Washington State Initiative Process Faces New Restrictions
OLYMPIA, WA – A bill that opponents are calling an “Initiative Killer” is moving forward in the Washington State Legislature, sparking concerns about citizen access to direct democracy. Senate Bill 5973, sponsored by Senator Javier Valdez of Seattle, would impose new requirements on initiative campaigns, potentially making it significantly harder for citizens to place measures on the ballot.
The debate centers around the state’s initiative process, a cornerstone of direct democracy in Washington since 1912. This process allows citizens to propose laws and constitutional amendments, bypassing the Legislature if enough signatures are gathered. As one lawmaker noted, the state constitution designates the initiative process as “the first power reserved by the people.”
Proponents of the bill argue the changes are necessary to prevent fraud and reduce the influence of wealthy donors. Senator Valdez has stated that current rules allow those with substantial financial resources to “bankroll their way through the system” and force statewide votes on issues that may not reflect the broader public interest. Representative Sharlett Mena of Tacoma, a House sponsor of the bill, says the goal is to strengthen, not restrict, citizen participation.
However, critics, including current and former Secretaries of State, warn the legislation could suppress voter participation and create unnecessary barriers to civic engagement. Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, a Democrat, has said the bill would “add another layer of burden.” Former Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican, labeled it a “voter suppression bill.”
The bill contains several key provisions that have drawn criticism. It would prohibit paying signature gatherers by the signature – a common and efficient practice – and instead require hourly wages. This change, opponents argue, would significantly increase the cost of running an initiative campaign. The bill also mandates that campaigns submit 1,000 signatures at the time of filing, before a ballot title is issued and full signature gathering can begin, adding delays to the process. Finally, it would allow third parties to sue initiative campaigns, potentially tying them up in court and further limiting the time available to collect signatures.
Concerns about fraud, a central justification for the bill, appear to be largely unsubstantiated. During a recent committee hearing, a representative from the state teachers’ union was unable to provide a single instance of fraud in Washington’s initiative campaigns over the past 13 years when challenged. According to available data, there have been only a half-dozen cases of fraud in the last three decades, out of millions of signatures collected. These instances were detected either by state elections officials or by the campaigns themselves, with the most recent occurring in 2013.
The push for these changes comes after a series of initiatives presented to the Legislature by citizens in recent years. In 2024, six initiatives were introduced to overturn elements of the state’s agenda and this year, two more have been proposed. Some lawmakers believe these efforts are a challenge to the Legislature’s authority and are seeking to limit the initiative process accordingly.
Prior to this legislation, Democrats have taken steps to limit citizen influence. In 2023, they voted to eliminate “advisory votes” on tax increases, and in 2024, they approved the inclusion of potentially biased statements on the ballot to influence voters.
A total of 10,520 people registered their opposition to the bill on the Legislature’s website when it was considered by the Senate State Government, Tribal Affairs & Elections Committee. Despite this opposition, the committee passed the bill. Votes on the House and Senate floors are expected later this session.
Critics point to Oregon as a cautionary tale, noting that similar legislation in that state tripled the cost of initiative campaigns, effectively limiting access to the process for all but the wealthiest individuals and organizations.
