AN ACT Relating to reforming the wrongly convicted persons act;
SB 5520 revises Washington’s Wrongly Convicted Persons Act. The bill expands and clarifies who may qualify as “actually innocent” and what counts as “significant new exculpatory information,” and it updates the standards and procedures for filing a compensation claim in superior court. It also specifies how claims may be filed by an agent or personal representative in limited circumstances, requires verification and detailed documentary support, and gives the attorney general authority to concede claims in some cases or seek an evidentiary hearing in others.
The bill also revises the compensation framework for successful claimants. It sets or restates monetary awards for time served in confinement, death-row incarceration, parole/community custody, and related child-support arrears and restitution obligations, while limiting attorney fees and excluding punitive damages. It adds provisions for sealing or vacating conviction records, referral to reentry services, and structured settlement options. The bill further extends filing deadlines for certain claimants, creates a reconsideration path for previously denied claims, and makes the compensation remedy exclusive while preserving other remedies only if the claimant does not pursue this chapter.
In addition to compensation, SB 5520 creates education-related benefits. Public higher education institutions must waive tuition and fees for a wrongfully convicted person and for certain children or stepchildren of that person, subject to residency, age, and credit-limit conditions. The bill also defines key terms such as Washington domiciliary, child, fees, and wrongfully convicted person, and it repeals the prior definition section to replace it with the new framework.
The overall sentiment appears generally supportive but not unanimous. The bill passed both chambers, including strong House and Senate final votes, and it also moved through committee with favorable recommendations. The presence of a House amendment and the Senate’s later concurrence suggest some policy or technical adjustments were needed, but the bill ultimately retained broad legislative support.
The main points of contention likely centered on the scope of eligibility, the evidentiary burden, and the size and structure of compensation. The bill narrows and refines what evidence can establish innocence, allows the attorney general to challenge some claims, and imposes detailed filing requirements and deadlines. It also creates significant fiscal exposure through compensation payments, attorney fees, tuition waivers, and related administrative obligations, which likely explains the amendment in Appropriations and the split votes on final passage.
SB 5520 substantially amends Washington’s wrongful-conviction compensation statutes in chapter 4.100 RCW and related provisions. It replaces the prior definition section, revises claim eligibility and proof requirements, changes court procedures for filing and adjudicating claims, updates compensation amounts and ancillary payments, and adds record-sealing, vacatur, and reentry-service provisions. It also creates new higher-education tuition and fee waivers for wrongfully convicted persons and certain family members, affecting public universities, regional universities, The Evergreen State College, and community and technical colleges.
The bill’s sentiment was generally favorable across the legislative process, with committee and floor majorities in both chambers voting to advance it. However, the final votes were not unanimous, indicating meaningful reservations among some lawmakers. The House amended the bill before final passage, and the Senate later concurred, suggesting the policy was broadly accepted but still required negotiation over details and cost.
The most notable disagreements appear to have involved how broadly to define wrongful conviction and actual innocence, what kinds of new evidence should qualify, and how much deference courts and the attorney general should have in screening claims. Fiscal concerns also likely played a role because the bill increases or clarifies compensation obligations, attorney fee exposure, and tuition-waiver benefits. Some lawmakers may also have been concerned about the exclusivity of the remedy and the waiver of other claims against the state and local governments.