HB 2259
In CommitteeHouse
Initiatives and referenda
Protecting the integrity of the state initiative and referendum process by requiring a demonstration of support before issuance of a ballot measure title and authorizing citizen actions for certain signature gatherer compensation violations.
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 bans compensation for signature gathering based on the number of signatures collected to reduce fraud and errors, and requires proposers to submit at least 1,000 verified signatures before filing a measure. It also creates a new legal tool for citizens to enforce the pay ban through civil lawsuits.
- Prohibits paying or receiving compensation for signature gathering based on the number of signatures collected (per-signature compensation), including indirect forms of such pay.
- Requires proposers of initiatives or referenda to submit a petition with at least 1,000 verified signatures from registered Washington voters *before* filing the measure with the secretary of state.
- Creates a new citizen’s action allowing any Washington resident to sue sponsors or signature-gathering entities for violating the pay-per-signature ban, with potential civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation and recovery of attorney fees if successful.
- Adds verification steps: the secretary of state must now verify the 1,000 pre-filing signatures before forwarding the measure to the office of the code reviser for title drafting.
- Sets a two-year statute of limitations for bringing a citizen’s action under the new law, and specifies where such lawsuits may be filed (superior court in the sponsor’s county or where the violation occurred).
Who is affected
- Individuals or organizations proposing new initiatives or referenda — Must now collect at least 1,000 verified signatures from registered voters before submitting a proposed initiative or referendum to the secretary of state.
- Professional signature gatherers and circulators — Cannot be paid based on how many signatures they collect; must use flat-rate or hourly compensation instead.
- Washington residents who suspect violations of signature-gathering laws — May bring civil lawsuits against sponsors or signature-gathering firms that violate the pay-per-signature ban, and may recover attorney fees if they win.
- State agencies including the secretary of state, attorney general, and office of the code reviser — Will experience reduced administrative burden from fewer duplicative or low-support measure filings, allowing staff to focus on valid measures.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Bans per-signature compensation — directly addresses documented patterns of fraud (e.g., IM-985, IM-1185), reducing incentives for forgery, duplicate signing, and misrepresentation, thereby protecting ballot integrity.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)Requires 1,000 pre-filing verified signatures — filters out low-support or duplicative measures, reducing administrative burden on the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Code Reviser, allowing staff to focus on viable measures.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(d)Creates citizen’s action mechanism — empowers any resident to sue for violations, enabling decentralized enforcement and increasing accountability where state oversight may be limited.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)Aligns with precedent from Oregon, Montana, and Arizona — shows that similar bans have not reduced ballot access while improving integrity, supporting feasibility of the reform.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(h)Reduces judge- and title-shopping by limiting duplicative filings — promotes fairness and consistency in ballot title drafting and judicial review.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
Requires 1,000 verified signatures before filing — may disproportionately burden grassroots, low-resource groups who lack the capacity to verify signatures in advance, potentially chilling legitimate civic participation by limiting early-stage organizing.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)Prohibits per-signature compensation for circulators — may reduce flexibility for small organizations with limited budgets to run signature drives, especially in rural or low-population areas where paid labor is scarce.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(1)Authorizes civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation and attorney fee recovery — could deter frivolous lawsuits but also create chilling effect on legitimate advocacy; small groups may be vulnerable to costly litigation even if ultimately vindicated.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)(ii)Allows courts to award attorney fees to defendants if a citizen’s action is dismissed as frivolous — may discourage genuine citizens from reporting violations due to fear of financial liability, weakening enforcement.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)(ii)Two-year statute of limitations for citizen actions — may be too short for complex investigations into signature-gathering fraud, especially when fraud is concealed or discovered post-election.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)(ii)
Who Is Most Affected
Professional signature-gathering firms and contractors who rely on volume-based pay models will face structural changes to their business model; may reduce profitability or require retooling to hourly/flat-rate compensation.
Grassroots advocacy groups and small-issue coalitions with limited staff or budget may struggle to collect and verify 1,000 signatures before filing, especially in rural areas; may delay or prevent early-stage organizing.
State agencies (Secretary of State, Attorney General, Code Reviser) will benefit from reduced workload on low-quality or duplicative filings, allowing staff to focus on viable measures; net administrative savings likely.
Washington residents who value ballot integrity and fear fraud (especially those who have experienced misleading petitions) may perceive increased trust in the process; however, some may feel disenfranchised if their measure is blocked by technical hurdles.