SB 5850
In CommitteeSenate
Signature gathering
Establishing protections for citizens participating in the initiative and referendum process.
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 strengthens protections for Washington’s initiative and referendum process by banning paid signature gathering, prohibiting interference with petition circulation (including protests within 25 feet), and criminalizing the destruction or improper handling of signed petitions. It also raises penalties for repeat offenders.
- Makes it a gross misdemeanor to pay or receive money or other benefits for signing or not signing a petition, or for soliciting signatures based on the number collected.
- Prohibits threats, harassment, intimidation, or defacing of petitions, and bans protests within 25 feet of someone collecting or signing a petition.
- Bars out-of-state entities from contributing money or resources for signature-gathering services unless properly reported under campaign finance laws (Title 29B RCW).
- Creates a new class C felony for intentionally destroying, altering, or improperly delivering signed petitions (e.g., to someone other than an election official).
- Increases penalties for repeat offenders: a second conviction for unlawful interference becomes a class C felony.
Who is affected
- Petition circulators and signers — People who collect or sign petitions for initiatives or referenda may face criminal penalties if they engage in paid signature gathering or other prohibited activities.
- Campaign committees and advocacy groups — Organizations or individuals who fund or manage signature-gathering efforts—especially out-of-state entities—must ensure compliance with new rules about funding and handling petitions.
- Election administrators — Local election officials and county auditors will need to enforce or report violations related to petition handling and integrity.
- Members of the public engaging in protest or advocacy near petition sites — Protesters or demonstrators near petition circulators may be restricted in where they can gather or express views.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Banning paid signature gathering and quid-pro-quo incentives helps prevent coercion, exploitation, and fraud in the petition process—protecting vulnerable signers (e.g., elderly, non-English speakers, low-literacy individuals) from being misled, pressured, or misled into signing without understanding the measure.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a), (b), (c)Prohibiting threats, harassment, intimidation, and 25-foot protest buffers helps ensure safe, accessible, and dignified participation in civic processes—especially for marginalized communities (e.g., seniors, people with disabilities, racial minorities) who may feel unsafe or intimidated near petition sites.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(d), (e)Criminalizing intentional destruction, alteration, or improper delivery of signed petitions—and requiring proper campaign finance reporting for out-of-state funding—enhances the integrity and transparency of the initiative process, reducing opportunities for fraud and foreign interference.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(f), NEW SECTION Sec. 2Elevating repeat offenses to class C felonies and creating a new felony for petition tampering provides meaningful deterrence and accountability for serious interference—reinforcing public trust in ballot measure integrity and discouraging bad-faith actors from undermining democratic processes.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b), NEW SECTION Sec. 2By protecting the integrity of the initiative process, the bill supports civic education and engagement—particularly for youth and new voters—by reinforcing that direct democracy is a reliable, secure, and respected tool for community-driven change.
EducationPeopleRef: Overview
Potential Concerns (5)
The 25-foot protest buffer zone around petition circulators and signers may unduly restrict peaceful, non-coercive expressive activity in public forums, chilling free speech and assembly rights for protesters who are not engaging in threats or harassment—e.g., individuals holding signs expressing opposing views or distributing literature at a distance that poses no physical interference.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(e)The ban on paid signature gathering—including compensation tied to signature counts—may reduce opportunities for low-income workers and grassroots organizers who rely on such work to support themselves, especially in rural or less-resourced communities where alternative civic engagement jobs are scarce.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a), (b), (c)The restriction on out-of-state funding for signature-gathering services may disproportionately burden small, grassroots advocacy groups that rely on national networks for resources, staffing, and technical support—potentially weakening their ability to mount effective campaigns, especially for less-resourced causes.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(f)Criminalizing petition-related misconduct with escalating penalties (gross misdemeanor → class C felony) may over-criminalize minor or ambiguous conduct (e.g., accidental misdelivery of petitions, well-intentioned but technically noncompliant solicitation), disproportionately impacting low-income individuals and communities of color who are more likely to face prosecution and collateral consequences (e.g., job loss, immigration issues).
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b), NEW SECTION Sec. 2The bill may increase local government costs for prosecution of gross misdemeanors and class C felonies related to petition interference, straining county prosecutor and court resources—particularly in rural counties with limited budgets—though exact fiscal impact is unspecified.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Fiscal Impact section
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income and vulnerable individuals who sign petitions (e.g., seniors, non-English speakers, people experiencing homelessness) benefit from reduced coercion, fraud, and intimidation—making participation safer and more trustworthy.
Grassroots and small advocacy groups may face higher barriers to organizing if they rely on out-of-state funding or paid circulators; however, they benefit from stronger protections against fraud and interference that could invalidate their efforts.
Local election officials gain clearer authority and tools to enforce petition integrity, but may face added enforcement burdens and legal complexities without additional funding.
Protesters and demonstrators may face new restrictions on where and how they can express views near petition activities—even if non-confrontational—potentially chilling otherwise lawful speech in public spaces.
Out-of-state advocacy groups and national political committees may be unable to directly fund or manage signature-gathering efforts unless fully compliant with Washington campaign finance law—limiting their influence but potentially leveling the playing field for local actors.