SB 5013
In CommitteeSenate
Campaign signage map
Establishing a department of transportation map for the placement of campaign signage.
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 requires the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to create and maintain a public map showing where political campaign signs can and cannot be placed along state highways. It ensures signs are only removed if they are in areas the map identifies as prohibited.
- The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) must create and maintain a publicly available map showing where campaign signs are allowed or prohibited along state highways (including interstate, primary, and scenic systems).
- The map must clearly show: (1) state-owned land where signs are allowed, (2) areas within state highway right-of-way where signs are prohibited, (3) nearby private or public land where signs are allowed, and (4) other state-owned land where signs are permitted.
- The map must be posted on the WSDOT website and made easily accessible to the public.
- WSDOT may only remove a campaign sign if the map shows it is in a prohibited area; signs in allowed areas cannot be removed.
Who is affected
- Political candidates and campaign volunteers — Must follow the map when placing campaign signs; signs placed in prohibited areas may be removed by WSDOT
- Political parties and campaign organizations — Must use the map to determine where signs can legally be placed; may face liability for placing signs in prohibited areas
- Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) — Responsible for maintaining and updating the map to reflect where signs are allowed or prohibited
- General public and voters — Benefit from clearer rules and reduced risk of accidental violations when placing signs near roads
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
A publicly accessible, standardized map reduces accidental violations by campaign volunteers and candidates, lowering the risk of signs being placed in hazardous locations (e.g., near sightlines, intersections, or emergency access points), thereby improving driver and worker safety.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)By requiring signs to be removed *only* if the map shows they are in a prohibited area, the bill strengthens protection against arbitrary or politically motivated removals—ensuring due process for sign placement and reducing potential for abuse by local officials or partisan actors.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)Clear mapping of sign placement rules supports civic education efforts by schools and universities, enabling students and teachers to engage in real-world political participation without fear of legal or administrative missteps near state roads.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a), (b), (c), (d)The standardized map reduces the burden on local election officials and law enforcement to interpret and enforce complex signage rules, allowing them to focus on core responsibilities while ensuring consistent application of state law across jurisdictions.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)Small businesses and sole proprietors running local campaigns (e.g., city council, school board) gain confidence in compliant sign placement, reducing risk of fines or legal exposure—especially beneficial for low-resource candidates who lack legal counsel.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(c)
Potential Concerns (4)
The bill shifts enforcement responsibility for campaign sign removal from local jurisdictions (counties, cities) to WSDOT, potentially increasing administrative burden on WSDOT staff and creating new coordination needs with local authorities—though fiscal impact is claimed minimal, operational strain may divert resources from core transportation functions.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(3)The map’s requirement to distinguish between “department-owned land where signs are permitted” and “where signs are prohibited” may create ambiguity for local officials and land managers (e.g., counties managing adjacent parcels), leading to inconsistent enforcement and potential disputes over jurisdiction.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(1)(a), (d)By limiting sign removal to only those in *explicitly prohibited* zones on the map, the bill may reduce WSDOT’s ability to remove signs in emergency situations (e.g., during wildfires, floods, or accidents) where temporary obstruction requires immediate action—even if the sign is technically in a “permitted” zone—potentially compromising public safety response.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3)The bill does not clarify whether “adjoining private or public land where signs are not prohibited due to proximity” includes land where local ordinances *do* prohibit signs—potentially creating conflict between state and local authority, and chilling free expression when individuals fear removal despite believing they are in compliance.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(c)
Who Is Most Affected
Political candidates and volunteers benefit significantly from reduced legal risk and clearer guidance—especially low-income, first-time, or independent candidates who lack resources to navigate ambiguous signage rules. The map lowers barriers to participation in local elections.
While WSDOT gains clarity in enforcement, the agency bears new operational responsibility (map maintenance, public inquiries, potential disputes). However, since costs are claimed minimal and within existing resources, net impact is neutral-to-slightly-negative.
Local governments (counties, cities) benefit from reduced enforcement burden but may face jurisdictional conflicts if local ordinances conflict with the state map. Overall, the bill simplifies enforcement but introduces potential legal gray areas.
The general public gains transparency and fairness—especially voters and community members who place signs for family members or local races. The rule reduces arbitrary removals and promotes equitable access to public space for expression.
Political parties and campaign organizations gain predictability and reduced liability risk. However, large parties with legal teams benefit more than small or grassroots groups—though the bill’s simplicity offsets this somewhat by leveling the playing field for novices.