HB 2074
In CommitteeHouse
Electors/influencing
Prohibiting the offer or acceptance of anything of value to influence the judgment or conduct of an elector in voting for or against any person or ballot measure.
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 strengthens Washington’s ban on vote-buying and coercion by making it a class C felony to offer or accept anything of value to influence how someone votes — including indirectly or through promises — and clarifies when organizations can be held responsible. It also adds new legal tests for determining whether conduct crosses the line into illegal influence.
- Makes it a class C felony to offer or give anything of value (like money, gifts, or rewards) to an elector in exchange for voting a certain way — or promising not to vote.
- Expands existing law to prohibit indirect offers or quid proquo arrangements that a reasonable person would interpret as trying to influence a vote, even without naming specific candidates or ballot measures.
- Adds five factors courts must consider when determining whether conduct violates the law, including how close the activity is to an election, tone of communication, and whether the actor expected personal or financial benefit.
- Clarifies that entities (like corporations, nonprofits, or political committees) can be held criminally liable for violations committed by their agents or managers acting on their behalf.
- Includes gambling (as defined in state law) as a prohibited method of influencing votes — e.g., offering a chance to win money based on how someone votes.
Who is affected
- Campaign organizers, third-party advertisers, and individuals offering incentives — Individuals who might offer or accept money, gifts, or other benefits in exchange for votes — including campaign workers, volunteers, or third-party groups — could face criminal charges if they engage in such conduct near an election.
- Political committees and advocacy organizations — Businesses, nonprofits, or political committees that communicate with voters (e.g., through mailers, texts, or ads) must ensure their messaging does not cross the line into offering something of value in exchange for votes.
- General electorate (voters) — Voters who might be approached with offers of rewards or gifts in exchange for voting a certain way are protected from coercion or inducement.
- Employees and agents of entities (e.g., campaign staff, marketing teams) — Employees or agents of businesses or organizations who carry out activities on behalf of their employer could expose the organization to criminal liability if they violate the law while acting within their job duties.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (3)
The bill strengthens protections against vote-buying, coercion, and gambling-based voter inducements — practices that disproportionately target vulnerable populations (e.g., low-income workers, non-English speakers, unhoused individuals) who may be more susceptible to financial or material incentives in exchange for votes.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a), Sec. 1(4), Sec. 1(5)By codifying five specific judicial factors — including proximity to election, tone, and expected benefit — the bill reduces arbitrary or politically motivated enforcement and helps distinguish between legitimate advocacy and criminal coercion, thereby strengthening democratic integrity and public trust in elections.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)(iii)-(v), Sec. 2(2)(c)Clarifying that entities (including political committees and nonprofits) can be held criminally liable for actions of their agents acting within scope deters institutionalized vote manipulation and holds organizations accountable — protecting voters from coordinated, large-scale coercion schemes that small groups or individuals could not execute alone.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(c), Sec. 1(3)
Potential Concerns (4)
Broad and subjective prohibitions on 'indirect' offers and 'quid pro quo' conduct — especially when interpreted by courts using subjective factors like 'tone and tenor' — risk chilling legitimate political speech, outreach, and get-out-the-vote efforts by community groups, grassroots organizers, and small advocacy organizations that lack legal counsel to navigate ambiguous boundaries.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b), Sec. 1(5)The expansion of entity criminal liability to include conduct by agents acting 'on behalf of the entity' — combined with vague criteria like 'should reasonably have known' and 'personal benefit or financial gain' — exposes small businesses, nonprofits, and even informal advocacy groups to prosecution for routine voter engagement activities (e.g., offering coffee at a polling place, sending informational texts), especially when staff misinterpret legal boundaries.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)(v), Sec. 2(2)(c)The bill may increase state and local government costs for law enforcement, prosecution, and court proceedings related to enforcing the new vote-buying prohibitions — costs that are not offset by new revenue, potentially diverting resources from other public safety or community services.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Fiscal Impact sectionThe statutory emphasis on 'proximity to an election' and 'promotional vs. informational' nature of communications creates a moving legal target that disproportionately affects low-resource organizations (e.g., community-based voter guides, faith groups, tenant unions) that cannot afford legal review of all election-adjacent messaging.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)(i), Sec. 1(2)(b)(iv)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income and marginalized voters are most at risk of being targeted by vote-buying schemes; this bill strengthens legal protections for them, reducing exploitation and increasing confidence in electoral fairness.
Small advocacy groups, community organizations, and grassroots campaigns may face increased legal risk due to ambiguous language around 'indirect' offers and 'quid pro quo' — even routine voter engagement (e.g., offering snacks at a community event) could be misinterpreted as illegal inducement.
Large political committees, PACs, and corporate-backed advocacy groups have more resources to comply with the new legal standards and may benefit from reduced exposure to uncoordinated or rogue actors — but could also face liability if internal training or oversight is inadequate.
Law enforcement and prosecutors gain clearer statutory authority to investigate and prosecute vote-buying, but may face increased caseloads and resource demands without additional funding.
Employees of organizations (e.g., campaign staff, outreach coordinators) may be exposed to personal criminal liability if they act outside training or misinterpret legal boundaries — even if acting in good faith.