Washington 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Civil Rights & Judiciary Jan 16th, 2026

Key Moments

  • HB2248 — House Bill 2248 is presented in a public hearing and explained as a technical cleanup and clarification measure affecting Secretary of State processes. The staff description covers changes to filing fees and reporting requirements, including directing annual license fees over $50 into the Secretary of State’s revolving fund, requiring initial reports from certain entities, clarifying foreign entity registration rules, allowing remote workers in Washington without that counting as doing business, removing a requirement for new certificates to assignees, adding reinstatement procedures for terminated registrations, and limiting certain notarization/authentication actions. The prime sponsor then introduces the bill, characterizes it as a technical cleanup with no new costs or policy shifts, and urges support. Testimony follows, including questions about the trademark transfer provision and an explanation of the related fee language, before the hearing on the bill is concluded.
  • HB2158 — Listed for executive session.
  • HB2158 — The committee enters executive session on House Bill 2158, which amends the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts and incorporates updates for remotely located individuals. Members discuss the proposed substitute, including its purpose of enabling electronic notarization of tangible documents and improving implementation and clarity. A motion is made and restated to report the proposed substitute House Bill 2158, H-2937.1, out of committee with a due pass recommendation. After brief discussion, the chair announces the vote results and confirms that House Bill 2158 passes and is reported out of committee with a due pass recommendation.
  • HB2178 — Listed for executive session.
  • HB2178 — House Bill 2178, which concerns court rules and procedures and revises several areas of law, is introduced to the committee, taken up first after caucus, and ultimately reported out of committee with a due pass recommendation.
  • E.D. Adams — Staff member giving the committee's staff report on House Bill 2248.
  • HB2178 — The committee considers a motion to report proposed substitute House Bill 2178 out of committee with a due pass recommendation, with the discussion centered on the motion and the substitute bill's merits.
  • HB2178 — Reported out of committee with a due pass recommendation after roll-call vote.
  • HB2158 — A motion is made to report the proposed substitute out with a due pass recommendation.
  • HB2158 — The speaker corrects the motion to refer to House Bill 2158.
  • Andrew Barkis — Andrew Barkis opens his remarks by thanking the Chair and Vice Chair and expressing support for the bill; the transcript also contains a misrecognized fragment likely referring to the same speaker, but it does not add a separate topic.
  • Debra Entenman — Representative Debra Entenman is referenced and then speaks in support of the changes, saying they address concerns raised in public testimony.
  • HB2158 — The committee takes an oral vote on Substitute House Bill 2158 and then reports the bill out of committee with a due pass recommendation, with the final mention reiterating that outcome.
  • Jenny Graham — Representative Jenny Graham is noted as excused and remains excused from the vote.
  • Mark Schoesler — Ranking Member Walsh is first acknowledged in the sponsor's opening remarks, then later speaks to ask about the bill’s trademark transfer provision and whether ownership tracking would still be possible.
  • Constance Parbonne / Parbonum / Parbinum — Witness identified as the Public and Government Affairs Administrator for the Secretary of State's Corporations and Charities Division; spelling is uncertain in the transcript.
  • Constance Parbinum — Constance Parbinum, representing the Secretary of State Corporations and Charities Division, testifies in support of the bill and explains that it would provide clearer, plain-language guidance for customers regarding fee-deposit requirements. She notes that the bill does not remove existing trademark tracking measures, but instead mainly cleans up statutory language tied to the $5 fee, and then invites questions about the proposal.