Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Government & Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to bar out-of-state military forces unless governor or president permits
Summary
A bill that would prohibit out-of-state military forces from entering Washington without the governor’s permission — except when acting under federal authority — was heard and elicited mixed public testimony Thursday before the Senate State Government, Tribal Affairs and Elections Committee.
The Senate committee on Tuesday heard Substitute House Bill 13 21, which would bar a military force from another state, territory or the District of Columbia from entering Washington to perform military duties unless the governor gives permission or the force is acting under presidential authority.
The bill’s sponsor, Representative Charlotte Mena, said the proposal is intended to protect state autonomy and public safety while leaving federal authority intact. “This only gives us the authority to prevent other state National Guards from coming in. Should the president federalize or order the National Guard from coming in, that is still permissible,” Mena said.
Committee staff described the measure as mirroring language used in several other states. William, a committee staff analyst, briefed members on how the National Guard can operate under three statuses — state active duty, Title 10 federal service and Title 32 hybrid status — and noted the bill contains an emergency clause and no fiscal note was requested.
Nick Feldman, a legislative analyst at the Attorney General’s Office, testified in support and said the language tracks an Idaho law first enacted in 1927 and later amended: “It simply asserts our state's right to restrict militias from other states entering our state without approval from the governor. It does not obstruct our National Guard's mission.”
Opponents at the hearing criticized the bill’s scope. Jeff Pack of Washington Citizens Against Unfair Taxes argued the bill’s language is broad and could implicate citizens’ rights to travel or inadvertently sweep in private militias. “This bill is far, far broader and covers more than just the National Guard,” Pack testified, urging the committee to clarify the measure’s targets.
After public testimony the committee closed the hearing; no formal action or vote was recorded during the session.
The bill references federal law governing National Guard activation and cites examples of similar statutes in several other states; supporters said its intent is to preserve the governor’s discretion absent federal authority.
