Committee considers HB 1750 to add explicit ban on voter suppression to Washington Voting Rights Act

House Bill 1750 would amend the Washington Voting Rights Act (WVRA) to prohibit election practices that “result in, are likely to result in, or are intended to result in a material disparate burden” on members of a protected class, Representative Natasha Hill (3rd Legislative District) told the committee.

Desiree Omley, Office of Program Research staff, said the bill expands the WVRA’s reach by adding “election policy or practice” (including prerequisites to voting and methods of election) to the statute’s definitional framework, and by providing a separate cause of action for voter suppression or “abridgment” claims alongside existing vote-dilution claims. The bill would allow challengers to seek preliminary relief for upcoming elections and, in those cases, the court must grant relief if the challenger is “more likely than not” to succeed on the merits and an appropriate remedy can be implemented in time. The bill also revises the statute’s procedural timetable in several instances and contains a proposed substitute that narrows some language (staff noted the proposed substitute removes some references to abridgment in one section).

Supporters framed HB 1750 as a technical but necessary update after recent case law. Representative Hill said the Washington Supreme Court in Portugal v. Franklin County recognized that the state statute prohibits vote suppression but that the statute’s cause of action and standards were developed for dilution claims; HB 1750 would provide a predictable standard for suppression claims and align Washington with other states that have enacted similar protections. Advocates from immigrant groups, the ACLU, Campaign Legal Center, and the Legal Defense Fund testified in support, saying federal court rulings (including Brnovich v. DNC) have weakened federal protections and that state law must provide an effective path to challenge discriminatory election practices.

Local government and municipal groups, including the Association of Washington Cities, testified with caution or opposition, saying the bill could increase litigation and create uncertainty for jurisdictions attempting to comply. Candice Bach noted the bill removes intent as a required showing and could expose cities to suits where the city had no discriminatory intent; she also flagged a passage that could limit the “safe harbor” period that currently shields certain remedial actions from challenge for four years. Staff clarified that the bill revises the safe-harbor arrangement: it would continue to apply to dilution claims but the placement of the new abridgment section may raise a discrepancy that requires drafting cleanup.

The bill includes procedural remedies and potential damages limits: the WVRA currently permits limited reimbursement of challenger costs up to $50,000 in some circumstances, and HB 1750 retains or references similar cost provisions for successful challengers. Testimony highlighted that the statute permits private causes of action and coalition claims, and that the new section would not require proof of discriminatory intent.

Committee members asked about the policy tradeoffs between impact-based and intent-based standards. Representative Hill and staff said the bill focuses on disparate effect and avoids requiring proof of intent to discriminate, because intent is often hard to prove and the law is designed to address results on the ground. Staff also noted a proposed substitute available in the bill packet.

The committee closed the public hearing on HB 1750 after testimony from civil rights organizations, municipal associations, and other stakeholders; no committee vote was recorded during the hearing.