Here’s a couple of figures in mind as you read this.

According to the , every 0.5% change in Amazon’s stock price results in roughly a $1 billion swing for its founder, Jeff Bezos. Bezos ranks second behind Elon Musk on Forbes’ wealthiest list, with a net worth of $204.6 billion compared to Musk’s $388.6 billion.

As I’m writing this, Amazon stock dropped 0.57% for the day, wiping about $1.2 billion off Bezos’s fortune. Did he notice? Probably not. But the state of Washington might have — and you could almost hear the collective groan.

Washington Democrats increased capital gains tax

Over the weekend, state lawmakers approved the Democrat-led , which raises the state’s capital gains tax on large investment sales — like stocks and bonds — from 7% to 9.9%. It’s part of a larger tax package to fill in what the Office of Financial Management says a $16 billion deficit for the operating budget over the next four years.

When the original tax was passed in 2021, critics warned it would drive tech billionaires and millionaires to friendlier states like Florida, where there’s no capital gains or estate tax. According to , which tracks corporate insider stock sales, Bezos stopped selling shares in 2021. Coincidence? Maybe not.

Washington’s capital gains tax started at 7% on gains over $262,000 from stock and bond sales. Pending Governor Bob Ferguson’s approval, the new plan hikes that tax to 9.9% on gains exceeding $1 million.

Jeff Bezos ditched Washington for Florida

At the end of 2023, Bezos announced he was packing up and leaving Seattle for Florida where there are no similar capital gains and estate taxes.

In an Instagram post, Bezos said he wanted to be closer to his parents and his Blue Origin rocket operations. He did not mention taxes – or tax avoidance.

In June 2023, Bloomberg reported that Bezos bought a $79 million mansion in the ultra-exclusive Indian Creek neighborhood near Miami. When exactly he declared Florida his official residence isn’t crystal clear, but if he managed to switch it before 2024, here’s how the math works out:  show Bezos sold 78,541,922 shares of Amazon stock in 2024 — likely his first full year as a Florida resident — at prices bouncing around $200 a share. That would amount to a gain of about $15.7 billion.

If he had still lived in Seattle? Here’s the pain:

• At the old 7% rate, after exempting the first $262,000, he would’ve owed Washington about $1.1 billion in taxes.
• Under the new 9.9% rate, his tax bill would’ve jumped to $1.55 billion.

Let’s put that in perspective:

• That’s more than the entire annual budget of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
• It’s more than the $1.3 billion the state hoped to save by furloughing every state worker for 13 days — a cost-cutting idea that Governor Ferguson floated and then ditched.
• It’s 17% of the controversial $9 billion in new taxes the legislature approved to patch the much-discussed budget deficit.
• It’s about 70% of all the money collected statewide in 2024 under the Climate Commitment Act — a law many blame for the extra 40 to 50 cents per gallon tacked onto gas prices.

Bezos saved big in move to Florida

Bottom line: One man saved a mind-blowing amount of money, and one state lost it — exactly the kind of “wealth flight” supporters of the capital gains tax said wouldn’t happen.

Meanwhile, a proposed wealth tax — aimed at roughly 4,300 people with assets over $50 million — fizzled just days before the session ended. Governor Ferguson, who used to be Attorney General, warned it would be legally risky and said he would reject it.

Speaking at a press conference, Democratic leaders of the House and Senate vowed to bring the proposal back for another shot next year.

But lurking in the tax package awaiting the Governor’s approval is a pair of taxes that critics say can have the same effect on the state as the capital gains tax. It includes a big increase in the Business and Occupation (B&O) tax and a new sales tax on services in the high-tech sector.

Combined the taxes make up more than half of the proposed $9 billion tax plan to balance the budget.

Once again, critics are warning: tax the tech golden goose too hard… and you might just watch it fly south, the same way Jeff Bezos did.

The Republican leadership warned that a flood of new taxes—many introduced or drastically altered in the eleventh hour by democrats, the majority party —could crush Washington’s economy, drive up the cost of essentials like housing and health care, and chase out the very businesses that keep the state running.

Democrats have not responded to the Republican accusations as of Wednesday afternoon.

“If there’s a worse way to do tax policy, I don’t know what it is,” House Minority Leader Rep. Drew Stokesbary (R-Auburn) said. “Taxes are being changed on the fly. Bills with brand-new amendments are dropping just hours before votes, with no fiscal notes, no analysis, and no time for public input.”

Budget bombshells at the buzzer

At the heart of the Republicans’ frustration is the state’s operating budget, which, as of their press conference, remained largely a mystery. Lawmakers complained that even rank-and-file Democrats hadn’t seen the final numbers.

“We’ve been asked to raise taxes without knowing if they’re necessary,” House Deputy Minority Leader Rep. Chris Corry (R-Yakima) said.

They pointed to reports of a striking amendment regarding a tax on nicotine being dropped hours before a House committee meeting, completely overhauling a Senate-passed bill with almost no time for review.

In another instance, a Business and Occupation (B&O) tax bill made it to the House floor without a fiscal note—a basic document that outlines how much money the bill would generate and who it would affect.

“We have no idea who’s being taxed, how much is being raised, or what the impact is,” Stokesbary said. “And yet we’re voting on these bills anyway.”

‘Progressive’ in name, regressive in impact?

Despite early session promises by Democrats to make Washington’s tax system less regressive, Republicans say the opposite is happening. They rattled off a laundry list of tax hikes that they argue will disproportionately hit low- and middle-income residents, including increased Discover Pass fees, higher hunting and fishing license costs, and a new tax on storage units, to name a few.

“Transportation revenues that rely on gas tax increases, vehicle registration fees, tire tax increases, sales tax increases, driver’s license fees, these are all regressive taxes,” Corry said.

Democratic leaders of the House and Senate met with Washington Governor Bob Ferguson on Tuesday for a scheduled one-hour meeting. During a bill signing session after the meeting, the Governor was asked to comment on it. He refused to do so.

MyNorthwest reached out to House Majority Leader Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon (D-Seattle) via a text for a comment about the meeting, but has not received a response.

Behind the curtain: Budget games and political theater

Behind the scenes, Republicans said the real scandal is procedural. Democrats hold the majority in both chambers, and GOP leaders said they’ve used that power to block amendments, keep schedules tight, and ram through changes without giving the public or even fellow lawmakers a chance to weigh in.

“Right now, Democrats have given Republicans a couple of hours to come up with suggestions to amend their tax bills and haven’t allowed Republicans to see what other changes Democrats are going to include. It is an impossible situation,” Stokesbary said.

They also raised alarms about the possible return of the McCleary lawsuit, a legal battle that previously forced the state to overhaul school funding. The proposal would expand local school levies and potentially violate constitutional requirements reaffirmed by the Washington State Supreme Court in that’s been called the McCleary decision.

“In fact, there’s already rumors out there that there’s a handful of schools who have already retained an attorney to initiate that type of a suit,” Senate Minority Leader John Braun (R-Chehalis) said.

Governor’s move: ‘A $12 billion test’

The final wildcard is Ferguson. He’s publicly voiced discomfort with the scale of the all the taxes being proposed—rumored to be somewhere between $10 and $12 billion—but hasn’t said whether he’ll veto it if it lands on his desk.

“I sure hope that he’s willing to stand firm and follow through on the promises he’s made as governor to govern responsibly and in the best interest of all of Washington, and not just the far left progressive base,” Stokesbary said.

And with rumors swirling about a possible special session, Sen. Braun gives a “50-50” possibility of that happening.

On Saturday, Ferguson indicated he would not be opposed to spending a few extra days on matters he deemed appropriate.

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on . Read more of his stories here.

The bill, officially dubbed , passed the House for a second time on Tuesday after no changes were made to amendments added by the Senate. All 29 Democrats voted in favor and all 19 Republicans voted against. It previously cleared the House by a similar partisan split. Ferguson, a Democrat and longtime supporter of stricter gun laws, is expected to sign it into law.

So what does this bill actually do?

In short: if you want to buy a gun in Washington, you’ll need a state-issued permit first—and that’s going to require a lot more than filling out a background check form at your local sporting goods store.

To get a permit under the new law, applicants will have to submit fingerprints, pass a detailed background check, and here’s the kicker, complete a state-certified firearms safety course that now includes live-fire training.

That means every applicant must physically go to a range, handle a gun, and demonstrate basic shooting proficiency. It’s not a symbolic formality either: the concealed carry training specifically requires applicants to fire a minimum of 50 rounds as part of their instruction.

Supporters of the bill say this is exactly the kind of responsible regulation needed to reduce gun violence and prevent untrained individuals from owning deadly weapons.

“You can’t legally drive a car without taking a driving test. Why should someone be able to buy a deadly weapon without proving they can handle it safely?” said Sen. Manka Dhingra (D-Redmond), during a committee hearing on the bill.

The bill also adds new requirements for firearm dealers, who will be prohibited from completing any sale unless the buyer has a valid permit. All firearm transfers—including rifles and shotguns—must now be logged and reported, expanding rules that previously only applied to handguns and semi-automatic rifles.

Washington’s Department of Licensing will retain those transfer records, and the state’s background check program will conduct annual eligibility checks to revoke permits if a holder becomes legally disqualified.

Concealed pistol license requirements

And there’s more: the law also tightens rules for getting a concealed pistol license (CPL), adding its own live-fire training requirement. However, if a person already holds a valid purchase permit, they’ll be exempt from another background check when applying for a CPL.

Exemptions are carved out for law enforcement, military personnel, armed security guards, and private investigators—but they’ll have to show proper ID.

Republican lawmakers blasted the bill as a “backdoor gun registry” and an overreach that punishes law-abiding citizens instead of targeting criminals.

“This bill does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns,” said Sen. Jeff Holy (R-Cheney). “What it does do is create an expensive and bureaucratic system that blocks average citizens from exercising their rights.”

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on . Read more of his stories here.

The state House of Representatives is preparing to roll out a major overhaul to , a transportation funding bill that’s about to get bulked up with a laundry list of tax hikes, fee increases, and infrastructure investments.

The bill, already hefty when it left the Senate, will undergo a turbocharged “” in the House on Wednesday during a meeting of the House Transportation Committee.

While the Senate’s version had a public hearing in that committee on Tuesday, the discussion might end up being somewhat moot. Why? Because this striking amendment—essentially a full rewrite of the Senate bill—can only be proposed during an executive session, not in public hearings.

Here’s what’s being proposed in what is effectively the House’s new version of the bill:

Gas up, pay up

Starting July 1, 2025, the gas tax jumps 6 cents per gallon, bumping the rate from 49.4 cents to 55.4 cents. That part hasn’t changed from the original Senate bill.

Diesel drivers? You’re not off the hook. Diesel sees a 6-cent total hike—3 cents in 2025 and another 3 cents in 2027.

And that’s not the end of it. Beginning in 2026, most fuel taxes will automatically increase 2% per year due to inflation. Diesel gets its own inflation-based increases starting in 2028.

Where’s all that money going? Mostly into the Motor Vehicle Fund, with 2.5% going to cities and another 2.5% to counties—same as in the Senate version.

One notable change? The House version ditches the electric and hybrid vehicle fee increases proposed in the Senate. The Senate had called for boosting the annual fee from $100 to $150 and adding extra charges for new registrations. The House said “no thanks” to that.

Fee-nomenon

Almost every vehicle-related fee is going up. Starting in 2026, truck weight fees will be standardized to $30 per ton. Passenger car weight fees will also increase:

• Up to 4,000 lbs.: Still $35
• 4,001–6,000 lbs.: Now $65
• 6,001–8,000 lbs.: $82.50
• 8,001 lbs. and up: $96

Other fee increases include:

• Title changes: from $15 to $18
• Registration renewals: from $8 to $11

And that abandoned RV fee? It’s going from $6 to $8.

Luxury rides and high-end toys targeted

Got a luxury car habit? Might want to downshift.

Starting January 2026, Washington will impose:

• An 8% tax on vehicles priced over $100,000 (with the threshold increasing by 2% each year).
• A 10% tax on non-commercial aircraft worth more than $500,000.

Trade-ins won’t help you dodge this tax.

Revenue from these luxury taxes will be funneled into the Multimodal Transportation Account, and for aircraft, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Account, though some details still depend on other pending legislation.

Rental car sales tax jumps from 5.9% to 11.9% in 2026, then drops to 9.9% in 2027

The same applies to peer-to-peer car rentals like Turo—not just traditional companies

And don’t forget: a new $1-per-tire fee is coming on retail sales of new vehicle tires. Retailers can keep 10% to cover their costs for tire disposal. The rest goes to the Department of Revenue, which may allocate it to the Department of Ecology for cleaning up illegal tire piles.

Ferries, tolls, and big events—oh my

Washington State Ferries are getting a financial boost. Starting this October, they would tack on a 50-cent capital vessel surcharge, with more increases (10 cents) in 2027 and 2029.

Also, a 3% surcharge will be added to all ferry credit card transactions.

Tolling changes? Say goodbye to the free ride on SR 520’s on- and off-ramps—they’re all going to be tolled.

Stadiums and event venues are getting pulled into this, too. Events at arenas with 17,000+ seats will face a $1-per-head transportation fee starting in 2026. The Senate had proposed a 20,000-seat threshold, which would have spared Climate Pledge Arena—but not anymore.

Cameras, permits, and carbon cuts

Speeding through a work zone? Starting July 2026, it’ll cost you $125, thanks to new automated camera enforcement.

Driver’s license and ID fees are rising, too. From October 1, 2026, an eight-year license goes from $72 to $80, with inflation-based increases each year after that.

In a twist, the House version repeals some climate-focused transportation accounts—but boosts programs like bicycle safety grants and Shared Street projects.

And creates the Sandy Williams Connecting Communities Account, which funds safer walking, biking, and rolling infrastructure in overburdened communities along highways.

And yes, there are even more fee increases sprinkled throughout the bill, not to mention changes to red light camera rules, pedestrian path expansions, and other non-financial transportation policies.

This bill is massive.

The bigger picture

Washington is trying to hold its crumbling transportation system together while pivoting toward a greener, more modern future. Lawmakers argue that these changes are crucial to meet the state’s infrastructure needs, climate goals, and evolving transportation demands.

Critics, though, are already warning that the bill will hit working-class residents the hardest, especially with gas prices and inflation already squeezing wallets.

It’s now up to the House Transportation Committee to approve the changes. If they do, the bill goes to a full House vote. and if approved, heads back to the Senate. If the Senate accepts all the rewrite done by the House, then it’s off to the governor’s desk.

But the reality is—with this many moving parts, it’s unlikely the Senate will rubber-stamp the House rewrite without changes.

And remember—there are just five days left in the session. If lawmakers can’t finish in time, the governor may need to call a special session to get it across the finish line.

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on . Read more of his stories here.

In a 29-20 vote Tuesday, the Senate gave the green light to , which is all about putting more power back in the hands of drivers when they disagree with their insurer over the value of damage to their car.

The House passed the bill with overwhelming support (96-1), and the Senate has now agreed to the House’s amendments, meaning the bill is heading to the governor’s desk.

What’s this bill really about?

At its core, ESB 5721 guarantees your right to an independent appraisal if you think your insurance company is lowballing you on how much your damaged car is worth—and it applies to first-party claims, meaning your insurance covering your vehicle, not someone else’s.

Starting January 1, 2026, every auto policy in the state would have to include a provision that allows either you or your insurer to request an appraisal if you can’t agree on the amount of damage or what your car is worth after a wreck.

Basically, it creates a formal “let’s get a second opinion” system that both sides have to follow.

How does the process work?

Let’s say your insurance company tells you your crumpled front end is worth $2,000 in damage, and you say, “No way, it’s more like $6,000.” With this new law:

• You or your insurer can demand an appraisal.
• Both sides pick a competent and neutral appraiser.
• If the two appraisers can’t agree, they bring in a third-party umpire.
• That umpire is chosen by both sides or, if necessary, appointed by the Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC).
• The result of the appraisal is binding, so there’s no more back-and-forth or drawn-out legal drama.

Under the original version of the bill, if the appraisal showed your damage was at least $500 more than what your insurance company first offered, the insurer would’ve had to pay for your appraisal costs.

But the House removed that aspect. So now, both sides cover their own costs—but the process still beats hiring a lawyer and spending months in court.

Why this matters

People are fed up with AI-generated damage estimates based on a couple of photos. Multiple people testified during the bill’s public hearings that their initial estimates were wildly low, sometimes 50% to 75% less than what actual repairs cost.

“This is about fairness,” said Senator Derek Stanford (D-Bothell), the bill’s lead sponsor.

The Office of the Insurance Commissioner has reported a spike in complaints—88% of them tied to disagreements over car damage value and how claims are handled.

Not everyone’s cheering

Insurance companies are not exactly thrilled.

The Northwest Insurance Council and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association opposed the bill, arguing that it’ll raise costs, slow down claims, and basically open the floodgates to endless appraisals—especially now that even a $500 gap can send things to arbitration.

Now that the Senate’s signed off on the final version, the bill is just one signature away from becoming law. If Washington Governor Bob Ferguson signs it, this new rule kicks in for policies issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2026.

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on . Read more of his stories here.

Each bill barely crossed the finish line—and each one’s controversial enough to spark even more debate as the Legislature scrambles to wrap up the session by Sunday.

One bill takes a big swing at corporate taxes with a major overhaul that critics say could send businesses out of state. Another bill targets EV manufacturers profiting from carbon credits. Another reshapes (but tones down) school tax reform.

Together, the three paint a picture of a Legislature led by Democrats trying to juggle climate goals, school funding, and budget shortfalls—all while dodging a growing storm of political blowback.

Big biz, bigger tax bill

The headline-grabber: , a sweeping corporate tax hike, passed 52–48, with nine Democrats defecting from their rank and joining all republicans in voting against the bill.

The bill adds a temporary 0.5% surcharge on businesses making over $250 million in Washington. Lawmakers say the money is sorely needed for public schools, health care, and social services.

For tech giants (looking at you, Amazon and Microsoft), there’s more.  You will see their Business and Occupation tax rate take a huge jump from 1.22% to 7.5%. Their payment cap also skyrockets from $9 million to $75 million. Big banks aren’t spared either, with their rate rising from 1.2% to 1.5%.

Supporters call it long overdue—a much-needed patch for Washington’s regressive tax code.

Critics? They’re calling it a sledgehammer. Business groups warn it’ll drive companies out of the state and spook future investments.

The bill is set for a final vote in the Senate Ways & Means Committee at 1:30 p.m. Friday, with no public hearing scheduled. It’s on the fast track. If it passes the full Senate before Sunday, it’s off to the governor for his approval—or veto.

Carbon Credit profits? New EV carmaker tax

, the EV credit tax bill squeaked through with a 52–45 vote. Six Democrats joined all Republicans in voting no.

The bill slaps new excise taxes on car manufacturers that either sell or bank more than 25,000 zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) credits per year. Translation? If you’re making serious money off selling the idea of going green, the state wants its cut.

Sold credits get taxed at 2%. Banked ones? A juicier 10% based on average value. The idea is to use that cash to help regular folks afford EVs and to boost charging infrastructure.

Supporters say it’s about fairness, preventing companies like Tesla and Rivian from making a fortune selling credits to automakers that don’t produce EVs themselves.

Opponents warn it could backfire. Taxing what’s essentially a regulatory tool, they argue, might scare off EV investments and raise prices for consumers.

A projects the bill could bring in $78 million over the next two years and a whopping $400 million over the following four.

The bill is set for a final vote in the Senate Ways & Means Committee at 1:30 p.m. Friday, with no public hearing scheduled. It’s on the fast track. If the Senate approves and the governor signs it (there’s an emergency clause), it would take effect immediately.

Education funding overhaul hits the brakes (But doesn’t stop)

Next: started as a bold attempt to revolutionize school funding and ended up as a much tamer version. It passed 50–48, with nine Democrats siding with Republicans in voting no.

Originally, the bill aimed to loosen property tax limits and boost inflation-adjusted funding for under-resourced school districts. But after some intense backroom negotiations, those major reforms got scrapped.

This was supposed to be one of the bill’s cornerstone features, aimed at giving local governments more wiggle room to raise funds for public schools. But now, that part’s gone.

The House also axed a plan to add an “inflation enhancement” that would have helped lower-income school districts raise money when their local property values don’t cut it. Also gone: a specific definition of inflation tied to the Seattle Consumer Price Index. The bill now uses the  Implicit Price Deflator, a more general national economic metric, instead.

Translation? The changes that would’ve potentially given schools more money, especially in areas that struggle to raise funds locally, have been shelved.

Despite those rollbacks, the bill still makes some meaningful updates to the school funding system. The existing $2.50 per $1,000 cap on enrichment levies (that’s local taxes used for extras like arts, athletics, or special programs) stays in place.

But it comes with some tweaks to how the per-student funding cap is calculated—starting in 2031, it’ll jump to $5,035 per student, adjusted annually for inflation. That’s a decent increase from today’s levels, though it’s further down the road and doesn’t bring immediate relief.

The bill shares the same Senate schedule as the big business bill, with a hearing Wednesday and a committee vote Friday.

The bottom line

Three big bills. Three razor-thin votes. And one Legislature clearly straining to solve big problems in a politically divided house.

The wild card in all this? Washington Governor Bob Ferguson—a Democrat, yes, but one who’s shown he won’t rubber-stamp every bill the Democratic-led Legislature sends his way. And with the clock ticking toward Sunday’s deadline, all eyes are on what he’ll do next.

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on . Read more of his stories here.

squeaked through the Senate on Thursday by the slimmest of margins—25 to 24—with five Democratic senators crossing party lines to join all Republicans in voting against it.

So, what does this bill actually do?

If you’re a bar, brewery, winery, nightclub, grocery store, hotel, or even a day spa that hands you a glass of wine while you’re getting a facial (yes, that’s a real permit), you’re about to pay more—sometimes a lot more—to keep pouring drinks.

This bill hikes up fees by 50% for dozens of license types, including those for distilleries, caterers, taverns, and even tasting rooms.

In plain terms: If you legally sell or serve alcohol in Washington, odds are your fees are going up, across the board.

A attached to the bill estimates it’ll bring in more than $18 million over the next two years. And let’s be honest: those extra costs are probably getting passed right along to customers.

The application fee for retail licenses is going up 50%, too. On top of that, the Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) is now required to raise all license fees that were set by rule (not written into law) by that same 50%.

Why now?

Supporters say this is about keeping up with inflation. Most of these fees haven’t been updated since the late 20th century—some go all the way back to the 1980s. So while your rent, ramen, and everything else have gotten pricier, liquor license fees have been chilling in a time capsule.

Democrats, who control both the House and Senate, are also on the hunt for ways to close a budget gap. Other proposals in the mix would raise fees on hunting, fishing, and access to state parks.

But not everyone’s raising a glass.

Opponents argue the bill hits small businesses hardest, especially mom-and-pop distilleries and local bars already fighting to stay afloat amid inflation, supply chain drama, and the lingering effects of the pandemic. During committee hearings, critics slammed the bill for lacking a clear link between the higher fees and any additional services or benefits from the state.

A split decision—literally.

The bill stirred up serious division in both the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee and the Senate Ways and Means Committee, where lawmakers issued clashing reports and several slapped on a “Do Not Pass” or “No Recommendation” label.

The final Senate vote was just as tight—a razor-thin margin that shows how hotly contested this move really is.

Now the bill heads to the House, where it’ll need to move quickly if Democrats want it to help plug the budget hole before the session ends on April 27.

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on . Read more of his stories here.

Ferguson, normally a champion for progressive reforms, didn’t mince words Thursday when reacting to the proposed tax package from House and Senate leaders. In a statement packed with warnings about looming federal cuts and economic uncertainty, Ferguson made it clear: the price tag is just too high.

“At a time of great economic uncertainty and assaults by the Trump Administration on core state services for working families,” Ferguson said, “raising $12 billion in taxes is unsustainable, too risky, and fails to adequately prepare Washington state for the crisis that looms ahead.”

That’s about as close to a veto warning as it gets without him actually using the word.

Democrats dropped a series of new tax proposals on Tuesday, totaling $12 billion. The taxes would target millionaires, large corporations, and EV manufacturers who are selling unused carbon credits for profit.

The five bills are scheduled for their first public hearings on Wednesday, giving supporters and critics barely any time to digest the details. The governor made his statement 10 days before the 105-day session is scheduled to end.

Big retailers would be forced to pre-pay part of their 2027 sales tax liability in 2026—or get slapped with a 10% penalty. The plan also includes increasing the capital gains tax on the sale of stock and investments from 7% to 9.9%.

Lawmakers are trying to close what Governor Ferguson estimates to be a $16 billion budget shortfall, brought on by a swirl of inflation, rising costs, and—if you ask Ferguson—a not-so-helpful federal government. His statement slams the Trump Administration for slashing federal funds, blocking emergency relief requests, and rolling out tariffs that have hit Washington’s trade-heavy economy especially hard.

“Federal funds make up 28% of our state budget,” he said, listing off Medicaid, education, child welfare, and emergency response as just a few of the vulnerable areas.

But while Ferguson gave lawmakers credit for putting in the hours and shifting away from an untested wealth tax, his message was crystal clear: this can’t be the plan.

Republicans have proposed a no-tax, no-cut budget, which Ferguson has also said could be too drastic.

The Democrats’ proposal includes a mix of new taxes and revised rates, but details are still coming into focus. What’s certain now is that it faces serious resistance from the Governor.

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on . Read more of his stories here.

The Washington State Senate gave final approval to on Wednesday, voting 37–12 in favor of a “modernization” of alcohol service in public spaces. It means your favorite street festivals, concerts, and civic events might start to feel a little more like New Orleans or a lively European plaza—fewer fenced-off beer pens, more stroll-friendly sips.

No, it doesn’t eliminate roped-off beer gardens entirely, but it does give local governments the power to allow broader outdoor drinking zones, shared service areas between businesses, and even campus-wide booze zones at public places like Seattle Center. The beer garden just got a glow-up.

And the timing? Conveniently synced with Seattle’s moment in the global spotlight: hosting games for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

Coincidence? Not a chance.

The bill’s expanded alcohol privileges are temporary, running only through December 31, 2027. That gives cities and event organizers a trial window to test looser, more flexible alcohol service setups—before the party officially ends.

So, what exactly changes?

Cities, towns, counties, and even ports can now apply to the state’s Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) to allow alcohol in outdoor public areas—places where drinking is usually off-limits unless you’re fenced in like a zoo animal. Now, those fences could come down, or be swapped out for less rigid barriers or simple ground markings.

Even bigger deal: the bill allows multiple bars, breweries, and restaurants to share a single alcohol service area, whether that’s a street, park, or civic plaza. That means you could stroll through a designated festival zone, drink in hand, without being corralled into a tiny corner.

Local governments are still on the hook for essentials like police patrols, litter control, and signage. And businesses must follow joint operating plans, including rules for security, service limits, and underage drinking prevention. So no — this isn’t some Mad Max booze free-for-all. But it is a major shift.

Beer gardens aren’t going away. This bill just makes them optional instead of mandatory. Want to stick with the old fenced-in model? Go for it. Want to channel a Euro-style plaza vibe? Now you can—at least until the end of 2027.

The bill specifically gives cities with populations over 220,000 the option to use public property like parks, fairgrounds, or Seattle Center, and their perimeters for a legal drinking zone. That includes Seattle, Spokane, and Tacoma. Sorry, Vancouver—with 196,000 residents, you’re not on the VIP list.

Why now?

Seattle is set to host multiple World Cup matches in June and July of 2026. The legislation even carves out expanded alcohol rules for “fan zones” and civic campuses, clearly with mega-sporting events in mind.

Cities can apply for up to 25 special events a year under the new rules, with up to seven of them allowed to be multi-day events (hello, World Cup week!).

And just to keep things fair, caterers and nonprofits can still serve alcohol at public events under special licenses, without those events counting against their existing 12-per-year limit.

The bill is now on its way to the Governor’s desk. He just has to decide if it’s worthy of his signature—and maybe a toast.

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on . Read more of his stories here.

In a high-stakes battle over homelessness policy, the Washington Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, that Spokane voters cannot use the ballot box to rewrite the city’s rules on homeless encampments.

The court said Initiative 2023-4—a proposal to expand the city’s ability to criminalize camping in public places—wasn’t a case of “the people making laws,” but rather the people trying to play city manager. And that, the court said, was an overstep.

What is the controversy?

Back in 2022, Spokane resident Brian Hansen proposed an initiative that would’ve gone way beyond the city’s current policies, cracking down on encampments even if no shelter beds were available.

That’s a major shift, considering Spokane is already part of a state-local partnership, formed under the Homeless Housing Assistance Act (HHAA), that allows camping only when shelters are full.

In other words, the city was playing by a set of state-supported rules, and Hansen’s local initiative wanted the voters to decide.

The Supreme Court said: You can’t do that through a local initiative.

“The Hansen Initiative administers the details of Spokane’s preexisting policy approach,” Justice Gordon McCloud wrote in the court’s opinion. “That makes it administrative, and therefore off-limits for a local initiative.”

This ruling reverses decisions by the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and even the city’s own hearing examiner, who all thought voters had the green light to weigh in. But six of the justices said nope—this is micromanagement, not legislation.

In a sharply worded dissent, Chief Justice Debra Stephens didn’t hold back. Stephens argued the initiative was exactly the kind of new policy that citizens are allowed to make through the ballot box. Unlike past cases about zoning tweaks or changing a street name, the Hansen Initiative marked a major shift in Spokane’s approach to public camping, not just a small adjustment to existing law.

She called out the majority for stretching the definition of “administrative” so far that it undercuts the whole idea of direct democracy.

“The people of Spokane have a right to change course,” she wrote, noting that nothing in state law makes homelessness enforcement a super-regulated area off-limits to voters.

Why is this a big deal?

Washington’s housing and homelessness crisis has been a decades-long saga. Back in 2005, state lawmakers passed the HHAA, launching a partnership between the state and local governments to develop five-year plans to reduce homelessness. In 2018, the crisis hit new highs, so lawmakers added more muscle via the Washington Housing Opportunities Act, with stronger state oversight.

Spokane signed on to all of this. The city crafted a detailed 2020–2025 plan that leaned into outreach, shelter expansion, and data tracking. It included everything from mapping encampments to increasing shelter funding, all while acknowledging a tough truth: Shelters help, but housing ends homelessness.

The Hansen Initiative wasn’t born in a vacuum. It came on the heels of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martin v. City of Boise (2019), which temporarily made it illegal to criminalize sleeping in public if no shelter was available.

Spokane responded by updating its code to comply. Then the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Martin in 2024’s Johnson decision, giving cities more power again. Hansen’s initiative was part of the backlash wave—pushing to go further than even the current city law allows.

But the majority of justices said it is an override of an existing system that was already functioning under state guidance.

For Hansen and those pushing for a tougher stance on homeless encampments, this ruling is a major roadblock. For advocates worried about the criminalization of poverty, it’s a huge relief.

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on . Read more of his stories here.

It’s coming very late in the session as the majority party, the democrats, scramble to find new sources of revenue. The proposal would not be a new tax but more of a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation.

Critics argue it’s taking money that would normally help fund schools and redirecting it to transportation efforts, which are typically paid for with the state’s gas tax.

, backed by bipartisan sponsors—Democratic Sen. Marko Liias (D-Everett) and Republican Sen. Curtis King (R-Yakima)—aims to rebalance how the state splits up its sales tax dollars.

The bill already got a thumbs-up from the Senate Transportation Committee on April 4 and is now up for a hearing in the Senate Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday. That same hearing will also feature testimony on a big package of new revenue proposals, all designed to plug a $16 billion hole in both the general fund and transportation budgets.

Where will the money go?

Starting in July 2027, 0.1% of the state’s 6.5% sales tax would be permanently funneled into the Multimodal Transportation Account. That fund pays for everything from buses and ferries to pedestrian paths and rail systems—basically, anything that doesn’t involve you driving solo to work.

The bill also cancels or delays several previously planned fund transfers. For example, annual $57 million payments from the state’s Public Works Assistance Account and General Fund to transportation programs—part of the 2022 Move Ahead Washington package—are now off the table, at least through 2027. Another $111.9 million that was supposed to support the 2015 Connecting Washington program is also getting the axe.

On top of that, the bill speeds up repayment of some long-delayed tax bills for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and SR 520 Floating Bridge projects. Originally, the state planned to start repaying deferred sales taxes 24 years after the projects were completed (2031 and 2041, respectively). Now, those payments will begin by the end of fiscal year 2026. Toll revenues are expected to eventually reimburse the state’s accounts—by 2032 for Tacoma Narrows, and by 2050 for SR 520.

Supporters say the net effect is more stability. “This is about making sure our budget can handle future bumps while keeping critical transportation investments moving forward,” Sen. Liias said during the committee he chairs. “It’s a balanced, long-term approach.”

Not everyone’s on board. Critics worry this kind of tax-shuffling could hurt schools down the line.

Will schools and other programs suffer?

Andrew Villeneuve, executive director of the Northwest Progressive Institute, testified against the bill, arguing that taking any money out of the General Fund—even just 0.1% of sales tax—puts pressure on other public services, especially education.

“With potential federal cuts looming, now’s not the time to start picking away at funding that supports K-12 schools, colleges, and universities,” Villeneuve warned. “Transportation is important, but not at the expense of our constitutional duty to educate Washington’s kids.”

Supporters counter that the move actually strengthens the operating budget by giving it more breathing room in the short term—about $500 million worth—and helps cover costs in the upcoming 2025–27 biennium.

The bill includes two new $304.7 million General Fund transfers to transportation for the 2027–29 period, likely as a way to soften the financial blow over time.

Bottom line? SB 5802 is a complicated mix of cuts, shifts, and early payments that could reshape how Washington pays for its roads and rails.

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on . Read more of his stories here.

One of the first rules to go? The 24-hour signature hold.

Normally, when a Senate committee votes to move a bill forward, that decision has to sit for a full 24 hours — a built-in grace period meant to give lawmakers time to finalize signatures, weigh their options, and allow for last-minute changes or objections. Think of it as the legislative version of sleeping on a big decision.

But not anymore.

passed on a voice vote, with nearly all Democrats voicing a strong yes and Republicans offering a firm no. The 24-hour hold is now officially waived for the final stretch. If a bill gets the green light from a committee and collects enough signatures on its majority report, it can head straight to the Senate workroom — no pause, no delay, no red tape.

“What we realized this year is that there’s a potential gap for bills that are happening late in the session and are necessary to implement the budget,” Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle) said when introducing the motion on the Senate floor.

Why it matters

This fast-tracking move doesn’t just mean a quicker turnaround — it also opens the floodgates for a final wave of legislation. Lawmakers now have a chance to push through proposals that might otherwise have been stalled by procedural roadblocks.

And it’s not just smaller policy bills getting the express treatment. Budget bills — operating, transportation, capital — were already exempt from the 24-hour rule. But now, all bills and appointments are getting the same privilege.

The is expected to hear several multi-billion-dollar tax proposals just hours after the rule change took effect.

The risk of rushed decisions

But with speed comes risk. Critics argue that bypassing the 24-hour window cuts out an important moment for transparency and collaboration. It limits the time committee members — and the public — have to weigh in before a bill is pushed forward.

Senate Deputy Minority Leader Drew MacEwen (R-Mason County) voiced his opposition, noting that lawmakers are near the end of a grueling 105-day session — and that Democrats had plenty of time to introduce new tax proposals earlier.

“Frankly, it would give the public more time to hear the proposals. To make the rule change now, because it’s been jammed, is inappropriate and a misuse of the rule,” he said.

On Monday, a controversial rule change played out in the House during a five-and-a-half-hour floor debate over — changes to the Parent Bill of Rights.

Back in January, House Democrats tweaked a long-standing rule that had required two-thirds of all senators present to approve setting a floor date for debate. Now, it only takes a simple majority — something the Democrats have in abundance, and Republicans do not.

That new rule was invoked twice — once to end debate on an amendment, and again to close discussion on the final passage of the bill.

Now, with the 24-hour speed bump out of the way, Senate Democrats have cleared one more obstacle to quickly pass legislation before the session’s scheduled end on April 27.

Democrats in Washington state’s House and Senate dropped five brand-new tax bills Tuesday—on Tax Day, of course—that aim to wring more cash out of the state’s wealthiest players and biggest industries.

The target? More funding for schools, clean energy, and public services.

The mood? Less “nickel and dime,” more “fork it over.”

All five bills are scheduled for their first public hearing Wednesday, giving supporters and critics barely any time to digest the details.

It’s all part of a democratic strategy to cover what Washington Governor Bob Ferguson has said is a $16 billion shortfall in tax revenue needed to fund already-existing programs over the next two years. Republicans have already blasted the proposals, saying lawmakers need to reduce spending, not increase taxes.

Here’s what’s on the legislative table:

SB 5814: Sales taxes expand, and big retailers get an early bill

The flashiest bit in this one? Big retailers would be forced to pre-pay part of their 2027 sales tax liability in 2026—or get slapped with a 10% penalty.

Under , any business making $3 million or more in sales during 2026 would have to pay 80% of their June 2027 sales tax by June 25—a full month early. Miss the deadline or underpay? That’s a 10% fine unless you can prove a serious revenue drop.

But that’s not all. This bill also updates the tax code for the digital age:

• Services like IT consulting, website design, advertising, and staffing? Now taxed like retail goods.
• Digital services involving human effort—like live webinars, ad targeting, and data analysis—also get hit with sales tax.
• Non-tobacco nicotine products (think synthetic vapes)? Treated just like tobacco for tax purposes.

Why? Democrats say it’s about fairness, consistency, and creating a more stable revenue stream to support things like health care and education. For businesses, though, it’s a tax buffet—and they’re the main course.

SB 5813: ‘Tax the Rich’ becomes official education policy

puts a big, shiny target on high earners and ultra-wealthy estates.

Remember Washington’s 7% capital gains tax? The tax voters decided in November to keep. This bill adds a new top tier of 9.9% on gains over $1 million, starting in 2025.

No changes to retirement accounts or real estate, but if you’re cashing out stocks or selling a business—yep, you’ll be paying more.

On the estate side: The exemption rises to $3 million (up from just over $2.1M), but the top tax rate jumps from 20% to 35% for estates worth over $9 million.

Where’s the money going? Straight into the Education Legacy Trust Account—which funds K-12 schools, higher ed, early learning, and financial aid programs.

SB 5815: B and O Tax gets beefed up

Big businesses, consider this your formal request to chip in more.

hikes Washington’s already unique Business and Occupation (B and O) tax rates for several sectors:

• Retail, manufacturing, and wholesale: from ~0.48% to 0.5%
• Gambling (aka “contests of chance”): from 1.5% to 1.8%
• High-income service providers (earning over $1M/year): from 1.75% to 2.1%

Then there’s the heavy hitter: a temporary 0.5% surcharge on businesses pulling in more than $250 million in WA-based revenue, with tech companies being the primary target.

Advanced computing companies? Their surcharge would skyrocket from 1.22% to 5%, and the cap on that tax would rise from $9 million to $50 million per year.

Where’s the extra money going? Right into public schools, health care, and social programs. In other words: the state’s biggest earners just got handed the check.

SB 5812: Property taxes get smarter—and schools get the benefit

appears to be a remix of Washington’s school funding formula.

First up: the property tax cap. Instead of a flat 1% growth limit, the new formula ties annual increases to population growth + inflation, with a 3% max. That means growing communities won’t get left behind.

But there’s some confusion about how this pairs with another bill proposing to raise the local portion of property taxes from 1% to 3%.

School districts would also get more room to raise local levy dollars—up to $5,035 per student by 2031, adjusted for inflation.

For poorer districts, the state would chip in more through Local Effort Assistance, adding up to $300 more per student over the next few years.

Special education also gets a major upgrade:

• The current cap limiting SPED services to 16% of enrolled students? Gone in 2028.
• A set portion of basic ed funding will be directly funneled into special ed programs.

Plus, a new workgroup will re-evaluate the entire school funding system, with a report due in late 2025.

Bottom line: This isn’t just a tax hike—it’s a long-term structural play to get schools the money they need, when and where they need it.

SB 5811: Tesla’s free ride on EV credits could be over

If had a motto, it’d be: “If you’re profiting off EV credits without actually putting EVs on our roads—pay up.”

Tesla and other electric-only automakers have made millions by selling off excess Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) credits earned under Washington’s clean car rules. This bill slaps a tax on that hustle:

• Selling credits? 2% tax.
• Banking credits for later? 10% of average credit price, per year.
• Pooling credits to other states? 10% tax—or 50% if you’re not selling enough EVs here.

Small players (those with fewer than 25,000 EVs per model year) are exempt from the first two, but pooled credits? Always taxed.

Where does the money go?

• 30% to EV incentives (rebates, charging stations, etc.).
• 70% to the state’s general fund until 2027, and the carbon reduction fund after that.

In short: Tesla’s cash cow is about to get milked.

Final take

Each of the Senate Bills has a companion bill in the House that could move on a parallel track, but the bills will have to move quickly because the session ends April 27.

This five-bill blitz isn’t just a bunch of tax tweaks—it’s a wave of new revenue-raising policies, layered on top of a half-dozen other proposals already working their way through Olympia.

Democratic lawmakers say it’s about equity, sustainability, and smart public investment. And they’re going where the money is.

So whether you’re a billionaire, a Big Tech exec, a booming business owner, or just a regular property owner, the message from the Democratic majority is loud and clear: It’s time to pay more so the state can spend more.

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on . Read more of his stories here.

In soccer, a red card means a player is immediately ejected from the game for a serious foul or misconduct, and their team has to play with one fewer player.

This all went down Monday, during a marathon five-and-a-half-hour debate over the Parent Bill of Rights—a bill that’s already sparked fireworks this session. At the request of Rep. Monica Jurado Stonier, the House invoked a rarely used procedural maneuver to cut off debate. In doing so, they shattered a 132-year-old tradition that protected open-floor discussion in the chamber.

Let’s rewind

Until recently, House rules required a two-thirds majority—that’s 66 out of 98 lawmakers—to shut down debate on a bill. That rule stood for more than a century. But in late January, the House voted 54-33 to ditch the supermajority requirement. Now, it only takes a simple majority (just over 50%) to pull the plug on floor speeches.

With 59 Democrats and 39 Republicans currently in the House, that rule change gave Democrats a much easier path to wrap up debates—without needing a single Republican vote.

And on Monday, they used that power. Twice.

Wait, what even is the ‘previous question?’

In legislative lingo, “moving the previous question” is basically the political version of saying, “Enough talking—let’s vote already.” It’s a motion to end debate and go straight to a vote, whether on an amendment, a bill, or some other motion.

Four hours into Monday’s debate on , lawmakers were arguing over an amendment to remove the bill’s emergency clause—a provision that would make the bill take effect immediately once signed by the governor and, more controversially, block voters from using a referendum to overturn it.

Republican Reps. Ed Orcutt and Jim Walsh had just finished grilling the clause, even taking a swipe at State Superintendent Chris Reykdal.

That’s when House Majority Floor Leader Representative Monica Stonier (D-Vancouver) had apparently heard enough. She requested a “previous question,” and Speaker Pro Tem Stearns reached for his notes—because, let’s be real, it’s not something they’ve had to do much in the last century.

Here’s how it works:

• At least 1/6 of the lawmakers present must support bringing the “previous question” to a vote. (If all 98 are there, that’s 16 people.)
• Once that threshold is hit, the full House votes on whether to end the debate.
• There’s no debate allowed about ending debate (yes, really).
• If the majority votes yes—boom, debate is over. No more speeches. Straight to the vote.

That’s exactly what happened with the amendment to remove the emergency clause.

Don’t talk about what just happened

Later on, during a debate over a separate amendment, Rep. Jeremie Dufault (R-Selah) tried to bring up the earlier use of the “red card.” Speaker Jinkins immediately cut him off, gaveling him down and insisting he stay on topic. He sat down without continuing.

Hours into the debate, Stonier again moved for the “previous question”—this time to end discussion on the bill itself. Because they were voting on final passage (or a motion to kill the bill, known as “postpone indefinitely”), rules allowed one person from each side to make a final 3-minute pitch.

Rep. Jim Walsh (R-Aberdeen), who called the move “a red card,” gave the Republican rebuttal. Rep. Kristine Reeves (D-Federal Way) delivered the Democratic argument in favor.

The bill passed 57-38. All Democrats voted yes. All Republicans voted no. Three members were excused.

So…why are people mad?

Some lawmakers—especially Republicans and free-speech purists—see the rule change as a muzzle. Cutting off debate feels a lot like saying, “Shhh, your opinion doesn’t matter anymore.” And now, the majority can do it with a simple vote? That’s a power move, no question.

Their argument: “This is a democracy. We should get to speak our minds about the laws we’re passing.”

On the flip side, supporters say: “Debate is fine, but at some point, we’ve got to get things done.” The rule helps prevent floor speeches from turning into filibusters and keeps business moving.

To critics, it’s silencing. To fans, it’s streamlining.

Bottom line: if you hear someone yell “Previous question!” on the House floor, just know what they’re really saying is: “Time’s up—zip it and vote.”

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on .

The vote was 29-19 along party lines and, if signed into law, it would usher in a new era of gun control across the state—including the controversial requirement for a permit to purchase any firearm.

But before gun rights advocates and gun safety supporters get too fired up, here’s the twist: The Senate made some significant changes to the original bill passed by the House in March. So, it’s not a done deal yet. The two chambers will need to hash out the differences—and there are plenty.

So, what’s the bill all about?

At its core, HB 1163 requires anyone who wants to buy a firearm in Washington to first get a permit. That permit won’t be easy to get—applicants will need to pass a certified firearms safety course, undergo a fingerprint-based background check, and pay several fees. And no, just watching a YouTube video on gun safety won’t cut it.

This isn’t just about pistols and semi-automatic rifles anymore. The Senate version expanded the recordkeeping requirements to all firearm transfers, not just specific types. That means every sale, every gift, every transfer—all of it gets logged and tracked by the state.

While the House passed the bill in a 58-38 vote last month along party lines, the Senate had other ideas. Senators added more muscle to the bill, especially around training.

For instance, live fire training means actually shooting a gun under supervised conditions to prove you’re not just booksmart but range-ready. And if you want a concealed pistol license (CPL), you’ll need that live-fire certification too.

Instead of needing it every five years to renew your permit, the new version gives people a full 10-year window.

And it’s not just about getting the permit. The Senate version wants to check every year to make sure permit holders are still legally allowed to own a firearm. If you get convicted of a disqualifying crime, or even have certain types of court orders against you, you can kiss your permit goodbye—and local police will be notified.

Delays and denials

The bill lays out scenarios where dealers will have to hit the pause button on a firearm sale.

If you have an open warrant, pending criminal charges, or mental health red flags, your purchase could be delayed—or denied altogether. And if your permit gets denied or revoked, you’ll get a written notice with the reasons why and instructions on how to appeal.

A permit is valid for five years, but you can start renewing 90 days before or after it expires. Miss that window, and you’ll have to start from scratch.

Who’s exempt?

The bill carves out some exemptions for active-duty military members, police officers, tribal law enforcement, armed security guards, and licensed private investigators — as long as they have proper ID. But even those folks will need to show they’ve had recent firearm training to skip the safety class requirement.

Hunter safety programs run by the Department of Fish and Wildlife will also get an exemption—so long as their courses meet the minimum standards in the law, they’ll count toward your permit training.

Because the Senate changed the bill, it now heads back to the House. Lawmakers there can either accept the changes, or the two chambers can go into conference to negotiate a final version.

Supporters said it’s a common-sense approach to reduce gun violence and make sure people who own guns actually know how to handle them. Critics? They’re calling it government overreach and a potential violation of constitutional rights, saying you shouldn’t have to get a permission slip to exercise a constitutional right.

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on .

In dueling press conferences on Wednesday, Democratic and Republican leaders in the state House and Senate tried to cut through the noise surrounding a controversial proposal that would allow local governments to raise property taxes by up to 3% annually, up from the current 1% cap.

And let’s just say, they’re not exactly thrilled with how the public conversation is playing out.

“There’s a lot of misunderstanding about how property tax works,” said a clearly exasperated Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle) during the Democrats’ weekly press conference. “When you have people mentioning a tripling of the property tax, that is completely inaccurate and false.”

1% cap initiated in 2001

The 1% cap was established by in 2001, reflecting voters’ desire to rein in property tax growth. Although the state Supreme Court struck down the initiative in 2007, the Legislature promptly reinstated the cap during a special session called by then-Governor Chris Gregoire.

Now, Democratic lawmakers want to replace that cap with a formula tied to inflation and population growth, potentially allowing increases of up to 3% per year. They argue the current cap handcuffs local governments trying to keep up with rising costs and growing demand for services.

According to Democratic leaders, the current system is so misunderstood it’s practically chaos. They emphasized that most of a homeowner’s property tax bill doesn’t come from those capped rates set by state or local government—it comes from voter-approved levies. That includes school bonds, fire district levies, and even super-local stuff like seawall repairs.

Pedersen said the proposals on the table are being wildly misrepresented, calling out “demagoguery” and “false claims” fueling fears of giant tax hikes.

Republicans hold press conference

Meanwhile, Republicans held their own press event Wednesday, flanked by landlords, renters, and first-time homebuyers who said they’d be hurt by lifting the lid on property taxes.

Pedersen’s counterpart, Senate Minority Leader John Braun (R-Centralia), didn’t hold back: “It replaces the 1% cap with no cap at all.”

Because the Democratic proposal would tie property tax increases to inflation and population growth, Braun pointed to recent inflation trends, warning taxes could rise “as high as 10% in a single year.”

He added, “It ends up being about $1,000 per person for an average home,” before correcting himself with what he called a more realistic estimate: “Probably closer to double that.”

Republicans argue it’s not just homeowners who’ll feel the squeeze—it’s renters too.

“Housing providers have to pass their costs through to renters,” Braun said, warning the bill could create “an additional $2,000 a year” burden for both groups.

Democrats, however, said Republican math is off.

Pedersen pointed out that even raising the local cap from 1% to 3% would only impact a relatively small portion of a property owner’s overall tax bill.

“So no, unless your house is worth five million bucks, then maybe there would be a $1,000 hike,” Pedersen said.

Democrats are also trying to soften the blow for Washington’s most vulnerable residents. They highlighted that Senate Bill 5798 would offer full property tax credits to low-income seniors and disabled veterans—a first, they said, for the state.

Democrats pushing rent stabilization bill

In a rare moment of bipartisan overlap, Pedersen noted that a few speakers at the Republican press conference had also raised concerns about rising rents. Democrats are pushing a rent stabilization bill that would cap annual rent increases at 7%, a move Republicans are resisting.

Braun, however, pushed back on the idea that the proposed tax change would fix Washington’s regressive tax system—a point Democrats often cite.

“The property tax is regressive. I’m not making that up, that’s just what their study says,” he quipped.

In the end, Democrats’ message was this: Yes, property taxes might go up—but the horror stories are exaggerated. No, this isn’t a sneaky scheme to soak homeowners. And yes, they get that people are nervous. But the fix, they say, starts with a better job at explaining how property taxes work.

The GOP’s message to Olympia? Killing the 1% cap might look like a clever revenue move—but for a lot of Washingtonians, it feels more like a fast track to being taxed out of their homes.

The property tax proposal will be part of a broader Democratic budget rollout expected next week.

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on .

“It’s very likely that no part of our budget will be based on a wealth tax,” said Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle), who led the Senate Democrats’ .

While Democrats tried to put an optimistic spin on their “critical pivot,” the move to axe the wealth tax left plenty of folks—both inside and outside the Capitol—asking: What now?

Turns out, the answer is…a mystery bag of “tools.”

Pedersen said the party already has “plans B, C, and D” in the works, though what those plans include remains mostly under wraps.

“I would anticipate within the next week…we would probably have something along the lines of a plan that we start talking about,” he said.

A budget built on ‘tools’ and cuts

Asked about specifics, Pedersen promised a “set of revenue bills that will need to pass out of both chambers,” but gave little detail beyond that.

The new patchwork of taxes or reforms—affectionately referred to as “tools” by leadership—most likely includes changes to property tax caps, a potential payroll tax on large corporations, and smaller revenue sources like a tax on storage units and hikes in tobacco, nicotine, and gas taxes.

There are other tweaks to the state’s famously regressive tax code, but we won’t know for sure until early next week, Pedersen said.

Representative Monica Jurado Stonier (D-Vancouver) defended the retooling, saying, “Our primary goal is a balanced budget that invests in the things that our constituents care about.”

And while Democrats say this course correction has been in the works for a while, the loss of the wealth tax still stung.

“There’s definitely some disappointment among many of our members as well as many of our constituents,” House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon (D-Seattle) said. “That particular tool is not going to be part of our budget solution this year.”

Still, he insisted that “public pressure is important and welcomed” and that the conversation about taxing the ultra-rich isn’t going away. Just not this session.

Property tax tension

One of the most likely “tools” to get serious floor time is a change to the state’s property tax cap, upping it from a 1% to a 3% growth rate. That move has already triggered heated backlash from Republicans, small property owners, and others who claim they’re being hit from all sides.

“There’s a lot of demagoguery about that proposal,” Pedersen said bluntly, pushing back on claims that property taxes would skyrocket. “To get to a $1,000 change, I think you have to be talking about a home that’s probably worth, what, $5 million at least.”

Senate Democrats are also emphasizing that their bill includes significant tax relief for low-income seniors and disabled veterans.

“We are doing significant tax relief as part of the property tax proposal,” Pedersen noted.

Cuts are coming—But how deep?

With the wealth tax off the table and limited options for big, immediate cash, Democrats admit that deeper budget cuts may be inevitable.

“We are actively considering both each other’s cuts that were not in our own budget and additional potential reductions that we’ve sought from the governor’s office,” Pedersen said. “Simply, they’re not going to get what they want.”

Despite the scramble, party leaders insist they’ll hit their deadline.

“We remain firmly committed to and optimistic that we will get our work done on time,” Pedersen said.

The goal is to pass a final budget by Sunday, April 27.

And if you’re wondering how closely they’re working with Ferguson to avoid last-minute vetoes? The answer is: Very.

“We do not plan to surprise him with anything,” Pedersen said.

For now, the path forward is a blend of cautious optimism and political improv. The wealth tax may be gone, but the hunt for revenue—and a balanced budget that doesn’t spark a voter revolt—is just getting started.

Stay tuned. The “tools” are coming.

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on .

The Senate approved on Tuesday with a 27-21 vote and one senator excused. Two Democrats broke ranks to join all Republicans in opposing the bill, which has become a lightning rod in the debate over how to handle youth in custody.

The House previously passed the bill on March 12 with a 64-33 vote, also with one member excused. Three Republicans crossed the aisle to support the bill alongside all House Democrats.

The legislation now heads back to the House for concurrence on a few minor amendments before landing on Governor Bob Ferguson’s desk.

What does the bill actually do?

At its core, HB 1815 draws a clear line between adult prisons and juvenile detention centers. It changes state law so that facilities run by the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) or county juvenile jails are no longer classified as “correctional institutions” when it comes to prison riot charges.

Why does that matter? Because under current law, even a scuffle between two teens in juvenile lockup can lead to a prison riot charge—a Class B felony that can result in up to 10 years in adult prison.

If the bill becomes law, anyone previously charged with a prison riot offense while in a juvenile facility would be able to:

• Ask a judge to vacate (erase) the conviction or adjudication from their record.
• Seek resentencing if that charge was used to increase their punishment.
• And, going forward, have such incidents handled internally by DCYF as behavioral infractions, not felony crimes.

From riot to rehab

Supporters say it’s high time Washington stopped treating juvenile detention centers like maximum-security prisons.

Senator Claire Wilson (D-Auburn) spoke in favor of the bill before the Senate vote, arguing that juveniles involved in fights or disturbances in youth facilities can still be held accountable—just not under riot laws.

“There are consequences for bad behavior,” Wilson said. “But instead of facing a prison riot charge, juveniles would be charged with more specific crimes, like custodial assaul—a Class C felony—or assault in the first degree, which is a Class A felony.”

Other serious offenses, like arson or escape, can still be charged when appropriate.

The debate has largely centered around Green Hill School in Lewis County—the only youth facility in Washington that still regularly charges teens with prison riot offenses. In some cases, those charges stemmed from fights between just two teens. No planning. No group effort. Just a fistfight, and suddenly they’re branded “rioters.”

Washington is one of only a handful of states that allows riot charges with fewer than three people involved and no requirement that they acted together.

The pushback

But not everyone’s on board. Opponents argue the bill goes too far and risks letting serious misconduct slide.

“Just last week, there were charges for a 25-person riot at Green Hill,” said Senate Minority Leader John Braun (R-Centralia), whose district includes the facility. “While I’d agree that three people might just be a fight, 25 people involved in malicious activity could reasonably be considered a riot.”

Critics also point to the retroactive part of the bill, which allows people to go back and ask the courts to erase past charges, as a potential mess for the legal system.

“This bill sends a very clear message that the inmates are more important than the staff tasked with taking care of them,” Senator Leonard Christian (R-Spokane Valley) said. “When inmates work together to cause a riot in a facility, there needs to be a charge available for that.”

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on .

That’s right—at Tuesday’s weekly , the usual warnings and warnings-about-warnings were still there, but the tone shifted when the talk turned to Democratic Washington Governor Bob Ferguson and his surprising willingness to oppose some of his own party’s long-favored tax ideas, including the controversial wealth tax.

“We finally have a governor who is engaged and cares and has some good ideas,” House Minority Leader Drew Stokesbary (R-Auburn) said, sounding as if he had just spotted a unicorn trotting past the Capitol dome.

The Republican leaders didn’t go full kumbaya, but they were clearly warming up to Ferguson’s more centrist tone—especially his comments at a recent press conference, where he said he would veto a wealth tax and didn’t want to raid the rainy-day fund.

Stokesbary summed it up like this: “He has said plainly that he will veto a wealth tax… and he does not want to make Washington state home to a wealth tax that will kill innovation and kill all future budget growth.”

Now, sure, there was still plenty of shade thrown at Democratic legislative leadership. Republicans accused House and Senate Democrats of being out of step with the broader Washington public and too beholden to their “far-left caucuses.” But when it came to the governor, the tone shifted to something Washington politics hasn’t seen in a while: grudging respect.

They even praised Ferguson for being willing to actually talk to them.

“I very much appreciate that,” said Senate Minority Leader John Braun (R-Centralia) about their recurring sit-downs with the governor. “There are many things we don’t agree on, but there are things we do agree on… he’s been willing to listen to our points of view.”

More on Ferguson’s budget

That’s a big deal in Olympia, where partisan trench warfare has often replaced actual policy debate. For Republicans, the biggest applause line of Ferguson’s press conference last week was his insistence on responsible budgeting—no new taxes, no dipping into emergency reserves, and no banking on rosy revenue projections that might not pan out.

Republican lawmakers repeatedly emphasized that Ferguson is offering Democrats in the legislature a way out—an “opportunity to self-reflect and correct themselves,” Senator Keith Wagoner (R-Sedro-Woolley) said, with just a dash of political snark.

“I hope they take that opportunity the governor has given them,” he added, clearly implying that if the majority party ignores Ferguson’s veto threats, the whole session could go off the rails and land in special session territory.

“I don’t think they (Democrats) want to try to call his bluff because that will send us into a special session for no reason whatsoever,” Stokesbary said. “The question is whether House or Senate Democratic leadership is going to work with the Democratic governor who was elected by the entire state—or if they’re going to cater to the far-left flank of their internal caucus.”

Republicans push back on rent control bill

This more hopeful tone didn’t mean Republicans were rolling over on every issue. When it came to the rent control legislation that passed the House and is on its way to a Senate floor vote, they were back to their usual firebrand selves, calling the current bill “the worst rent control bill on the West Coast.”

They warned it would “kill all the small operators” and send investment fleeing across state lines. Still, even there, they admitted to being open to alternative versions of the bill—especially one that focused on longer notice periods for renters instead of hard caps on rent increases.

So, no, Republicans aren’t switching party affiliations or writing love letters to Bob Ferguson. But they are making it crystal clear: if the Democratic governor is willing to break with his own party on taxes and show signs of moderation, they’re ready to meet him halfway.

At least for now.

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on .

and its Senate counterpart,, go after everything from menthol cigarettes to trendy nicotine pouches like Zyn. At the core, both bills propose the same thing: a statewide ban on the sale of all flavored tobacco and nicotine products — that means e-cigarettes, chewing tobacco, hookah, cigars, menthols, and those sleek little nicotine pouches. If it’s flavored and not just plain ol’ tobacco? It’s out.

Flavored tobacco in Washington could take a hit

Menthol — long marketed as the “cool” and smoother option — is squarely in the crosshairs. Supporters of the bills point to research showing menthol makes it easier to start smoking and much harder to quit, especially among youth and communities of color.

But banning flavors is just the start. The bills also bring the heat on cigarette pricing. They propose slapping an extra $2 in tax on every pack of cigarettes. If passed, Washington would leap into the top tier of states with the highest cigarette taxes going from $3.025 per pack to $5.025.

And it’s not a one-and-done deal — the tax would be tied to inflation and adjusted every three years to keep pace with rising costs.

Other tobacco and vapor products, including alternative nicotine options like Zyn, would also see steep tax hikes — up to 95% of the product’s taxable sales price. That’s no small change for regular users.

Washington bill looks to generate tens of millions of dollars

So far, there’s no official fiscal note on HB 2068, but analysts say it could generate tens of millions of dollars in new tax revenue each year. It’s just one of several last-minute bills Democrats have floated to help patch a projected $16 billion budget deficit over the next four years.

Representative Christine Reeves (D-Federal Way) opened Monday’s public hearing on HB 2068 with a deeply personal story: her mother died from tobacco-related cancer, and Reeves herself suffers from secondhand smoke exposure.

“My mom started smoking when she was nine, and unfortunately, those products ended up causing her to have cancer. She died at 60 because of her lifelong use of these products,” Reeves said.

She added that the bill also includes tax policies to fund youth prevention and adult cessation programs. And as for concerns that folks might just hop over to Idaho or buy from tribal lands to get their fix?

“I think any economist will tell you that, in seeking their addictive behavior, folks will find ways to address that,” she said. “But my goal is not to help generate revenue for Idaho or for the tribes — it’s to prevent our kids from accessing these tobacco products.”

Supporters say bill would have positive impact on public health

Supporters — including school principals and public health officials — say the bill could be a game-changer for public health. They point to data like 83,000 annual smoking-related deaths in Washington.

Casey Brown, representing the Association of Washington School Principals, backed the bill and flagged the ongoing vaping crisis in schools.

“When kids get addicted, it creates issues at school. They meet up in restrooms to vape, toss their vape pens in the toilets, and force already-overloaded school staff to step in with even more discipline,” he said.

Opponents argue bill will lead to smuggling

Opponents — including tobacco industry reps and retail groups — pushed back hard. They warned about the regressive nature of the tax, lost revenue, and a likely spike in smuggling and black-market sales.

Lamont Robinson, who identified himself as an African American menthol smoker, said the ban would unfairly impact Black adults, who disproportionately prefer menthols.

“We’ve already seen illicit markets grow in response to similar bans in places like Massachusetts and California,” he told lawmakers. “Who loses the most? Small business owners — many of them pillars in the African American community.”

Sean da Silva, a member of Washington Smoke Free and a vape shop owner, also testified. He argued that flavored vapes and combustible cigarettes are two totally different beasts.

“Vaping isn’t the same as smoking. It’s far safer,” he told the committee. “We sell to adults. Adults want flavors — they don’t want to taste tobacco. They want to quit tobacco.”

The bill would also stiffen penalties for selling nicotine products to anyone under 21, making it a gross misdemeanor.

shows the public might be on board. A survey by FM3 Research found that 63% of Washingtonians support ending the sale of flavored tobacco products. An overwhelming 86% view tobacco companies unfavorably, and 80% are concerned about young people using e-cigarettes or nicotine pouches.

SB 5803 has been introduced in the Senate, but as of now, no public hearing has been scheduled.

Matt Markovich is the łÉČËXŐľ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on .