House Bill 2195 amends Washington law governing initiative and referendum procedures for cities. It changes Title 35A and related sections so that noncharter code cities with population 30,000 or more must, by ordinance, provide for initiative and referendum within one year of the section’s effective date or within one year of reaching that population. Noncharter code cities under 30,000 may elect to provide for or to abandon initiative and referendum by following existing procedures for changing city classification or abandoning the noncharter code plan. For charter cities that reach 30,000 but do not provide for direct legislation, the bill requires a ballot proposition to amend the charter to provide for initiative and referendum to be submitted at the next general election held more than 90 days after the threshold is reached. The bill makes several procedural changes: it sets the petition signature threshold at 25 percent of votes cast at the last city general election (measured by the citywide race with the greatest votes, or total council votes if no citywide race); requires city clerks to certify petition sufficiency within 10 days, allows a 10‑day amendment period and a further 10‑day certification; gives the legislative authority 20 days after the county auditor’s certificate to pass an unaltered petition ordinance, pass a modified alternative (in which case both measures go to the ballot), or decline to pass so the measure goes to the ballot; suspends operation of an ordinance while a valid referendum petition is pending except for specified exceptions; and prescribes how petition‑initiated ordinances take effect, are recorded, and the conditions under which they may be repealed or amended (not by the council for two years after voter approval, then only by a two‑thirds vote). These are procedural changes to local government law rather than creation of new crimes or changes to criminal penalties. The bill references and amends many RCW sections (including 35A.11.080, 35A.11.090, 35.17.230–.360, and others) and assigns roles to city clerks, county auditors, legislative authorities, and courts (taxpayers may sue in superior court to compel an election if petitions are found insufficient or the legislative body refuses to act). The effective date of the section is not provided in the extracted text, and the amendment language for charter cities and the end of one section is incomplete in the provided material.

If enacted, cities that operate under the noncharter code and reach a population of 30,000 will be required to adopt an initiative and referendum process within a year, while smaller noncharter cities may opt in or opt out using existing procedures. Practically, that means more mandatory election work for city clerks and county auditors, a likely increase in election-related expenses and legal work when citizens gather petitions (the signature bar is 25 percent of votes from the last city general election), and a firmer limit on how quickly councils can change voter‑approved measures because petition‑initiated ordinances generally cannot be altered by the council for two years and are subject to strict timelines for petition certification, council action, and potential court challenges. The bill also forces charter cities that hit 30,000 and do not already allow direct legislation to put a charter‑amendment measure on the ballot at the next general election more than 90 days after the threshold is reached, which creates administrative and election timing duties for those cities and may change how local officials are elected and paid to align with existing statutes. Important implementation details are missing from the extracted text—most notably the bill’s effective date and full cross‑referenced procedural rules—so exact timing, costs, and some operational steps remain uncertain.