HB 1929
In CommitteeHouse
Court of appeals vacancies
Requiring senate confirmation of gubernatorial appointments to vacancies on the court of appeals.
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 changes how Washington appoints judges to the Court of Appeals by requiring Senate confirmation of gubernatorial appointments, setting strict timelines and voting thresholds for approval, and limiting reappointment of rejected nominees. It also clarifies that judicial appointments are treated separately from other gubernatorial appointments under state law.
- Requires the governor to appoint Court of Appeals judges subject to Senate confirmation.
- Sets strict deadlines for Senate votes: must occur before adjournment of the current session if appointed during a regular session, or within a special session or next regular session if appointed outside one.
- Requires a two-thirds majority vote of all elected senators to confirm an appointee.
- Bars reappointment of any nominee rejected by the Senate for at least two years.
- Clarifies that appointees who are not confirmed may continue serving temporarily, but must step down if rejected — except for judicial vacancies covered under this bill, which follow different rules.
Who is affected
- Governor of Washington — Governors must now submit judicial appointments to the Court of Appeals for Senate approval, and appointments are subject to strict confirmation timelines and vote thresholds.
- Washington State Senators — Members of the Washington State Senate gain new authority to approve or reject gubernatorial appointments to the Court of Appeals, with specific voting requirements and deadlines.
- Court of Appeals nominees — Individuals nominated by the governor to serve on the Court of Appeals must now go through Senate confirmation before officially taking office, and face restrictions if rejected.
- Washington residents — Residents of Washington may see changes in how long vacancies on the Court of Appeals remain open or how quickly new judges are seated, potentially affecting court operations and case backlogs.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Requiring Senate confirmation for Court of Appeals appointments enhances checks and balances, promoting greater accountability and transparency in judicial selection and potentially improving public confidence in the impartiality of appointees.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(1)Mandating timely Senate votes helps prevent indefinite delays in filling judicial vacancies, which could improve court efficiency and reduce case backlogs by ensuring timely appointment of judges.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2)–(3)The two-year reappointment ban may discourage patronage appointments and encourage the governor to nominate candidates with broader bipartisan appeal, potentially improving judicial independence and reducing politicization of the bench.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(6)Limiting the governor’s ability to unilaterally remove unconfirmed appointees (except with Senate consent) strengthens the independence of judicial nominees during the confirmation period, reducing political coercion and encouraging qualified individuals to serve.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3Clarifying that unexpired-term judicial appointees must also be confirmed prevents governors from circumventing Senate oversight by making interim appointments, reinforcing legislative checks on executive power.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(2)
Potential Concerns (5)
The two-thirds supermajority requirement for confirmation creates a high bar that could lead to prolonged vacancies on the Court of Appeals if the Senate is unwilling to confirm nominees, potentially delaying case resolution and increasing case backlogs.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(4)Strict deadlines for Senate votes—especially the requirement to vote before adjournment of the current session—may rush deliberations or force rushed votes, reducing the quality of vetting and increasing the risk of confirmation of under-qualified candidates due to time pressure.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2)–(3)The two-year ban on reappointing rejected nominees may reduce judicial diversity and continuity by preventing the governor from reconsidering qualified candidates who were initially rejected due to political opposition rather than fitness, potentially limiting the pool of experienced judges.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(6)Requiring confirmation for filling *unexpired* terms of judicial appointees adds procedural complexity and uncertainty, potentially creating gaps in judicial coverage if confirmation is delayed or denied.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(2)The bill creates a separate confirmation regime for judicial appointments that is more stringent than for other gubernatorial appointments, potentially undermining consistency in executive appointment oversight and increasing partisan friction in judicial selection.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(1) (as amended by Sec. 3)
Who Is Most Affected
Governors lose sole discretion over Court of Appeals appointments and must navigate Senate approval, which may increase political negotiation but reduce unilateral influence over the judiciary.
State Senators gain significant new power over judicial appointments, increasing their role in shaping the judiciary—but also exposing them to political pressure and potential gridlock if consensus is difficult.
Nominees face longer, more uncertain appointment timelines and risk being blocked by a supermajority vote, which may deter qualified candidates from seeking appointment unless politically aligned with Senate leadership.
Residents may experience delays in case resolution if vacancies persist due to confirmation deadlock, but could benefit from increased judicial legitimacy if appointments gain broader bipartisan support.
The state judiciary may face operational strain from procedural delays and potential under-staffing, but long-term judicial independence could improve if appointments become less partisan.