HB 2195
In CommitteeHouse
City initiatives, referenda
Concerning city initiatives and referendums.
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 expands and standardizes the use of initiative and referendum powers in Washington cities. It requires larger noncharter cities to adopt these tools and updates rules for how residents can propose or block local laws, including higher signature requirements and clearer timelines for elections and ordinance effectiveness.
- Noncharter code cities with 30,000 or more residents must adopt initiative and referendum processes within one year of the bill taking effect or when they reach the population threshold.
- Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed by 25% of the votes in the most-popular citywide race (or city council race if no citywide race), up from 15% previously.
- Ordinances passed by city councils generally cannot take effect for 30 days and are subject to referendum during that time, with exceptions for emergencies, taxes, spending, and certain other matters.
- Initiative petitions must follow the same procedural rules as in commission-form cities (RCW 35.17.240–35.17.360), including petition filing, signature verification, and election processes.
- Ordinances passed by petition cannot be repealed or amended by the city council for two years unless approved by two-thirds of the council or by voter approval.
Who is affected
- Residents of noncharter code cities — Residents of noncharter code cities with populations of 30,000 or more will be affected because those cities must adopt initiative and referendum processes within one year of meeting the population threshold or after the bill takes effect. Residents of smaller cities may gain or retain the ability to use these tools if they choose to adopt them.
- City officials and legislative bodies — City councils and mayors must follow new rules about when ordinances take effect, how initiatives and referendums are processed, and how long ordinances passed by petition can last before being changed.
- Registered voters seeking to use initiative or referendum — Registered voters who want to propose or block local laws must meet new signature thresholds (25% of the most-voted citywide race or city council race) and follow updated petition and election procedures.
- County and city election staff — County auditors and city clerks must verify petition signatures, certify sufficiency, and assist with elections for local initiatives and referendums under revised timelines and standards.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (3)
Mandates initiative and referendum for noncharter cities with ≥30,000 residents, expanding direct democratic tools to large cities (e.g., Lakewood, Kirkland, Redmond) that currently lack them—empowering residents to propose or block local laws without relying solely on elected officials.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (RCW 35A.11.080, as amended)Standardizes initiative procedures across city forms (including commission cities), creating clearer, more consistent rules for petitioning, signature verification, and election scheduling—reducing legal uncertainty and administrative inconsistency for voters and officials alike.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 6 (RCW 35.17.260, as amended)Provides a 30-day referendum window for ordinances (with exceptions for emergencies, taxes, spending, etc.), allowing citizens to pause implementation of controversial or poorly vetted policies—enhancing accountability and public input before laws take effect.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2 & 3 (RCW 35A.11.090 & 35.17.230, as amended)
Potential Concerns (4)
Increases procedural and administrative burdens on city election staff and local governments by requiring verification of 25% signature thresholds (up from 15%) and adherence to more complex commission-form procedures, potentially straining limited local resources—especially in cities without existing initiative infrastructure.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 4 (RCW 35A.11.100, as amended)Mandates a 30-day delay before most ordinances take effect and subjects them to referendum, which may slow implementation of time-sensitive policies (e.g., public health measures, budget adjustments), reducing governmental agility and responsiveness—particularly impactful in smaller cities with limited staff capacity.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2 & 3 (RCW 35A.11.090 & 35.17.230, as amended)Raises signature thresholds to 25% of the most-voted citywide or council race, which—depending on turnout—can be significantly harder to achieve than the prior 15%, effectively raising the barrier to civic participation and potentially disenfranchising residents in low-turnout or marginalized communities.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 4 (RCW 35A.11.100, as amended) & Sec. 6 (RCW 35.17.260, as amended)Imposes a two-year freeze on council amendments or repeals of ordinances passed by petition unless supermajority (2/3) approval is obtained or voters approve change—reducing council flexibility to correct flawed or outdated policies, potentially entrenching suboptimal or outdated policies long after public interest has shifted.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 11 & 12 (RCW 35.17.340 & 35.17.350, as amended)
Who Is Most Affected
Residents of noncharter code cities ≥30,000 gain formal initiative and referendum rights for the first time—especially beneficial for organized advocacy groups and politically active residents. However, higher signature thresholds and procedural complexity may disproportionately burden low-income, rural, or less-engaged communities.
City councils face increased constraints on legislative agility and flexibility—especially for controversial or time-sensitive ordinances—but gain clearer procedural guardrails that may reduce legal challenges. Mayors may see diminished unilateral influence over ordinance timing and content.
Registered voters gain formal tools to propose or block local laws, but the 25% signature requirement (up from 15%) and procedural complexity may favor well-resourced advocacy groups over grassroots or part-time organizers.
County auditors and city clerks face increased workload for signature verification, election coordination, and legal compliance—especially in fast-growing cities approaching or exceeding 30,000 population—potentially straining already limited election staff resources.