SHB 2419
In CommitteeHouse
Address confid./ALJs & OAH
Concerning participation in the address confidentiality program by administrative law judges and staff employed by the office of administrative hearings.
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 adds administrative law judges and staff from the Office of Administrative Hearings to Washington’s Address Confidentiality Program, allowing them to use a confidential address to protect their safety from threats or harassment. It also expands eligibility to include other state-appointed officials and clarifies protections for health care providers and others facing similar risks.
- Adds administrative law judges and staff employed by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to the list of people eligible for the Address Confidentiality Program (ACP).
- Expands eligibility to include individuals appointed to positions under RCW 34.12.030 (which includes certain state-appointed officials) who are targeted for threats or harassment.
- Confirms that applicants must submit a sworn statement under penalty of perjury describing the threat or harassment and their fear for safety.
- Requires the Secretary of State to send a directive to the Department of Licensing to update vehicle, vessel, driver’s license, or identicard addresses for program participants who choose to sign the directive.
- Maintains the existing 4-year certification period with a renewal process established by rule, and prohibits disclosure of the applicant’s real address to reduce risk of harm.
Who is affected
- Administrative law judges and OAH staff — Administrative law judges (ALJs) and staff employed by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) who face threats or harassment in their official capacity can now apply for address confidentiality to protect their safety and the safety of household members.
- Election officials — Election officials who are targeted for threats or harassment related to their duties can continue to apply for address confidentiality under existing law.
- Health care providers and affiliates — Individuals providing or assisting with protected health care services (e.g., reproductive or gender-affirming care) and their family members who face threats or harassment may apply for address confidentiality.
- Criminal justice participants — Criminal justice participants (e.g., witnesses, victims, informants) who face threats or harassment related to their involvement in legal proceedings may apply for address confidentiality.
- Victims of violence or abuse — Individuals who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking, or stalking and fear for their safety or their children’s safety may continue to apply for address confidentiality.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Adding administrative law judges and OAH staff to the Address Confidentiality Program directly enhances their physical safety and ability to perform duties without fear of harassment or retaliation — a critical protection given the increasing politicization of administrative law and rise in threats to government officials nationwide.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1, subsection (1)(e) and (a)(i)(E)Explicit inclusion of health care providers (including those providing reproductive or gender-affirming care) and their family members strengthens protections against targeted harassment and violence, which has increased significantly since *Dobbs* and in response to state-level abortion restrictions — this directly supports provider retention and access to care in sensitive service areas.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1, subsection (1)(d) and (a)(i)(D)Mandating that the Department of Licensing update driver’s license and vehicle registration addresses upon program certification ensures that confidential addresses are consistently reflected in state databases — reducing the risk that a participant’s real address is inadvertently disclosed during routine interactions (e.g., traffic stops, DMV visits), thereby improving operational safety.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1, subsection (4)(a)-(d)Reaffirming and clarifying eligibility for election officials and criminal justice participants strengthens existing protections for individuals who face politically or legally motivated threats — a necessary update in light of documented increases in threats against election workers and witnesses since 2020.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1, subsection (1)(b)-(c)The bill maintains the existing 4-year certification period and renewal process, avoiding unnecessary administrative expansion while ensuring continuity of protection — minimal fiscal impact suggests efficient use of existing infrastructure rather than costly new programs.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1, subsection (3) and fiscal impact note
Potential Concerns (3)
Expanding eligibility to include state-appointed officials under RCW 34.12.030 (including administrative law judges and staff) increases the risk of retaliatory targeting of government employees, especially in politically sensitive roles, without clear evidence that such threats are currently widespread or unique to this group — potentially diverting limited law enforcement and security resources toward a relatively small subset of state employees.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1, subsection (1)(e) and (a)(i)(E)The requirement for the Secretary of State to transmit address-change directives to the Department of Licensing creates a new administrative burden on both offices, requiring staff time and system integration — though the fiscal impact is described as minimal, this may strain already-constrained state IT and administrative resources without dedicated funding.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1, subsection (4)(a)-(d) and fiscal impact noteRequiring a sworn statement under penalty of perjury about threats or harassment may deter some vulnerable applicants (e.g., victims of domestic violence or state-appointed officials fearing reprisal) from applying due to fear of retaliation or distrust of government confidentiality, especially if enforcement of perjury penalties is perceived as selective or inconsistent.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1, subsection (1)(a)(ii) and (a)(i)(E)
Who Is Most Affected
Administrative law judges and OAH staff gain explicit eligibility for address confidentiality, directly enhancing their personal safety and job security amid rising threats to government officials. This is a clear positive impact.
Health care providers (especially those offering reproductive or gender-affirming care) and their families gain stronger legal protections against harassment and doxxing, which has become a growing concern in Washington and nationally. This is a positive impact.
Election officials already had eligibility under prior law; this bill reaffirms and clarifies their inclusion. While not a major expansion, it reinforces existing protections in a politically charged environment — a modest positive impact.
Criminal justice participants (e.g., witnesses, victims) and victims of violence already had eligibility; this bill adds no new protections for them but preserves existing access. Impact is neutral — no regression, but no meaningful expansion either.
State agencies (Secretary of State, Department of Licensing) face minor administrative costs and procedural adjustments, but no new funding is required. The impact is mixed: increased workload without additional resources, though the burden is small per fiscal impact assessment.