AN ACT Relating to protecting the sole authority of the legislature to determine and make appropriations;
Summary
HB1880 is a constitutional-style appropriations bill that declares the Washington Legislature has the sole authority to determine and make appropriations of state money. It states that appropriating state funds is exclusively a legislative function and that the Legislature also has sole authority to choose the means of discharging any constitutional or statutory duty. The bill further provides that people or entities seeking declaratory, injunctive, or other judicial relief over alleged violations of constitutional or statutory duties or rights have no remedy that would require the Legislature to make appropriations or payments of state funds above levels contained in an enacted omnibus budget.
The bill also bars courts from ordering the Legislature to redirect appropriated or nonappropriated money or to make any distribution or redistribution of funds. In effect, it is designed to limit judicial remedies that could compel the state to spend money, and to reinforce legislative control over budget decisions and the allocation of public funds.
Impact
If enacted, HB1880 would affect Washington law by adding a new section to chapter 43.88 RCW that expressly limits judicial remedies in cases involving state spending obligations. It would strengthen the Legislature’s position in disputes over constitutional or statutory duties by preventing courts from ordering appropriations, supplemental payments, or fund transfers beyond what the Legislature has already enacted in the omnibus budget. The practical effect would be to narrow the ability of plaintiffs to obtain court-ordered fiscal relief against the state and to reinforce separation-of-powers boundaries around budgeting and appropriations.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a strong institutional defense of legislative power over the budget. The caption and operative language suggest a clear policy preference for preserving legislative control and limiting judicial intervention in fiscal matters. Because no discussion transcript or vote history is provided, there is no documented bipartisan or public sentiment to summarize beyond the bill’s assertive pro-legislature posture.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on judicial remedies. Supporters would view it as protecting the Legislature’s constitutional prerogative to appropriate funds and preventing courts from effectively ordering spending decisions. Opponents would likely argue that it could weaken enforcement of constitutional or statutory rights by denying meaningful remedies when state obligations are found to be violated, especially in cases where funding is necessary to cure the violation. The tension is between legislative budget authority and the judiciary’s role in enforcing legal rights.