HB2085 proposes a major structural change to Washington state government by creating a process to divide the state into two “autonomous regions”: a Puget Sound region and a Columbia region. The bill states that western Washington has become more urban while eastern and southwest Washington remain more rural, and it frames the proposal as a response to differing regional philosophies and values. It also cites the Declaration of Independence, Federalist No. 10, and the National Environmental Policy Act as supporting principles for self-government, representation, and the human environment.
The bill would not immediately create new regional governments, but instead establishes a joint legislative task force and two regional committees to study and plan for the possible creation of the regions if Washington voters later approve a constitutional amendment. The task force would include legislative leaders and the lieutenant governor, and the regional committees would include representatives from banking, agriculture, forestry, transportation, energy, environmental interests, tribal governments, legislative staff, and a judicial official. Each committee would evaluate the proposed regional structure, recommend strategies, and report back to the task force, which would develop an implementation plan.
If adopted, the proposal would affect state governance, elections, and the organization of legislative and judicial authority by creating regional governors, legislators, and judges for each autonomous region while keeping Washington a single state for federal election purposes. The bill defines the proposed boundaries for each region, with the Columbia region covering counties east of the Cascades and the Puget Sound region covering counties around Puget Sound and the Olympic Peninsula. It also authorizes joint legislative funding for the task force and committee work, meaning the bill would create new planning obligations and administrative costs even before any constitutional change occurred.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of regional autonomy and decentralization, with the measure presented as a “win-win” for Washington. However, the bill’s premise suggests an underlying political and geographic divide between urban western Washington and rural eastern/southwestern Washington, which is likely the central source of controversy. Because the bill would reorganize state power in an unusual and far-reaching way, likely points of contention include whether the state should be split into autonomous regions at all, whether the proposed boundaries are appropriate, and whether the plan would improve representation or instead deepen regional division.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or vote history to indicate broader support or opposition beyond the bill’s own framing.
HB2085 would amend Washington law by creating a legislative framework to study and plan for a constitutional restructuring of the state into two autonomous regions. It establishes a joint legislative task force and two regional committees, sets their membership and duties, and requires them to develop recommendations and an implementation plan. The bill would also direct state legislative resources toward this study process and define proposed regional boundaries and governance concepts that could affect future constitutional and statutory changes if voters approved them.
The bill text itself is highly affirmative toward the concept of autonomous regions, presenting the proposal as a response to regional differences and as a beneficial reform. Because no committee testimony or votes are available, there is no external record here of support or opposition; the only visible sentiment is the bill’s pro-autonomy framing. The measure appears designed to appeal to concerns about representation and regional identity, while also signaling a significant departure from the current statewide governance model.
The main point of contention is the bill’s proposal to split Washington into two autonomous regions, which raises questions about state unity, representation, and the practicality of regional government. Likely critics would focus on the political and constitutional implications of creating separate regional governors, legislators, and judges, as well as the costs and complexity of the task force process. Supporters would likely emphasize the urban-rural divide, local control, and improved responsiveness to distinct regional interests. The proposed boundaries and the inclusion of specific sectors and tribal representation on the committees could also be debated.