Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1750 amends multiple sections of chapter 29A.92 RCW, adds at least one new section, and repeals RCW 29A.92.020. It creates a new statutory prohibition that forbids a political subdivision responsible for election administration from implementing or enforcing any election policy or practice that results in, is likely to result in, or is intended to result in a material disparate burden on the opportunity of members of a protected class (race, color, or language minority groups as referenced in the Voting Rights Act) to vote or participate in the political process. The bill passed the Senate on February 28, 2026 and the House on March 11, 2026, and contains a funding contingency that would render the act null and void unless specified funding is provided by June 30, 2026. The act makes substantive changes to election law and litigation standards rather than creating a criminal offense. It sets a high legal defense standard for challenged policies: a political subdivision must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a challenged policy is narrowly tailored to a compelling, particularized state interest and that no less-burdensome alternative exists. Proof of discriminatory intent is not required to bring a claim. The bill clarifies vote-dilution standards, defines and directs court analysis of polarized voting and cohesion, allows courts to rely on relevant federal case law, and expressly lists circumstances that may not be used to justify burdens on protected-class voters. It affirms that remedies may include district-based systems, crossover and coalition districts, and, in limited county circumstances, increasing the number of elected commissioners. The act also makes extensive procedural changes for how challenges proceed: potential challengers generally must notify the political subdivision and provide specified information before suing; subdivisions must provide public notice and at least one public hearing before adopting a remedial plan and must provide language-access notices when a significant segment of residents have limited English proficiency. The bill requires certain data disclosure in court filings, sets timing rules for implementing remedies and new elections, establishes trial scheduling and statute-of-limitations mechanics (a cause of action arises with each governing-body election), preserves ballot secrecy, and sets standards for temporary relief. It authorizes reimbursement to notifiers for research costs up to $50,000 and provides for fee awards to prevailing plaintiffs and, in some circumstances, prevailing defendants. Important text is missing from the provided extracts: many amended sections’ full language, the full contents of section 3 and any other new sections, and a separate definition of the phrase "political subdivision responsible for election administration" are not included, so some operative details and cross-references cannot be confirmed from these excerpts.

If enacted, the law would make it easier for residents, organizations, and tribes to force changes to how local governments run elections by creating a statutory ban on any election policy that imposes a material disparate burden on race, color, or language minority voting opportunities unless the subdivision proves a narrowly tailored, compelling interest by clear and convincing evidence. Counties, cities, school districts and other local election authorities would face more litigation risk and pressure to adopt remedies such as district-based elections, crossover or coalition districts, or expanding elected bodies; they must give public notice, hold hearings, provide language-access notices when a significant segment has limited English, work with notifiers, and could be required to reimburse up to $50,000 of a notifier’s research costs and pay attorneys’ and expert fees to prevailing plaintiffs. The practical effects for most local governments will be increased staff time, legal and demography consulting costs, and potential election schedule changes as they develop and defend remedies, though a court-approved remedy gives a four-year safe harbor so long as it is not changed. Small towns under 1,000 people and school districts under 250 FTE are exempt, prevailing defendants may recover fees under an existing statute, and the whole act is contingent on specific funding being included in the omnibus appropriations act by June 30, 2026; several important implementation details and some amended sections are not included in the provided text, so the exact procedures and definitions that will govern these processes remain unclear.