SB 5035
In CommitteeSenate
Voter education
Concerning voter education during a period in which a jurisdiction is changing the method of selecting candidates.
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 local voting jurisdictions in Washington to run a detailed, multilingual voter education campaign whenever they change how candidates are selected—such as switching from a traditional primary to ranked-choice voting or another alternative method. It sets specific requirements for mailings, websites, hotlines, and community outreach, and gives voters legal tools to enforce compliance.
- Requires local voting jurisdictions to run a public education campaign—including mailings, websites, hotlines, and community outreach—when changing how candidates are selected (e.g., switching to ranked-choice voting or nonpartisan primaries).
- Mandates that education materials be mailed to every voter, translated into all languages required by law, and clearly explain how the new method differs from the previous one.
- Requires a 24/7 online information portal and toll-free hotline available for at least four months before the candidate selection process begins, with multilingual support.
- Requires advertising and education efforts using at least three communication methods per month (e.g., newspapers, digital ads, radio, TV, or community events), with special outreach to groups like schools, disability organizations, and language-minority communities.
- Allows voters to sue in superior court to enforce these requirements before an election (for injunctive relief) or within one year after an election (for penalties up to $25,000).
- Clarifies that all education-related costs—including translation, printing, advertising, and staff time—are the sole responsibility of the jurisdiction making the change.
Who is affected
- Local voting jurisdictions (e.g., cities, counties, special districts) — Must create and fund voter education campaigns—including printed materials, websites, hotlines, and community outreach—when changing how candidates are selected in primaries or other elections.
- Registered voters in affected jurisdictions — Receive detailed, translated voter education materials by mail and have access to online tools and support to understand new voting methods before casting ballots.
- High schools and school districts within affected jurisdictions — May be required to provide instructional materials and staff support to local high schools to help students understand how different voting methods work on the same ballot.
- Voters with limited English proficiency, limited literacy, or intellectual disabilities — May benefit from improved access to multilingual election information and community-based education efforts tailored to their needs.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandated multilingual voter education—including mailings, hotlines, and community outreach—will significantly improve ballot comprehension for voters with limited English proficiency, low literacy, and people with disabilities, reducing disenfranchisement and increasing confidence in election outcomes.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a); Sec. 2(1)(b)(v); Sec. 2(3)(a)(v)Required instructional materials and outreach to high schools will improve civic literacy among youth, helping future voters understand complex ballot structures and avoid confusion in multi-jurisdiction elections—especially important as Washington expands ranked-choice voting.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4); Sec. 2(3)(a)(v)Creates a private right of action for voters to enforce education requirements, providing a legal backstop to ensure transparency and accountability when local jurisdictions change voting systems, strengthening democratic participation.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)-(3); Sec. 2(5)Standardized, mandatory education campaigns will reduce ballot errors and confusion during elections using alternative candidate selection methods (e.g., ranked-choice voting), thereby improving vote accuracy and reducing post-election disputes and recounts.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a)(iii); Sec. 2(3)(a)(v)While costly, the requirement that the *changing* jurisdiction bear all education costs creates a fiscal incentive for jurisdictions to avoid unnecessary or poorly justified changes to voting methods—potentially encouraging more deliberate, evidence-based electoral reforms.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)(v); Sec. 2(2)
Potential Concerns (5)
Local jurisdictions (especially small cities, towns, and special districts) must bear full cost of voter education campaigns—including translation, printing, advertising, and staff time—when changing candidate selection methods, potentially straining already tight budgets without state or federal reimbursement.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a); Sec. 2(4); Sec. 2(3)(a); Sec. 2(5)High schools and school districts may be required to provide instructional materials and staff time to support voter education on new candidate selection methods, diverting limited educational resources and staff capacity from core academic functions.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)(v); Sec. 2(4)The prohibition on suspending or delaying compliance with education requirements (i.e., “may not suspend…or delay a voting jurisdiction’s compliance”) limits courts’ ability to grant interim relief, potentially leaving voters without timely access to accurate information if a jurisdiction is noncompliant close to Election Day.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(c)Penalty caps ($25,000 per jurisdiction, regardless of number of plaintiffs) may be insufficient deterrent for large jurisdictions (e.g., King County) with multi-million-dollar election budgets, reducing enforcement efficacy for systemic failures.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3(3)(a)(ii)The lack of attorney fees for prevailing plaintiffs in injunctive actions (only for penalty actions) may discourage private enforcement, especially by under-resourced advocacy groups, weakening oversight of compliance.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 3(2)(d)
Who Is Most Affected
Must design, fund, and execute multilingual voter education campaigns—including mailings, websites, hotlines, and school outreach—when changing candidate selection methods. This creates significant new unfunded mandates, especially for small or rural jurisdictions with limited staff and budgets.
Will receive detailed, multilingual voter education materials by mail and have access to online tools and hotlines before elections using alternative candidate selection methods. This improves ballot comprehension and reduces confusion, especially for non-English speakers and people with disabilities.
May be asked to provide instructional materials and staff time to support voter education on new candidate selection methods. This diverts limited school resources from core academics and may strain already-overburdened civics teachers.
Will benefit from improved access to multilingual election information, community-based outreach, and tailored support for people with disabilities. The requirement for translation and accessibility aligns with existing federal voting rights obligations but expands them.