A legislative update from Senator Keith Goehner
information released
Dear Neighbors and Friends,
I hope this finds you and your family well. It’s a privilege to serve you, and our part of Washington, in the state Legislature.
I’ll begin my first report from our 2026 legislative session with a request. It has to do with the pair of voter initiatives submitted to the secretary of state, which have since been certified and transmitted to the Legislature.
- One initiative is labeled IL26-001 (initiatives can no longer carry the simpler name of “Initiative XXXX,” for an unfortunate but understandable reason). It would essentially restore the parents’ bill of rights that had become law in 2024, through legislators’ passage of Initiative 2081, but was greatly weakened by a bill that passed in 2025. Click here for the text.
- The initiative labeled IL26-638 is titled “defending equity in interscholastic sports.” It basically has to do with who can play girls’ or women’s sports and use a girls’ or women’s locker room. The text is here.
Because these are both initiatives to the legislature, (rather than initiatives to the people, which go straight to the ballot) they are pieces of legislation, much like a bill filed by a senator or representative. Unlike a regular bill, we aren’t allowed to change the language from what the people submitted.
Our state constitution clearly states initiatives like these are supposed to be considered ahead of all other bills except budget legislation. Even so, we’re being told by the majority that neither initiative will be considered. That means no vote, not even a committee hearing.
The constitution anticipated this situation. If legislators take no action on initiatives like these, they’ll go to the November ballot, just like the other style of initiative. Still — and this gets to my request — I don’t think it’s right for you to be denied an opportunity to make your voice heard before then.
Although committee hearings are still geared toward in-person testimony on bills, people now have the option to go online and sign in “pro” or “con” on legislation, and offer written comments. We’ve set up a similar approach for the two initiatives, using the QR codes below. And for more information about the initiatives, visit this page.
Please keep reading this report for information about other issues before us. Whenever you have questions or need help dealing with a state agency, please reach out. My email is keith.goehner@leg.wa.gov and my Senate office phone number is 360-786-7954.
Sincerely,
Keith Goehner, 12th Legislative District
Washington State Senate
 |
|
Opening stage of 60-day session nears completion
When lawmakers meet each year our work is divided into stages, and the first of those is about to wrap up for this year’s 60-day session.
The Senate is organized into twelve policy committees and two fiscal committees. I serve on two policy committees: Housing, and Local Government.
Like the other policy committees, we’ve spent most of our time these past few weeks considering Senate bills. This is done through hearings at which we listen to public testimony.
An example is Senate Bill 6167, my pro-housing piece of legislation which received a public hearing January 28; it would do a more equitable job of distributing state-funded loans or grants to help homebuyers afford down payments.
Of the bills that receive hearings, many are brought forward for committee votes. For policy committees, this must happen no later than Wednesday. This “cutoff,” or deadline, signals the end of the opening stage of the session — and policy bills are not acted upon by then are considered “dead” for the year.
Bills that make it over the policy-committee hurdle may also have a cost attached, in which case they are referred to the appropriate fiscal (budget) committee. There are two in the Senate: Ways and Means, and Transportation (which I serve on). February 9 is its deadline to take action on Senate bills that aren’t part of the budget package we’re developing. My next report from Olympia will have more on that.
|
|
 |
This is literally an example of “working across the aisle” — as that’s one of my Democratic colleagues, and we’re standing in the space between Republican and Democratic seats in the Senate chamber.
|
Top priority for 2026: Rebalance the state budget
Our state government’s budget is actually three separate budgets. Each covers two years.
The largest is the operating budget. It includes funding for K-12 and the work done by most state agencies.
The capital budget primarily funds public construction projects. The third budget is the transportation budget — I’m on the four-member team responsible for it in the Senate.
New budgets are adopted in odd-numbered years, so the current set was approved in 2025. This year, typically, we would reopen each of those budgets and make adjustments to get through year number two.
Unfortunately, the operating budget for 2025-27 is already in trouble. Our non-partisan budget staff has calculated that it will be short by about $1.5 billion by the end of the two-year cycle.
What’s sad is that the budget is short even though the majority passed a state-record package of tax increases in 2025. Between the state-level taxes and those with a local effect, we’re talking a cost of more than $12.2 billion over four years.
Unlike the federal government, our state government can’t carry a debt from one cycle to the next. The spending can’t exceed the revenue available. We have to deal with the shortfall this year.
Sure enough, some of my colleagues across the political aisle are talking about even more tax increases. I don’t see that as the answer. It will only make living in our state less affordable.
Last year I supported an approach that would have protected vital services and required no tax increases at all. That budget was turned down, unfortunately. This year I’ll once again be on the side that’s looking to rebalance the budget by finding cost savings, and reforms that make government more efficient.
|
|
What’s this about a state income tax?
Our state had an income tax once — briefly, more than 90 years ago. It was found to be unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court, however, and since then Washington voters have said no to an income tax at every opportunity (10 times!).
For weeks we’ve heard another income-tax bill is coming — and it was finally introduced Monday as Senate Bill 6346. The sponsors titled it “a tax on millionaires,” which is in line with their other efforts to promote tax increases, but the people of our state aren’t foolish enough to believe that. After all, the capital-gains income tax pushed through in 2021 was marketed as affecting only certain people, yet it has already been increased (and there’s another bill about that on the table now).
This should be viewed as an “everybody tax,” because the bill offers no real protection for taxpayers of any income level. Also, this has nothing to do with the current budget shortfall, so what is the real purpose?
None of the 10 questions in my pre-session online survey mentioned an income tax because nothing had been formally proposed. It included property taxes as a possible answer, however, because the bill to triple the 1% cap on annual property-tax rate increases is back again for 2026.
Those who responded to the survey (around 950 — thanks to each of you!) were clearly concerned about property taxes. As the charts above and below indicate, it was the top issue overall and also the tax of greatest concern. While we successfully fought off the majority’s property-tax bill (SB 5798) again in 2025, for the third time, I fully expect to see another push before this session ends March 12.
It’s amazing to see all the tax proposals in Olympia this year that aren’t related to a state income tax or property tax. Our budget-policy expert assembled a list which is at 35-plus and counting, just in the Senate.
Here are some examples:
- SB 6280: tax on smoking cessation products (nicotine pouches)
- SB 6129: tax increase on tobacco/nicotine products (examples; tax increases to $5/pack for cigarettes, from current $3/pack, and $5.50/pack for flavored cigarettes)
- SB 5762: cellphone tax (doubles the monthly 988 tax per line)
- SB 5502: bottle tax (10-cent refundable fee on beverage containers)
- SB 5576: tax on short-term rentals
- SB 5791: increased business-tax on service providers
- SB 6228: tax increase on prescription drugs (warehousing/reselling)
- SB 6231: tax increase for replacing data-center equipment
- SB 6229: expansion of capital-gains tax
While there’s no guarantee any of these will advance, I come back to this: You don’t make living in Washington more affordable by making it more expensive.
|
|
No-mask bill passed by Senate is mostly symbolic
Our first extended debate in the Senate chamber this session took place this past week, on Senate Bill 5855. It would prohibit law-enforcement officers at all levels from wearing certain kinds of face coverings.
Like many of you, I’ve seen videos of the interactions between officers and protesters that led to two fatalities in Minnesota. What happened there is tragic, and people are rightfully upset.
Here’s a question that really wasn’t answered during the Senate debate: Are the supporters of SB 5855 opposed to removing criminals who aren’t in our country lawfully, or do they support the goal but not the way federal officers are carrying out their duty?
It was acknowledged that face coverings haven’t been an issue with state and local law enforcement — yet only they would be affected if SB 5855 becomes law.
This is because states can’t overrule the federal government. That’s the point of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, commonly known as the “supremacy clause.” So while the bill was passed, and will likely be approved by the House as well, I don’t see how it is anything but symbolic from a federal standpoint.
|
|
Looking for a podcast about your state government? Check out The Elephant in the Dome — click here or on the image to visit and subscribe! And for even more content about the 2026 legislative session, sign up to receive The Weekly Roundup by clicking here or on the image below. |
 |
