[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6322620,"mediaKeyId","2347138-b120e7fb7633551f983464460ddeea57","parentId",2347138,"title","Committee advances substitute expanding state share of public defense costs to cities, 8-5","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",266000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347138-b120e7fb7633551f983464460ddeea57&start=266&end=266","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347138-b120e7fb7633551f983464460ddeea57/thumbnail_266000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6322620/Washington/Committee-advances-substitute-expanding-state-share-of-public-defense-costs-to-cities-8-5","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322620-1f2a209044b43341a7592d7548731701/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440043&Signature=aH5znET-qGs2j9uO8Jq7KdQ3iqqOkJBvhMWxZ5-~ToVeltf7GxHdbTt~zPBsueLr1GMyrJHm6377mGa0YYkGgFVUeTojBaVnrpzHIMuxYF9BGuw8NW5R9HitUGKhOqcDj24uL5PT5QSQcpK21DK6PGPk3ZpDKmUvWYhYRP~jIzGwbaKiKSWlnusj20c8hcqDPuIU4c8w5SRI5xtLBlgezEGF9hGVv687KdbSgmqOsyrmwARKDrRIa4GofjuQfCZJaA-KzShkiUWR7DeIABZ0yNJKxCbyYWGJqTcgCy~j8AJBqQs0vqUcIBmppDTGyNpMR1~E85Wn-UqmOAx-~5avxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Civil Rights & Judiciary","date","2025-02-19T00:00:00Z","article","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on Feb. 19 reported out a proposed substitute to House Bill 15-92 by an 8-5 vote. The bill addresses who pays for public defense services and expands the state’s responsibility to cities.

Under the proposed substitute, beginning in fiscal year 2026 the state would be responsible for 50% of public defense services provided by cities based on a five-year average of actual public defense expenditures by the cities (looking back from 2024). The state also would pay for any city public defense costs that exceed that five-year average. Rather than a grants program, the Office of Public Defense must distribute city funds on a pro rata basis using the annual number of misdemeanor cases for which a public defender was assigned and which were filed in courts under a city’s jurisdiction.

Representative Peterson urged members to vote yes, calling the measure a “critical piece of policy” and stressing the need to discuss the state’s role in public defense funding. Another member asked for a no vote, citing concerns about the bill’s acceptable uses of supplanted funds, the balance between defense and prosecution workloads and the financial consequences for local attorneys and government budgets.

Staff called the roll after discussion. The committee recorded 8 ayes and 5 nays and reported the substitute with a due-pass recommendation.

Why it matters: the substitute shifts a substantial portion of public defense costs for cities onto the state and changes the funding distribution method, with potential budget implications for state and local governments and for the administration of public defense services.

Next steps: the substitute carries a due-pass recommendation and will move forward to subsequent legislative steps.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Civil Rights & Judiciary February 19, 8:00 am","oneSentenceSummary","A proposed substitute to House Bill 15-92 that would require the state to pay 50% of public defense costs for counties and, beginning in fiscal year 2026, cities based on a five-year average, was reported out of committee 8-5. The Office of Public Defense would distribute city funds pro rata based on misdemeanor case counts.","taxTitle","Civil Rights & Judiciary, House of Representatives, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20256,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6322625,"Committee advances bill to reimburse counties for jail medical malpractice judgments, 10-3",730,234000,964000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347138-b120e7fb7633551f983464460ddeea57&start=234&end=964","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347138-b120e7fb7633551f983464460ddeea57/thumbnail_234000.jpg","/articles/6322625/Washington/Committee-advances-bill-to-reimburse-counties-for-jail-medical-malpractice-judgments-10-3","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322625-62a299ff1b23fc55f97761d49d593837/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440043&Signature=kWX0PRozhed4ha5R3t43vuzDuEnFTa1ZYfElU60Wo-3tiK3t9nFsUgjWtfzXWPyptIXr1tuXJ9cv~3dEb-R~iJxHgUm7ApnVImYP310fjlXxpXchUin6R1Vn37KjhzmuAPBzRtAoNbolHLgO9LynmpObrsO3QPu6BOdDCnXXxJKN-8Bo0IafgKTOUH8iEpkI6MVTRIVFBLPebWU9x-9-2bHq2E4t0clMuCBikebJ3~x~FOZOy5curI3MOxu1Aucqu5lF06h2o2BRvV-OKgN3WwLphWK7gAB6CgoZqumXakHes7cyYFq~sM05ENu~Ti7KI-~Lp1lG5lLcWq~qF3Y-ow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on Feb. 19 reported out House Bill 17-43 by a 10-3 vote. The bill would create a process under which the state reimburses counties for medical malpractice judgments or settlements against community-based healthcare providers delivering healthcare services in jails.

Vice Chair Farvar moved the bill and described it as “incredibly important” to ensure access to and quality of healthcare in jails. Farvar said the legislation would use a reimbursement process to reduce the burden on counties that contract for jail healthcare and noted coordination with the Office of the Insurance Commissioner to study malpractice issues in correctional settings.

Opponents warned that the bill could remove individual liability for providers and shift financial responsibility to other taxpayers. Representative Grama said the measure “takes away responsibility from the actual individuals that may be committing malpractice” and would shift costs to taxpayers. Representative Burnett said the bill addresses a valid concern but recommended further discussion to find better fixes.

After debate, staff called the roll. The committee vote was recorded with 10 ayes and 3 nays; the clerk announced the tally as 10 ayes and 3 nays and the committee reported HB 17-43 with a due-pass recommendation.

Why it matters: counties contract with community-based providers to deliver medical services in jails. The bill’s reimbursement mechanism would affect county budgets, provider risk exposure and potentially the availability of medical providers willing to serve in correctional settings.

Next steps: HB 17-43 will proceed with a due-pass recommendation to subsequent legislative steps per House rules.","House Bill 17-43, which would establish a reimbursement process for medical malpractice judgments or settlements against community-based healthcare providers delivering services in jails, was reported out of committee with a due-pass recommendation by a 10-3 vote after legislators debated trade-offs between access to care and taxpayer liability.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_46":93,"_48":94,"_50":95,"_52":96,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":97,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":98,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6322629,"Committee approves substitute creating task force on criminal insanity and competency, 8-5",515,161000,676000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347138-b120e7fb7633551f983464460ddeea57&start=161&end=676","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347138-b120e7fb7633551f983464460ddeea57/thumbnail_161000.jpg","/articles/6322629/Washington/Committee-approves-substitute-creating-task-force-on-criminal-insanity-and-competency-8-5","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322629-c7f32d83264d803cf09f3f8f1657eda4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440043&Signature=QcJ8DwDaCzdUUXgc1GctJWl8RLKz5vx7cqPM8yZL6vnev21yPk6b4ffof96gfXi-E4XJDjDTGU8DexVtVDS-p-FmBD3~enCU-Yy~XDj2zVPAQzIIdkr~knmcRloDlp8vLoDjnp-OdqjlPsEC4VHlILkY7b7XMa0Xq2EovYIsZhf72VK6RY1CDJ~jU1vHe7qyHDpyHIbZeTaKSgZnmvtg3L1sjJwHbcDdfsO80CF5mF~vDT86C5A3IVHXVwHUqcKH5FijxPs1wBMIlBIWn9a3fA5BfL1Wz0oRqAXWikJK64LP3RXqJzW6MV1EHyKDvD9wIDQJkP2CMwCSzbThYGP8WA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee voted 8-5 on Feb. 19 to report out a proposed substitute for House Bill 13-59, creating a task force to review the state’s laws on criminal insanity and competency to stand trial and to recommend targeted recodification of forensic mental health statutes.

The proposed substitute, offered by Representative Tai, adds three members to the task force: one member designated by plaintiffs’ counsel in the Trueblood litigation, one member representing a behavioral health administrative services organization, and one labor representative designated by the Washington Federation of State Employees. The substitute also adds two sections to the recodification effort, placing RCW 10.77.010 in a definitions section and including RCW 10.77.078 under the competency-to-stand-trial heading.

Representative Tai urged the committee to move the substitute, describing the bill as “work throughout the years” to reduce stigma and improve fairness in how the courts handle defendants with forensic mental health issues. Representative Tannen expressed thanks for the work; Representative Walsh said the substitute risked creating an unwieldy working group, describing concern that “too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the soup.”

Staff called the roll after discussion. The committee vote was recorded as: Representative Taylor (aye); Representative Farvar (aye); Representative Walsh (nay, without recommendation); Representative Abel (nay, do not pass); Representative Burnett (nay, do not pass); Representative Entenmann (aye); Representative Goodman (aye); Representative Graham (nay, do not pass); Representative Jacobson (nay, without recommendation); Representative Peterson (aye); Representative Salahuddin (aye); Representative Tai (aye); Representative Wallin (aye). The clerk announced 8 ayes and 5 nays, and the committee reported the substitute with a due-pass recommendation.

Why it matters: the task force will examine criminal insanity and competency rules and recommend recodification of forensic mental health statutes under topical headings, potentially shaping how the state’s courts and treatment systems address competency and insanity defenses.

Next steps: with the committee’s due-pass recommendation, the substitute will proceed to the next steps in the legislative process per House rules.

","The committee voted 8-5 to report out a proposed substitute for House Bill 13-59, establishing a task force to review laws on criminal insanity and competency to stand trial and to recommend recodification of forensic mental health statutes. The substitute adds three members and recodifies two RCW sections.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_46":105,"_48":106,"_50":107,"_52":108,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":109,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":110,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6322634,"Committee hears bill to create \"impaired driving protection order,\" defers action",410,29000,439000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347138-b120e7fb7633551f983464460ddeea57&start=29&end=439","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347138-b120e7fb7633551f983464460ddeea57/thumbnail_29000.jpg","/articles/6322634/Washington/Committee-hears-bill-to-create-impaired-driving-protection-order-defers-action","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322634-ef1d3fc1610d01949a92bf62e1e93e78/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440043&Signature=HzfWQdKTi~~B2cvSbV8UpKpUqajWVoxsJxuYyt1vgFCFtr7ZO6J~B09uc8EMwOeTVImCaM6Yl7Dv6qPZFgQQ19YzYB7PQ1djobvUdnxfbT7g9H3sK~AbufgAweBpCe3cCZn0gMw36f2DNr7NAzsMruDosxbpnRBM6hJQCL2G-ZmRBFOuEuqYI~0ClMClCKSZSJoc85OktKz-Z7mWjt4CXCJp~OEUyIwksvmlDm10hkOYPO-lqpnQXe3uaw7zODAtXi2d-SsLQnaJcf3dxrw6dbbILPLr7P2KbYH1lwOFIIhlg-fm7y-8EjfemxcZM3i0TkzLA4AjqNqY9FSxsbiWiw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on Feb. 19 discussed House Bill 14-26, a proposal to create a new civil remedy called an impaired driving protection order but deferred executive action.

The bill, as presented to the committee, would establish an impaired driving protection order and included five proposed amendments. Representative Jacobson offered amendments described in the packet that would: remove “interested person” from the list of permissible petitioners and delete the related definition; prohibit the court from ordering, in an ex parte temporary impaired driving protection order, that a respondent install an ignition interlock device or submit to alcohol monitoring or 24/7 sobriety monitoring; and remove provisions authorizing ex parte temporary orders and all references to temporary impaired driving protection orders. A separate amendment by Representative Wallin would remove the requirement that the Criminal Justice Training Commission develop training for law enforcement on impaired driving protection orders and would remove the requirement that all new and current peace officers complete that training.

The bill packet also would provide a right to counsel for respondents: an amendment would state that a respondent has the right to be represented by an attorney at a hearing on an impaired driving protection order and requires the court to appoint counsel at public expense if the respondent cannot afford an attorney or if the cost would cause substantial hardship.

Committee leadership did not put the bill up for executive action during the Feb. 19 session; the committee instead proceeded to other bills on its agenda.

Why it matters: the proposal would create a specialized civil remedy tied to impaired driving and includes procedural protections and limits on temporary ex parte relief and law enforcement training requirements. Those elements affect how courts, law enforcement and potentially affected individuals would interact with the new order if enacted.

Next steps: no executive action was taken on HB 14-26 on Feb. 19. The bill may be scheduled for future committee consideration or amendment, but no date was announced during the hearing.

","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee reviewed House Bill 14-26, which would establish a new impaired driving protection order and included five amendments addressing petitioners, ex parte relief, right to counsel and training requirements. The committee did not take executive action on the bill on Feb. 19.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee advances substitute expanding state share of public defense costs to cities, 8-5

Committee advances bill to reimburse counties for jail medical malpractice judgments, 10-3

Committee approves substitute creating task force on criminal insanity and competency, 8-5

Committee hears bill to create "impaired driving protection order," defers action