House Bill 1223 amends existing Washington election statutes governing cancellation of voter registrations and procedures for filing and resolving voter registration challenges. It modifies RCW 29A.08.510, 29A.08.630, 29A.08.810, and 29A.08.840 (and lists amendments to RCW 29A.08.850 and 29A.08.135 that are not included in the provided text) to add specific procedures, evidence requirements, notice rules, and standards for dismissal and hearings. The bill does not create an entirely new statute but changes existing law, adding procedural requirements and changing evidentiary and burden-of-proof standards. The bill prescribes how deceased voter registrations are identified and canceled, requiring the registrar of vital statistics to supply death lists to the secretary of state, that the secretary compare those lists to registration records, and that county auditors verify identity (by date of birth or address) and record the date and source when using other government agencies or newspaper obituaries. It clarifies when an inactive voter is returned to active status (e.g., timely response to confirmation, voting or attempting to vote, or notifying the auditor of an address change) and when an inactive registration must be canceled, including specific rules when a voter moves out of state and remains inactive across two federal general elections. The bill substantially revises challenge procedures: it defines “personal knowledge” and a minimum “due diligence” requirement for address challenges (including that a challenger personally send a certified letter with return service requested using a secretary-of-state form), requires a separate signed handwritten affidavit for each challenged voter, prohibits challenges based on anonymous third-party allegations, and requires use of secretary-of-state forms. County auditors must dismiss improperly formed or legally inadequate challenges, may conduct an initial merits review, must attempt reconfirmation before scheduling hearings, and may schedule a hearing only if there is probable cause that the challenged voter is not qualified. Notices to challenged voters must follow SOS-prescribed forms and specified delivery methods; challenged voters get a reasonable opportunity to respond and may correct residence information in certain address cases. The bill sets the challenger’s burden to prove an improper registration beyond a reasonable doubt, requires resolution of all challenged ballots before election certification, and allows judicial review under chapter 34.05 RCW. The bill adds penalties and enforcement provisions: knowingly providing false information in a challenge is perjury under chapter 9A.72 RCW, and knowingly challenging a registration without reasonable cause is a misdemeanor with each challenge a separate offense. Important text is missing from the provided material: the hearing notice subsection is incomplete, the specific amended language in RCW 29A.08.850 and RCW 29A.08.135 is not included, and effective dates or other definitions and procedural details that may appear elsewhere in the bill are not available in the extracted facts.

If enacted, county auditors and the secretary of state would take on clearer, more prescriptive duties: the registrar of vital statistics would send death lists to the secretary of state, the secretary would compare those lists to registration records and provide standardized challenge and notice forms, and county auditors would have to verify deceased voters’ identities, record the date and source of information, send detailed certified notices, attempt reconfirmation before hearings, and perform an initial merits screen that can dismiss weak challenges. Those steps will likely increase administrative work and mailing costs for county election offices and the secretary of state, but the initial merits review and a high evidentiary standard for hearings should reduce the number of full hearings. Challengers would face much higher obligations and legal risks: they must file a separate paper form and a handwritten sworn affidavit for each challenged voter, personally send certified letters as evidence in address challenges, and bear the burden of proving a registration improper beyond a reasonable doubt, with perjury and misdemeanor penalties for false or baseless challenges. Challenged voters gain stronger notice and opportunities to confirm or correct their registration and are generally protected from immediate removal (including special protections when a person registered in another state), and ballots cannot be finally ruled until challenges are resolved; however, some hearing notice details and certain amended sections were not included in the provided text, and no effective dates are shown, so the timing and some procedural specifics remain unclear.