Washington Senate Bill SB5868

Washington 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/12/26
• Refer: 1/12/26
• Report Pass: 1/22/26
• Refer: 1/23/26
• Report Pass: 2/9/26
• Engrossed: 2/16/26
• Refer: 2/17/26
• Report Pass: 2/25/26
• Refer: 2/25/26
• Report Pass: 3/2/26
• Refer: 3/2/26
• Enrolled: 3/9/26
• Chaptered: 3/25/26
• Passed: 3/25/26

Caption

AN ACT Relating to adding an additional superior court judge in Skagit county and in Yakima county;

Summary

SB 5868 adds one additional superior court judge position in Skagit County and one additional superior court judge position in Yakima County. The bill amends the statutory schedule that sets the number of superior court judges in each Washington county, increasing the authorized judicial complement in those two counties while leaving the rest of the county-by-county allocation unchanged. The measure is a court-administration bill tied to judicial workload and caseload management. By expanding the number of judgeships in Skagit and Yakima counties, it is intended to improve the capacity of those courts to hear cases, reduce delays, and better distribute judicial workload. The bill takes effect June 11, 2026.

Impact

SB 5868 amends Washington’s superior court judge allocation statute, RCW 2.08.061, by increasing the number of authorized judges in Skagit County from four to five and in Yakima County from eight to nine. It does not create new courts or change jurisdiction; it changes the number of elected superior court judges those counties may have. The bill affects county court administration, judicial staffing, and the state’s judicial budget and election structure for those positions.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate committee on Law & Justice unanimously, cleared Senate Ways & Means unanimously, and passed the House committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary and House Appropriations unanimously. Final floor votes were also overwhelmingly favorable, with only one dissenting vote in the Senate and unanimous House final passage. The voting pattern suggests general agreement that the additional judgeships were warranted.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive controversy in the available record. The only notable dissent came on the Senate floor, where one senator voted no on final passage, but no committee transcript or recorded debate is available to explain the objection. Given the bill’s focus on adding judicial capacity in two specific counties, any concern would likely have centered on cost, workload justification, or local need, but the available materials do not identify a specific opposing argument or organized opposition.