may dilute majority-party power and encourage compromise.
Judicial nominees face longer, more uncertain confirmation timelines and risk being blocked by a minority; this may deter qualified candidates from seeking appointment or increase political screening before accepting nomination.
Voters gain a direct voice in constitutional changes to judicial appointments, but the process delay means no immediate impact on court operations or access to justice.
State agencies and courts may face operational strain during prolonged vacancies or confirmation disputes, potentially slowing case resolution and public service delivery.