The wings off the Senate floor were packed Monday, April 21, as Washington lawmakers and staff remembered Sen. Bill Ramos, D-Issaquah, who died suddenly over the weekend.

In a somber moment, those who had worked with Ramos exchanged hugs, tissues, tears and memories. A large portrait of Ramos surrounded by fresh flowers stood near the front of the chamber, where colleagues honored their colleague with a moment of silence.

Ramos died Saturday evening while trail-running with his dog, Sadie, after a day of work in Olympia, wrote his wife, King County Councilmember Sarah Perry, in a statement on Facebook. He was 69.

Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, said Ramos’ death was “a devastating loss for our caucus and for our state.”

“Bill was one of the most kind and joyful people I’ve had the pleasure to work with,” Pedersen said in a statement. “He never let even the most serious matters get too serious. He made you like him the moment you met him.”

Ramos was first elected to represent the Fifth Legislative District in the House of Representatives in 2018 and was recently elected to the state Senate in November. He previously served on the Issaquah City Council.

At a morning bill signing, Gov. Bob Ferguson acknowledged the “shocking loss” of Ramos over the weekend. Ferguson signed a bill that Ramos had worked on, which exempted some Department of Corrections employees from coalition bargaining requirements.

Ferguson said he would send one of the pens used to sign the law to Perry, Ramos’s wife.

“He was a wonderful public servant,” Ferguson said. “More importantly, he was a likeable guy, a kind guy, who was always a joy to be around. We’ll be thinking about him today and for a long time to come.”

Ramos’ death came with just one week left in the Legislature’s scheduled session. Like the rest of the Senate, he had been working on Saturday.

Speaking on a resolution to honor former Secretary of State Ralph Munro, who died last month, Sen. Keith Wagoner, R-Sedro-Woolley, noted Monday morning that he was standing in front of Ramos’ desk, where Ramos had been just two days before.

“I hope you’ll forgive me if I’m a little rattled,” Wagoner said.

Wagoner went on to reminisce about Munro with comments that he said were “even more poignant today.”

“All of us, at some point, will be memorialized in a similar manner, and none of us know the time or the date of that happening,” he said.

A bill that aims to address housing supply and affordability in Washington by lowering parking requirements for new residential and commercial development passed through the state Legislature and will head to the governor’s desk to be signed into law. 

Senate Bill 5184, called the Parking Reform and Modernization Act, would restrict how much parking cities and counties are allowed to require for new development. 

If signed into law, cities with 30,000 or more residents would be prohibited from requiring more than 0.5 parking spaces per new multifamily unit, or more than one parking space per single family home. Cities would be prohibited from requiring any parking for residences under 1,200 square feet, commercial spaces under 3,000 square feet, senior housing, child care facilities or housing classified as affordable. 

The law would also limit restrictions on commercial development to no more than two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. 

In all cases, developers could still choose to provide more parking if they want to. 

The Sightline Institute, a nonprofit research and policy group, celebrated the passage of the bill in a blog post last week as “one of the strongest parking reform packages attempted anywhere in the United States.” 

For decades, many Washington cities have made it illegal to build housing without providing at least one parking space per unit. But parking reform advocates argue that those requirements prioritize cars over people and add unnecessary costs that hinder new housing development. 

“These rules are totally arbitrary,” said Catie Gould, a researcher with Sightline, in an interview last month. “Most cities don’t remember where these ratios came from. They were adopted really quickly in the 1950s and ’60s.” 

Some cities, like Mercer Island, require a “minimum ratio of two parking spaces for each unit” in apartment complexes. Gould argues that doesn’t make sense because nearly 60% of renter households in Washington have just one car or none at all. When developers are forced to build parking spaces that people don’t need, the costs often get passed on to the tenant, Gould said. 

“They’re overbuilding for renters and they’re adding these unnecessary costs that people don’t need,” Gould said. “If we really want to build more housing and open up opportunities for new housing, excessive parking mandates have got to go.” 

The bill was introduced by Sen. Jessica Bateman, D-Olympia. It received pushback from some city officials, who argued that local governments are best suited to make zoning decisions, and that the law would erode local control. 

At a hearing last month, Kennewick Councilmember Jim Millbauer urged lawmakers to “allow cities to develop more locally tailored programs.” 

“Kennewick does not have a transit system that is robust enough to provide efficient service throughout the community,” Millbauer said. “We also live in a rural area, which means more of our residents use a vehicle to get to work or school. Today we are, and for the foreseeable future will continue to be, an auto-centric community.” 

Amendments in the House Local Government Committee scaled back the scope of the law. After passing the Senate with an added exemption for cities with under 20,000 residents, the bill was further narrowed in the House to exempt cities with fewer than 30,000 people. That would allow cities like Mercer Island (pop. 24,742) to continue setting their own parking ratios. The House also added a three-year phase-in period for cities with 30,000 to 50,000 residents and an 18-month phase-in for cities with 50,000 or more residents. 

Gould said she was disappointed by the exemptions for smaller cities. “These rules cause problems in communities of all sizes around the state,” she said. “Nobody has to stop driving for this reform to make sense, we’re trying to provide more opportunities and more choices for people.” 

In a Friday post on Bluesky, Bateman celebrated the bill advancing to the governor’s desk. “Two years ago, parking reform of this magnitude would not have been possible,” Bateman wrote. “Pro-housing advocates have changed the narrative and demanded action.” 

A handful of Washington cities have fully scrapped parking mandates in recent years. Spokane was the first major city to do so — eliminating parking requirements near transit stops in 2023, and then citywide in 2024. 

So far, Spokane’s reforms haven’t spurred dramatic change. Developers are still choosing to provide parking “in almost all cases,” said Spokane Councilmember Zack Zappone while testifying in favor of the statewide bill last month.

“In the majority of cases, they’re still providing at least one space per unit,” Zappone said. “In a few cases, they’re providing a ratio below the one-to-one. In extremely rare cases, they’re not doing any on-site parking at all.”

This article was originally published by the Washington State Standard.

Washington lawmakers are on the cusp of eliminating a special education funding cap, which critics said was straining school finances, hurting students and putting the state at risk of a major lawsuit.

On a 97-0 vote on Wednesday, the House amended, then passed, Senate Bill 5263  to put Washington, for the first time, on a course to fully fund special education in its public schools.

It also adjusted two other funding levers in the bill to drive more dollars for special education to the state’s 295 school districts. All told, roughly $870 million more will be sent out over the next two budgets. That sum is a compromise with the Senate, which wanted to spend closer to $2 billion. 

Rep. Gerry Pollet, D-Seattle, who called the cap “unconscionable and maybe unconstitutional,” said its elimination is “a historic achievement.” It commits the state to amply fund the education of every child with a disability, he said.

Ditching the cap “is the very first step to saying we’re going to fully fund special education. This is going to absolutely help our schools,” said Rep. Travis Couture, R-Allyn, who has three children with individualized education plans, or IEPs — plans developed for every public school student who needs special education services.

“It represents something we should all be proud of,” he said. Couture urged his colleagues to guard against any weakening of the legislation in the final stages of budget talks. 

Also Wednesday, the House passed a Senate bill to send additional dollars to districts to cover materials, supplies and operating costs. These costs, which cover non-employee-related expenses tied to a district’s daily operations, have surged in recent years.

The House amended, then passed, Senate Bill 5192 on an 85-12 vote. It would boost the amount of state funding per student for MSOC to $1,614, an increase of $35. An additional $214.94 is provided for each high school student.

Cap would be removed

Special education is where the gap is largest between what districts receive from the state and what they pay for with local dollars. 

In the 2022-23 school year, districts spent $590 million of local levy receipts to make up the difference, according to a performance audit issued in January by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee.

Washington uses two key mechanisms for determining what a district receives.

First is the cap on the percentage of a school district’s student population that can receive extra dollars for special education services. 

Under current law, the state provides additional funding only for up to 16% of a district’s student population. In other words, if 20% of a district’s population requires special education services, the district cannot get additional money for the remaining 4%.

Second, the state distributes an amount of money for each student enrolled in a school, plus additional dollars for each special education student, under a formula known as the multiplier.

Senate Bill 5263 removes the enrollment cap and increases the multiplier to send more dollars to districts. 

Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, and Senate Minority Leader John Braun, R-Centralia, are the bill’s co-sponsors.

Changes made Wednesday will pump out $870 million to districts over the next four fiscal years, Pollet said.

If House Bill 2049 passes, it will be more, he said. This bill would allow an increase in annual property tax growth from the current 1% cap to the combined rate of population growth plus inflation within a taxing district, not to exceed 3%. This would apply to the state’s property tax, also known as the common schools levy.

The bill would also make other changes that could help districts receive more taxpayer dollars.

A fiscal analysis estimates that uncapping the state property tax would bring in an additional $200 million in the next biennium and $618 million in the 2027-29 budget. School districts collectively could raise another $900 million locally over four years. House Bil 2049 is slated to be voted on Friday in the House Finance Committee.

The Washington State Standard originally published a longer version of this article on April 16, 2025.

This article was originally published by the Washington State Standard.

Plans to offer free breakfast and lunch to all public school students in Washington appear shaky ahead of a Friday deadline in the state Legislature.

About 70% of students in the state’s public schools now have access to the free meals. Reaching 100% would cost about $120 million a fiscal year. With the state facing a budget shortfall in the ballpark of $12 billion over the next four years and lawmakers contemplating other big-ticket education legislation, a bill to carry out the meals expansion is proving to be a heavy lift.

Asked during a press conference Wednesday whether the bill was a good idea proposed at the wrong time, Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, replied: “Yes.”

The Senate already allowed its version of the legislation to lapse last week in the Senate Early Learning and K-12 Education Committee as an earlier deadline came and went.

That leaves a House version — House Bill 1404 — now pending in the Appropriations Committee. That panel must approve the bill by Friday for it to stay alive.

“Given the number of competing demands we have, it’s a challenge, but nothing in House Appropriations is dead until after Friday,” said House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, D-West Seattle.

This expansion of the state’s free school meals program is one of the priorities Gov. Bob Ferguson identified at the outset of his term in January. 

Under the bill, public schools, including charter schools and state/tribal education compact schools, would have to offer free breakfast and lunch to any student who requests it. This would take effect in the 2026-27 school year and the state would reimburse districts for meal costs.

Ferguson, a Democrat, has intervened to move along other legislation this session. A spokesperson for the governor did not respond to questions Wednesday about whether he planned to do the same with the school meals bill.

Lawmakers have been under pressure to pass other pricey school legislation, including bills to boost funding for special education, school operations and transportation. 

The latest versions of these bills, which have been moving in the Senate, would cost around $1.5 billion altogether in the next two-year budget. 

The special education bill, which Pedersen and Senate Minority Leader John Braun, R-Centralia, are co-sponsoring, and another to boost state assistance with school materials, supplies and operations costs, are scheduled for Senate Ways and Means votes on Thursday. 

A bill to strengthen student transportation has had a Ways and Means hearing but was not scheduled for a committee vote as of Wednesday afternoon.

Friday’s deadline is when bills that need to go through fiscal committees, like Senate Ways and Means, must gain approval from those committees in the chamber where the legislation originated. 

Later in the session, lawmakers can revive proposals that die at this deadline, working instead through the budget process. But on the school meals bill, Fitzgibbon said, “If the bill doesn’t pass out of House Appropriations on Friday, then it’s not passing for the year.”

He said a middle-ground option, rather than expanding the program, is “probably paying for the cost of the existing free school meals programs that we’ve already legislated in previous years.” He noted about a $30 million increase would be required just to meet that cost. 

“We very much hope to be funding that as part of our budget,” he said.

Deputy Senate Majority Leader Manka Dhingra, D-Redmond, emphasized that the debate over free school meals needs to be balanced against broader discussions about assisting people with food insecurity in Washington. 

There are also worries about the possibility of federal funding cuts to nutrition programs as Republicans in Congress move ahead with their budget plan.

“It is a much larger conversation,” Dhingra said. “School meals is one part of it.”

The Washington State Standard originally published this article on Feb. 26, 2025.

A vast majority of Washington voters support the idea of capping annual rent increases, creating limits on move-in fees and increasing warning time for renters’ rising costs.  

Those findings come from a new poll of 1,100 registered voters from across Washington conducted by EMC Research Jan. 26 - Feb. 2.

The poll was commissioned by the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, an advocacy group that supports efforts by Democrats to pass a rent stabilization bill in Olympia this session.  

If passed, the new law would limit annual rent increases for existing tenants to 7%, with exceptions for newly constructed buildings and nonprofit affordable housing. There is currently no cap on the amount a landlord can raise the rent. Under the proposed law, a landlord can raise the rent by any amount after a tenant moves out.  

In addition, the bill would cap move-in fees to the equivalent of one month’s rent, limit late fees to 1.5% of the monthly rent and require six months’ notice for any rent increase greater than 3%.  

When asked generally about a bill to limit “excessive rent increases or excessive move-in and late fees,” 52% of poll respondents said they strongly support the idea and 20% said they somewhat support it. That’s compared to 18% who strongly oppose the idea and 9% who somewhat oppose it.  

According to EMC, the idea drew bipartisan support with majority favor by Republican and Independent respondents and 87% support from Democratic respondents.  

Most poll respondents have had personal experience with rising rents. Asked if a rent increase impacted their financial situation, 71% either strongly or somewhat agreed. Another 63% strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement that they’d had to move because the rent got too high.  

Respondents were also asked if their support for the bill would increase or decrease based on certain proposed policies. Eighty percent said they were more likely to support the bill if it required additional notice for rent increases. Another 77% said their support increased if it capped move-in fees. And 76% said they would be more likely to support the bill if it included educational support for landlords to help them comply with the law.  

A Cascade PBS/Elway Poll conducted in late December found similar support for limiting rent increases among registered voters, with 68% of respondents saying they’re in favor.

Last year, a nearly identical rent-cap bill passed out of the House, but failed to get a vote in the Senate amid opposition from Republican and moderate Democratic lawmakers.  

This article was originally published by the Washington State Standard.

When an immigrant faces threats or exploitation by their employer, they often have limited recourse. Law students from Seattle University want to change that, pushing for a state bill to strengthen protections for people facing workplace coercion based on their immigration status. 

“In the last several years, we have been advocating for legislative changes that would help our clients and this is one of those,” said Elizabeth Ford, a law professor who teaches the workers’ rights clinic at Seattle University. 

Sen. Bob Hasegawa, D-Seattle, took up this legislation and introduced Senate Bill 5104 to give workers better tools to avoid workplace threats based on their immigration status and to prevent employers from exploiting the immigration status of employees. 

“It’s a shame that we have to try and find every abusive situation and draft a separate bill to deal with it,” Hasegawa said. 

An example of workplace coercion would be if an employer notes someone’s immigration status and then asks them to work unpaid overtime.

The bill would require the state’s Department of Labor and Industries to investigate complaints of coercion made against employers and would give the agency the authority to impose civil penalties when violations occur. 

When a worker files a complaint, the department will notify the employer. However, language in the bill was added to make personal information from the worker confidential to anyone other than the department and employee. 

“Employers have so much more power than workers, it’s the unfortunate truth,” said Yasmene Hammoud, a law student at Seattle University. “But when you add immigration status to the mix, the power dynamic and the leverage that the employer gains is incredibly disproportionate.” 

Similar legislation passed in New Jersey last year with bipartisan support. 

Concerns came up during committee hearings that the Washington bill may be redundant with existing law. 

Under current law, citizens and noncitizens are entitled to the same standards, rights, and protections in the workplace. Laws on the books protect any worker, regardless of their immigration status, from retaliation. 

Angelo Tadrous, a law student at Seattle University, said the bill is still necessary and noted that workplace coercion differs from retaliation because it happens before an employee raises an issue. Retaliation happens after the employee does so. 

If a worker raises an issue to their employer and the employer responds by withholding wages or rest breaks, that’s retaliation. If this occurs, a worker can file a complaint with the Department of Labor and Industries. 

Most complaints regarding coercion don’t get filed until the employee leaves their workplace. 

“One of the dynamics of coercion is this, that it silences people. And so that there’s a major risk of coming forward, that’s why coercion works,” Ford said. 

The bill was heard on the Senate floor Wednesday and passed on a 40-9 vote. It now awaits action in the House. 

“It’s incredibly important to safeguard [immigrant] rights and well-being to really allow the labor law to do what it was designed to do, and that’s to protect workers across the board, regardless of their immigration status,” Hammoud said.

Jacquelyn Jimenez Romero is a WSU Murrow Fellow who writes for the Washington State Standard, which originally published this article on Feb. 12, 2025. 

Some Democrats in Olympia think employees should have more representation on REI’s board of directors. 

House Bill 1635, sponsored by state Rep. Cindy Ryu, a Democrat from Shoreline, would require any Washington-based consumer cooperative with more than 2,500 employees to reserve two seats on its board of directors for people who work at the co-op. 

The bill doesn’t mention REI by name, but in an interview with Cascade PBS and KNKX last month, Ryu acknowledged that the bill is directed at the outdoor retail company. She wasn’t aware of any other co-ops in Washington it would apply to. (PCC, a large local grocery co-op, has about 1,800 employees, according to a 2024 financial report.) 

Unionized workers at the REI store in Bellingham requested the bill. The Bellingham store is one of 11 REI stores nationwide that have voted to unionize since 2022. None of the unions have reached a contract yet with the company.

REI members vote on board candidates in annual elections. Any REI member is able to nominate themselves to run for a board seat, but bylaw changes in the early 2000s gave the existing board final say over who appears on the ballot. The board’s bylaws also prohibit employees from running for board seats. Unionized workers say the process has grown undemocratic and left them without a voice. 

Several REI employees testified in favor of the bill at a public hearing on Wednesday. 

“REI used to take workers’ experiences into account when making business decisions and every day people used to serve on the board,” said Andrew Soderquist, an REI employee in Seattle. “Now there are no meaningful avenues to share our perspectives or give feedback.” 

Soderquist added that he was shocked to see the REI board recently sign onto a letter supporting U.S Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, a Trump-administration appointee and former governor of North Dakota, who has faced criticism from environmental activists and REI members over his close ties to the fossil fuel industry and a recent order paving the way for oil and natural gas drilling on public lands.

REI responded to members’ criticisms about Burgum this week, saying the co-op had signed the letter “in acknowledgement of his work to champion outdoor recreation, the link between health and nature, and establish the Office of Outdoor Recreation in North Dakota.” The company said it disagreed with his recent order regarding drilling on natural lands, and called on members to sign a petition in opposition.  

An REI spokesperson told Cascade PBS and KNKX that the company did not have a comment on HB 1635. 

Michael Hutchings, a Washington business lawyer who advises corporations and cooperatives on governance, testified against the bill on Wednesday. 

“While this bill may have an admirable goal of elevating employee perspectives to the board, mandating through legislation employee board seats is fundamentally flawed and will create significant problems,” Hutchings said, speaking as an individual. 

Hutchings said he’s concerned that the bill will set a “dangerous precedent” by targeting one specific company and sending a message to other businesses that lawmakers in Washington are willing to “legislatively interfere” in a labor dispute. He also worried that employees who sit on the board would open themselves to conflict-of-interest concerns.  

Unionized REI employees recruited two pro-labor candidates to run in this year’s board of directors election: Shemona Moreno, a Seattle activist who leads the climate nonprofit 350 Seattle, and Tefere Gebre, the chief program officer at Greenpeace and former AFL-CIO executive vice president. 

It’s unclear if either of the union-backed candidates will appear on the ballots this spring. An REI spokesperson said the company never received an application from Moreno, even though Moreno shared a screenshot that appears to show her emailing the board her application material before the deadline. 

The REI board met on Feb. 3 to decide which self-nominated candidates to allow on the ballot. The candidate slate won’t be made public until March 3. In anticipation of Moreno and Gebre being left off the ballot, the REI union is urging members to vote No on whomever the board puts forward. 

Moreno testified in favor of the proposed bill on Wednesday. 

“I was shocked to learn that REI banned workers from the board and still hasn’t reached a fair contract with employees,” Moreno said. “I believe large co-ops should have workers on their boards to make sure they stay true to their founding values.” 

A spokesperson for Rep. Ryu said in an email that if the co-op bill isn’t voted out of executive session next week, it is likely dead for the session.

This story was originally published by the Washington State Standard.

As the Trump administration pursues its hard-line immigration agenda, Democratic lawmakers in Washington are trying to take steps to protect immigrant communities in the state. 

Rep. Sharlett Mena is sponsoring House Bill 1321, which would limit other states’ National Guard troops from deploying in Washington without the governor’s permission — unless they are mobilized by the president. 

“I think the last thing we want to see is folks feeling scared in their communities or feeling like they’re going to get rounded up at work or at school,” Mena said. 

The bill is a response to 26 Republican governors releasing a joint statement in December saying they were “ready to utilize every tool at our disposal — whether through state law enforcement or the National Guard” to support President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. 

“It is my concern that there would be other states wanting to enforce federal immigration law,” Mena said. 

In recent years, states have sent their National Guard troops to other states to support immigration enforcement. 

Two months after former President Joe Biden took office, Texas launched “Operation Lone Star,” aimed at increasing security along the state’s section of the U.S.-Mexico border.

The program, which has cost more than $11 billion to date, has used federal funds and the Texas National Guard. But multiple Republican states, like Florida and Montana, have used their own budgets to send National Guard troops to support Texas. 

The National Guard is a state-based military force when not activated for federal service and is under the command of the state governor and the president of the United States. Some states also have State Guards, which are under state control.

The National Guard operates under three statuses. Under “state active duty” the Guard is under control of the governor in the state where it’s based. Under “Title 10 status” it is under the control of the president and temporarily becomes part of the federal armed forces. And under “Title 32 status” the National Guard is under control of the governor but may perform certain duties specified by Congress or missions requested by the president. 

This bill would only prevent the National Guard from entering Washington when it is being operated under state active duty and Title 32 status. It would not affect Title 10 status, in which a president calls on the National Guard for an operation. 

It would also not prevent the state military from training or readiness or impede the ability of the National Guard to provide support during an emergency or natural disaster. 

Many states, including Republican strongholds like Texas, Idaho, North Dakota and Oklahoma, already have laws on the books that are similar to the proposal Mena is pushing.  

“I actually don’t think it has to be a partisan issue, because the political winds and the other Washington change so frequently that other states have seen the need for this,” Mena said. 

Gov. Bob Ferguson supports the bill, highlighting it in his inaugural address earlier this month. Nathan Bays, deputy policy director for the governor’s office, testified in support during a House committee hearing Wednesday, saying the bill is a necessary precautionary measure. 

House Speaker Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, has highlighted the bill as a proactive measure the state could take in response to Trump-era policies. 

But Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, a member of the House State Government and Tribal Relations Committee and also state Republican Party chair, described the bill as a solution in search of a problem. He doesn’t see a scenario where it’s needed.

“The important thing is it doesn’t affect the federalization of the National Guard,” Walsh said. “If the president decided there (was an) immigration enforcement crisis and nationalized Guard units, then they could be implemented at the border if that ever happened.”

“This bill wouldn’t prevent that,” he said.

Jacquelyn Jimenez Romero is a WSU Murrow Fellow at the Washington State Standard. The Washington State Standard originally published this story on Jan. 30, 2025.

This article originally appeared in the Washington State Standard.

Emily Alvarado moved from the House to the Senate in the state Legislature on Tuesday after the King County Council appointed her to replace Joe Nguyen, who Gov. Bob Ferguson tapped last month to lead the state Department of Commerce.

Alvarado, a Democrat, was sworn into the Senate shortly after the Council selected her for the seat in the 34th Legislative District, which includes West Seattle, Vashon Island, White Center, and part of Burien.

Alvarado was elected to the House in 2022. She’s worked as an executive with an affordable-housing nonprofit and as the director of Seattle’s Office of Housing. 

“I believe we all have a shared obligation to provide high-quality public services to our communities,” Alvarado said. 

Nguyen was first elected to the state Senate in 2018 and reelected in 2022. He was the first Vietnamese American elected to the Washington state Senate.

The council also approved Brianna Thomas as Alvarado’s replacement in the state House of Representatives. 

Thomas currently works as the senior policy and labor advisor for the Seattle mayor’s office and previously was chief of staff for former Seattle City Council member Lorena González.  

“I’m not here for a power grab, I’m here to hold the door open for the same people that held the door open for me so more folks like me have those opportunities,” Thomas said. 

The Council also chose Janice Zahn to replace Tana Senn, former state representative for the 41st Legislative District, who Ferguson picked to lead the Department of Children, Youth, and Families.

Zahn is the chief engineer at the Port of Seattle and has been serving on the Bellevue City Council, which she was first elected to in 2017. 

“I bring unique perspectives as an immigrant, engineer, elected and staffer, with extensive and broad experience at every level of government,” Zahn said. 

Senn first joined the state House in 2013 when the King County Council appointed her to the seat in the 41st District, which covers parts of Bellevue, Issaquah, Mercer Island and other communities.

Both the House and Senate positions will be on the ballot in a special election in November, with the winners serving through 2026.

The Washington State Standard originally published this article on Jan. 22, 2025.

House Democrats introduced a new bill to bolster and broaden the state’s authority to inspect private detention facilities amid recent legal battles over the monitoring of the Northwest ICE Processing Center (NWIPC) in Tacoma.

Rep. Lillian Ortiz-Self, D-Mukilteo, the bill’s primary sponsor, said the updates are designed to expand a 2023 bill to include private detention facilities such as the Martin Hall Juvenile Detention Facility in Spokane County. Previous legislation applied only to the Tacoma immigration center, and the company that runs it sued the state claiming discrimination as the only site of its kind in the state. 

“The biggest thing is allowing inspections so we can have eyes in there and know what’s happening,” Ortiz-Self said, mentioning that she heard reports of a chicken pox outbreak but cannot know how it’s being handled without Department of Health access. “There’s that lack of transparency that’s paramount in all of this.”

Separately, a judge ruled on Thursday against GEO Group, the company operating the NWIPC, in another lawsuit. The decision from the Ninth Circuit Court found that the company violated state minimum wage laws when it paid detainees $1 per day, and requires GEO Group to pay nearly $20 million in back wages.

DOH and Labor & Industries attempted to inspect the Northwest ICE Processing Center after a bill passed in 2023 regulating private detention centers and codifying “routine, unannounced inspections.” Court records state that the facility administrator for NWIPC denied both agencies entry, and the issue ended up in court. DOH is still in litigation, but L&I gained access under a different statute. The inspection yielded no violations. 

Newly introduced House Bill 1232 includes defining abuse and neglect, escalating actions for failed inspections, outlining food and staffing requirements and granting the Department of Health access to inspect at any time. 

“There shouldn’t be any fear of letting our agencies in to make sure everything is working the way it’s supposed to if you’re following the law,” Ortiz-Self said. “Our concern has always been that: Why are you so afraid of transparency?” 

Rep. Chris Corry, R-Yakima, who voted against the 2023 bill, said he believes managing NWIPC should be up to the federal government, arguing there are more pressing issues for the state to focus on. 

“These bills are less about these private detention facilities than it is about this political hot potato that is ICE and detention of people who are in the country illegally,” he said. 

The new bill is currently in committee.