AN ACT Relating to protecting the integrity of the state initiative and referendum process by requiring a demonstration of support before issuance of a ballot measure title and authorizing citizen actions for certain signature gatherer compensation violations;
SB 5973 would change Washington’s initiative and referendum filing process in two major ways. First, it would require a sponsor of an initiative measure to demonstrate a minimum level of public support before the Secretary of State may assign a serial number and before the measure can move forward in the drafting and ballot-title process. Under the bill, a sponsor would need to submit a petition with signatures from at least 1,000 legal voters, along with the required filing materials, before filing an initiative to the people or the legislature. The Secretary of State would then verify the signatures, transmit the proposal to the Code Reviser, and issue a certificate of review before the measure could proceed.
Second, the bill would prohibit paying or receiving compensation for signature gathering based on the number of signatures obtained on an initiative or referendum petition. It would still allow compensation that is not tied directly or indirectly to signature counts, but it would make per-signature pay unlawful. The bill also creates a private enforcement mechanism: a person who believes the law was violated could bring a citizen action in superior court, seek civil penalties, and recover attorney fees if successful, while frivolous or bad-faith claims could result in fee shifting against the plaintiff.
The bill would amend multiple sections of Washington election law governing initiative and referendum petitions, including filing requirements, Secretary of State review procedures, and the timing and acceptance of proposed measures. It would add new statutory prohibitions on per-signature compensation for petition circulators and establish civil remedies and penalties for violations. In practical terms, the measure would impose an early threshold for initiative sponsors, increase pre-filing scrutiny, and create new legal exposure for initiative sponsors and signature-gathering entities that use volume-based pay structures.
The bill appears to have received some support in committee, passing the Senate Committee on State Government, Tribal Affairs & Elections on a 4-3 vote for the first substitute bill. The bill text itself reflects a strong pro-integrity, anti-fraud rationale, emphasizing protection of the initiative process from fraud, duplication, and confusion. Overall, the sentiment in the available record is supportive among proponents of election integrity, but not unanimous, suggesting meaningful concern from opponents or skeptics about the added filing burden and restrictions on petition circulation practices.
The main points of contention are likely the new 1,000-signature pre-filing requirement and the ban on per-signature compensation. Supporters frame these provisions as necessary to deter fraud, reduce duplicate or low-support filings, and limit ballot-title manipulation and judge shopping. Opponents are likely to argue that the requirements create a barrier to direct democracy, burden grassroots sponsors, and restrict common petition-gathering business models. The citizen-suit enforcement mechanism may also be controversial because it opens the door to private litigation and penalties against sponsors and circulators.