HB 2260
In CommitteeHouse
Ballot measure petitions
Concerning requirements pertaining to signatures and addresses of ballot measure petitioners and petition signature gatherers.
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 tightens requirements for initiative and referendum petitions in Washington by requiring circulators to sign declarations and providing their addresses, and by requiring that petitioners’ residence addresses match their voter registration records. It aims to reduce fraud and improve accuracy in signature verification. The changes apply to all types of ballot measure petitions—initiatives to the legislature, initiatives to the voters, and referendum petitions—and take effect on July 28, 2026.
- Requires each petition signature gatherer (circulator) to sign the declaration on every petition sheet they circulate, under penalty of false swearing, and include their full address.
- Mandates that each petitioner’s residence address on the petition must match the address in their voter registration record for the signature to be counted as valid.
- Prohibits counting signatures where the petitioner’s address is missing, mismatched, or incomplete (except for minor errors like missing apartment numbers).
- Clarifies that signatures invalidated due to address mismatches do not invalidate other valid signatures on the same petition sheet.
- Allows use of statistical sampling for signature verification, as long as address verification is included in the sample.
Who is affected
- Petition signature gatherers (circulators) — Must now sign the declaration on each petition sheet they circulate, under penalty of false swearing, and provide their full address on the declaration.
- Ballot measure proponents and campaign staff — Must ensure their petition sheets include the signer’s full residence address (including street, city, and county) as registered with the state, and may see some signatures invalidated if address information is missing or mismatched.
- Secretary of State and county election officials — Will verify petition signatures using a stricter address-matching standard, which may reduce the number of valid signatures counted but improve accuracy.
- Grassroots advocacy groups and initiative proponents — May find it harder to qualify initiatives or referenda due to stricter signature verification rules, especially if petitioners’ addresses don’t match voter records exactly.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (3)
Requiring circulator signatures and addresses improves accountability and enables enforcement against fraudulent petition-gathering practices (e.g., forged signatures, duplicate submissions), thereby enhancing the integrity of the initiative process and reducing opportunities for bad-faith manipulation.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 6(1)(a) and Sec. 6(3)Allowing minor address discrepancies (e.g., missing apartment numbers) to remain valid preserves fairness for voters while reducing unnecessary disqualifications—balancing accuracy with practicality in signature verification.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 6(1)(b)Permitting statistical sampling *with* address verification improves efficiency and consistency in signature review, reducing arbitrary or inconsistent interpretations by local officials and promoting uniform standards statewide.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 6(3)
Potential Concerns (4)
Stricter address-matching requirements may disproportionately invalidate signatures from low-income, mobile, or transient voters—especially renters, students, and seasonal workers—who are more likely to have address discrepancies between their petition submission and voter registration (e.g., due to frequent moves, use of P.O. boxes, or shared housing). This could reduce participation in direct democracy for historically marginalized groups.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 6(1)(a)Paid circulators—many of whom are contract workers for advocacy groups—face increased legal liability (e.g., false swearing penalties) without corresponding protections or compensation adjustments, potentially chilling participation and raising operational risks for grassroots organizations that rely on low-wage canvassers.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2 and Sec. 3–5 (amended declarations)County election officials will face increased administrative burden verifying address matches against voter registration databases, especially in rural counties with limited resources or outdated voter rolls, potentially slowing signature verification and increasing costs despite the bill’s claim of minimal fiscal impact.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 6(1)(a) and Sec. 6(2)While intended to reduce fraud, the bill’s focus on address mismatches may misclassify legitimate voters (e.g., those with temporary housing instability or recent moves) as fraudulent, potentially eroding public trust in election integrity and discouraging civic participation—especially among communities already skeptical of government systems.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 6(1)(a)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income and transient voters—especially renters, students, and seasonal workers—are more likely to have address mismatches between voter registration and petition submissions due to frequent moves, unstable housing, or use of P.O. boxes. This increases the risk of signature disqualification, effectively disenfranchising them from direct democracy.
Paid circulators (often gig workers or contract canvassers) now face personal legal liability for circulator declarations, with no corresponding protections or compensation adjustments. This increases personal risk for low-wage workers who may lack legal support or insurance.
Grassroots advocacy groups relying on volunteer or low-paid canvassers may see higher signature invalidation rates due to address mismatches, especially when targeting marginalized communities. This increases the cost and complexity of qualifying initiatives, favoring well-resourced organizations with robust voter-roll-matching systems.
County election offices—especially in rural or underfunded jurisdictions—will bear added administrative costs to verify address matches across voter rolls, potentially straining limited resources and slowing certification timelines for ballot measures.
Ballot measure proponents (e.g., unions, corporate-backed coalitions, issue campaigns) may benefit from reduced fraud risk, but those relying on high-turnout, mobile populations (e.g., housing justice, labor, youth groups) will face higher disqualification rates, skewing initiative success toward wealthier, more stable demographics.