SB 5373
In CommitteeSenate
Even-numbered year elections
Shifting general elections for local governments to even-numbered years to increase voter participation.
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 allows local governments in Washington to hold regular elections in even-numbered years instead of odd-numbered years to boost voter turnout. It amends several existing laws to provide a clear process for jurisdictions to adopt this change, including public hearings, voter approval, and transitional term adjustments. The goal is to align local elections with higher-turnout federal and state contests, making outcomes more representative of the broader community.
- Allows cities, towns, and special purpose districts to move their regular elections from odd-numbered to even-numbered years by adopting an ordinance, charter amendment, or voter-approved initiative.
- Requires jurisdictions that opt to hold elections in even-numbered years to hold two public hearings at least 30 days apart before final adoption, and to transition using a transitional term (one year longer or shorter) to align with even-year cycles.
- All elected positions in a jurisdiction must shift together to even-numbered years if the move is made; the transition must be completed by January 15 of an odd-numbered year to begin in that calendar year.
- If a jurisdiction later repeals the even-year election option, it must transition back to odd-year elections using a one-year-shorter transitional term.
- Amends multiple statutes governing election dates and term lengths for cities, towns, second-class cities, towns, unclassified cities, and code cities to accommodate the new option.
Who is affected
- Residents of local jurisdictions — Residents of cities, towns, and special purpose districts that choose to move elections to even-numbered years may see higher turnout and more representative outcomes, especially younger voters, working/low-income families, and people with disabilities.
- Local government officials and governing bodies — May need to adopt ordinances, hold public hearings, and adjust term lengths to transition elections to even-numbered years; some may later revert to odd-year elections if voters choose.
- County auditors and election officials — Will conduct elections for local offices in even-numbered years if their jurisdiction opts in, potentially increasing voter engagement and reducing costs per election by consolidating with state/federal contests.
- Current and future elected local officials (mayors, councilmembers, etc.) — May experience longer or shorter initial terms during transition, and must follow new rules for staggering terms and election timing.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Aligns local elections with higher-turnout federal/state contests, which is strongly associated with increased voter participation—especially among younger, lower-income, and disabled voters—leading to more representative outcomes and stronger democratic legitimacy for local governance.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(6)Requires public hearings and voter approval (via ordinance, charter amendment, or initiative), ensuring community engagement and democratic legitimacy in the decision to shift election timing—empowering residents to initiate reform through citizen-led initiatives.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(6)(a)May reduce overall election costs by consolidating local elections with state/federal contests, lowering per-voter administrative costs and potentially reducing ballot fatigue—benefiting cash-strapped local governments and county auditors.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Fiscal Impact SummaryEnsures all elected positions shift together, preventing fragmented election calendars and promoting coherent accountability—reducing confusion for voters and improving transparency of local governance.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(6)(c)Provides flexibility in transitional term length (one year longer or shorter), allowing jurisdictions to choose the least disruptive path for their specific governance structure and incumbent schedules.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandates that all elected positions in a jurisdiction must shift together to even-numbered years, reducing local autonomy and preventing piecemeal adoption of the reform for specific offices (e.g., only for mayor or council), which could better suit some jurisdictions’ needs or staggered governance models.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(c)Reversion to odd-year elections requires a one-year-shorter transitional term, which may disrupt continuity for incumbents and create uncertainty during reversion—though rare, this provision adds administrative friction for jurisdictions that later reverse course.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(d)Requires two public hearings at least 30 days apart before final adoption, increasing administrative burden and timeline constraints for jurisdictions seeking to adopt even-year elections—though intended to ensure transparency, this may disproportionately burden small towns with limited staff capacity.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(a)Imposes a hard deadline (January 15 of an odd-numbered year) for adopting the change to begin transition that year, which may compress planning and outreach windows for smaller jurisdictions with limited election administration capacity.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(e)Mandates transitional terms that are either one year longer or shorter, which can create temporary term-length inequities (e.g., a mayor serving five years instead of four), potentially distorting democratic accountability during the transition period.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(b)
Who Is Most Affected
Residents—especially younger, low-income, and disabled voters—are most likely to benefit from higher turnout and more representative outcomes; the reform directly addresses systemic underrepresentation in local elections.
County auditors and election officials may reduce per-election costs and administrative burden through consolidation, though initial transition coordination requires effort; net effect is likely positive due to economies of scale.
Local officials may face transitional term adjustments, but long-term benefits include more representative mandates and potentially stronger electoral legitimacy; no significant net harm expected.
Governing bodies (councils, city councils) must initiate and manage the transition process, incurring short-term administrative costs; however, they gain long-term benefits from more representative voter bases and potentially stronger policy mandates.