AN ACT Relating to requiring senate confirmation of gubernatorial appointments to vacancies on the court of appeals;
Summary
HB1929 would change Washington law governing vacancies on the Court of Appeals by requiring gubernatorial appointees to those vacancies to be confirmed by the state Senate. Under the bill, when a vacancy occurs, the governor may appoint a judge to serve temporarily, but that appointment would be subject to Senate confirmation. If the appointment is made during a regular legislative session, the Senate must vote before adjournment; if made when the legislature is not in session or during a special session, the vote must occur at the earlier of a special session called for that purpose or the next regular session. Confirmation would require a two-thirds affirmative vote of all elected senators.
Impact
The bill would amend the Revised Code of Washington provisions governing judicial vacancies and gubernatorial appointments, creating a new Senate confirmation requirement specifically for Court of Appeals vacancy appointments. It also preserves existing rules that confirmed appointees serve until the vacancy is filled by election and qualification of a successor, and it bars a rejected appointee from being reappointed to the same office for at least two calendar years. The bill further clarifies that appointees rejected by the Senate generally may not be reappointed to the same position for one year, and it limits the governor’s ability to remove certain confirmed appointees before confirmation without Senate consent. Judicial vacancy appointments are treated differently from other gubernatorial appointments, which remain governed by existing confirmation and removal rules.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be a structural oversight proposal focused on legislative confirmation of appellate judicial appointments rather than a controversial policy change with documented public debate in the available record. The bill’s tone is institutional and procedural, suggesting support from sponsors for increased Senate involvement in the appointment process. Because no vote history or transcript is provided, there is no clear evidence of opposition or broad consensus in the available materials.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns separation of powers and the balance between executive appointment authority and legislative oversight. Supporters would favor Senate confirmation as a check on gubernatorial appointments to an important appellate court, while opponents might argue that the requirement could politicize judicial vacancies, delay filling seats, or reduce executive flexibility. The bill also imposes a relatively high confirmation threshold—two-thirds of senators elected—which could be viewed as strengthening legislative control over judicial appointments and making confirmations harder to secure.