Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Places Of Worship topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House panel considers criminal penalties to protect access to places of worship
Summary
SB 5436 would create a gross misdemeanor for willful or reckless interference with access to places of worship and allow civil damages; supporters from faith and civil‑rights groups cited rising harassment, while defense and civil‑liberties groups urged narrowing language to protect lawful protest and avoid weaponization against officers.
The committee heard testimony on engrossed substitute Senate Bill 54 36, which would create a new offense for willful or reckless interference with access to places of worship around services and allow civil remedies and per‑day damages for aggrieved parties.
Lena Langer, counsel to the committee, said the bill mirrors existing state law that protects healthcare facilities and includes prohibited conduct such as physical obstruction of ingress or egress, trespass, repeated telephoning or electronic harassment, and knowingly permitting devices to be used for harassment. The offense would be a gross misdemeanor, and the bill provides for recovery of actual damages, attorney fees and statutory per‑day damages when applicable.
Witnesses from the Anti‑Defamation League, Faith Action Network, Jewish Community Relations Council and Sikh Coalition supported the measure as a targeted safety statute shaped with stakeholder input. Yuval Bernstein (ADL) said the bill is “focused on conduct, not speech,” and cited increasing harassment and threats against houses of worship.
Several witnesses, including Ramona Brandes of the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, warned that the bill’s current language could be applied too broadly, chilling constitutionally protected protest or being weaponized to sue officers or place‑of‑worship agents acting in official capacities. Law‑enforcement representatives requested explicit exclusions for officers acting within their duties and asked for an intent requirement so the law targets deliberate obstruction rather than incidental crowding.
Committee members acknowledged the concerns and signaled they would work on clarifying amendments to address immigration‑enforcement scenarios, agency actions, and the definition of harassment; the bill passed the Senate unanimously and was presented with stakeholder support. Formal action was not taken on Feb. 19.
The committee will accept amendment language on these issues as it prepares for further consideration.
