Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Oaths topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill allowing local jurisdictions to hold swearing-in after election certification
Summary
A bill that would let counties, cities and special districts administer oaths between the final election certification and the day before a term begins was heard; proponents said it eases scheduling and can save local governments money, and speakers clarified the bill does not change the official term start date.
The Senate State Government, Tribal Affairs & Elections Committee on March 21 heard House Bill 1573, a measure that would revise when newly elected local officials may take the oath of office.
William, committee staff, summarized the bill’s change: under current law jurisdictions may administer the oath up to 10 days before the scheduled term start (usually Jan. 1) or at the governing body's last regular meeting before the term begins. The bill would allow the oath to be administered any time between the final certification of the election and the day before the term begins, while retaining the option to swear officials in at the governing body’s regular pre‑term meeting. William noted a fiscal note was not requested.
Representative Lisa Parsley, the bill’s prime sponsor, said the change was requested by county auditors to avoid scheduling ceremonial swearing‑in events between the winter holidays and New Year’s. "This would allow jurisdictions, as soon as the election is certified, to hold their ceremony and avoid costly, inconvenient mass ceremonies between Christmas and New Year’s," Parsley told the committee.
Thurston County Auditor Mary Holland, testifying in support, said the change would allow larger community participation in swearing‑in events without changing when the term of office begins. Committee members asked whether the bill would affect seniority rules; Parsley and staff repeatedly clarified that the bill does not change the official start of office (January 1) and therefore does not alter seniority dates.
The public record showed 16 pro, 0 con non‑testifiers in addition to the in‑person testimony. The committee closed the hearing on HB 1573 and moved to the next item on the agenda.
