Washington House Passes Bill Requiring AG Approval for Local Election Map Changes

The bill would expand the state's Voting Rights Act to require preclearance from the Attorney General before local governments can redraw boundaries.

Published on Feb. 14, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Washington state House of Representatives has passed a bill that would expand the state's Voting Rights Act to require the Attorney General's approval before local governments, such as counties, cities, and school districts, can modify election boundaries or make other changes that could impact the ability of protected classes to participate in elections. The bill, which passed 57-39, now heads to the state Senate.

Why it matters

The proposed law is aimed at preventing discrimination and protecting voting rights, but opponents argue it would give the Attorney General too much power over local decision-making and could lead to more lawsuits. The issue highlights ongoing debates over voting rights, redistricting, and the balance of power between state and local governments.

The details

House Bill 1710 would create a 'preclearance' system, requiring counties, cities, school districts, and other local governments with a history of voting rights violations to obtain approval from the state Attorney General before making changes to election boundaries, methods, language assistance, and more. Supporters say this would stop discrimination before it happens, but critics argue the rules for which jurisdictions are covered are arbitrary and the bill would slow decision-making and increase litigation.

  • The Washington state House of Representatives passed the bill on Thursday, February 13, 2026.
  • The bill now heads to the state Senate for consideration.

The players

Washington House Democrats

The Democratic majority in the Washington state House of Representatives passed the bill expanding the state's Voting Rights Act.

Washington Attorney General

The proposed law would give the state Attorney General the power to approve or reject changes to local election boundaries and practices in jurisdictions with a history of voting rights violations.

Rep. Jeremie Dufault

A Republican state representative from Selah, Washington, who argued the bill would give the Attorney General too much power over local communities.

Rep. Sharlett Mena

A Democratic state representative from Tacoma, Washington, who supported the bill, arguing that preclearance is needed to prevent discrimination and encourage voter participation.

Rep. Chris Corry

A Republican state representative from Yakima, Washington, who argued the bill is more about creating districts to achieve a certain political outcome than protecting individual voting rights.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The Attorney General of Washington state [would have] the power to redraw all the boundary lines of every district in my community. And even if the attorney general is dead wrong, my community still has to pay for it — our tax dollars — we are not a wealthy county.”

— Rep. Jeremie Dufault, Republican state representative (dailyfly.com)

“We enjoyed preclearance without issue for 50 years. It is really hard to get people to participate in a system that has marginalized them, but I will never stop trying.”

— Rep. Sharlett Mena, Democratic state representative (dailyfly.com)

“This bill strengthens power for whoever is in charge, not for the people that they're wielding this power against. This bill is not about protecting an individual's right to have their voices heard. This is an attempt to create districts that proliferate a certain political outcome.”

— Rep. Chris Corry, Republican state representative (dailyfly.com)

What’s next

The bill now heads to the Washington state Senate for consideration. If passed by the Senate, it would then go to the governor for signature into law.

The takeaway

This bill highlights the ongoing debate over voting rights, redistricting, and the balance of power between state and local governments. Supporters argue it is necessary to prevent discrimination, while opponents contend it gives the state too much control over local decision-making.