House Bill 2352 (H-2768.1) from the 2026 session amends RCW 42.52.010 and creates a new section to require that state officers and state employees be held to the same conflict-of-interest standard applied to municipal officers. The bill includes legislative findings referencing Article II, section 30 of the state Constitution and asserting that 2025 changes relaxed the state standard; it states the legislature’s intent to align state standards with municipal standards. The bill makes a definitional and procedural change to the ethics chapter by revising definitions and scope, including detailed definitions of agency, appearance, assist, beneficial interest, compensation, confidential information, contract or grant, emergency, ethics boards, family, head of agency, honorarium, institution of higher education, official duty/position, participate, person, regulatory agency, responsibility, state action, state employee, state officer, thing of economic value, and transaction involving the state. In particular, the text edits the definition of “beneficial interest” so that an ownership interest of less than one percent is not a beneficial interest (the bill’s text indicates this replaces a larger ownership threshold). The measure also specifies certain exclusions, such as employees of superior courts not being state officers or state employees for this chapter and a limited exclusion for a comprehensive cancer center under RCW 28B.10.930. The document provided does not include the new section’s text, nor does it provide operative provisions on enforcement, penalties, effective dates, or the full 2025 statutory language being referenced, so those details are uncertain from the extracted material.

If enacted, the bill would tighten conflict-of-interest rules for state officers and employees to match the stricter standard already used for municipal officers by treating ownership interests under 1% as non‑beneficial (so ownership at or above 1% would generally count as a disqualifying “beneficial interest”). That means more state officials, including legislators, agency leaders, board members, and many university research employees, could be required to disclose or recuse themselves from decisions about contracts, grants, licenses, or other state actions where they or their organizations hold small ownership stakes. Expect more recusals, reassignment of decision authority, and fewer situations where officials can participate despite modest private investments. The change will most directly increase workload and compliance burdens for state agencies, ethics boards, and the affected officers who must track interests and avoid participating in covered matters; agencies may need more staff time for reviews, training, and covering duties when officials recuse themselves. The excerpt provided does not include the new section text, enforcement rules, penalty provisions, effective date, or any funding to support implementation, so it is unclear how or when the changes would be put into practice or what resources will be available to manage the increased administrative burden.