House Bill 1959 (H-1316.1) would eliminate the Office of Equity by repealing multiple statutory provisions that established and governed the office (RCW 43.06D.010, .020, .030, .040, .050, .060, .900, and .901). The bill adds a new findings section stating legislative intent to prioritize funding for public safety, schools, vulnerable populations, and infrastructure, to limit tax burden, and to save taxpayers $19,500,000; it also says the office could be reconstituted as a nonprofit if there is strong public support but would no longer receive taxpayer funding. The measure therefore creates a statutory repeal and organizational change (elimination of an executive office and removal of related oversight provisions), not a new crime or penalty change. Sponsors are Representatives Dufault, Couture, and Marshall; the bill was prefiled 02/11/25, read first on 02/12/25, and referred to the Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations. The extracted text does not include the full contents of the repealed RCW sections, any effective date, transition provisions, or details on impacts to employees, contracts, or budgets beyond the stated $19,500,000 savings.

If enacted, the state’s Office of Equity would be dissolved and the listed statutory provisions repealed, removing the office’s state funding and its statutory oversight role (including the cited oversight of the Washington State Patrol’s diversity, equity, and inclusion recruitment and retention plan). The sponsors say this would free up about $19.5 million for other priorities and would allow the office to be reestablished only as a privately funded nonprofit if there is public support. Those most directly affected would be the office’s employees and any programs or contracts it managed, which would lose state funding and face job or service cuts; the Washington State Patrol, which would lose the specified statutory oversight linkage; and taxpayers, who are the stated source of the projected savings. The bill does not include an effective date, transition instructions, or a breakdown of how the $19.5 million is calculated, so the practical impacts on budgets, contracts, and services remain uncertain and could produce gaps or short-term costs not detailed in the text.