House Bill 2533 (H-2972.1, 69th Legislature, 2026) amends Washington’s civil commitment statutes for persons designated as sexually violent predators. It modifies definitions and procedures in RCW 71.09.020 and RCW 71.09.090, indicates further amendments to RCW 71.09.092, .094, .096, and .098, creates a new section, includes a severability clause, and takes effect immediately. The bill does not create a new criminal offense or change criminal penalties; it changes procedural rules governing petitions, hearings, conditional release to less restrictive alternatives (LRAs), and unconditional discharge. The bill expands who may seek conditional release or unconditional discharge (the secretary may authorize petitions, and committed persons may petition without the secretary’s approval), requires the court to schedule hearings on discharge petitions within 45 days, and requires the Department of Social and Health Services to identify qualifying LRA placements within 90 days or certify in writing its efforts. After certification, the committed person may propose placements. The bill prescribes show-cause hearing procedures where the prosecuting agency must present prima facie evidence on continued SVP status or LRA unsuitability, permits hearings on affidavits, sets counsel and expert rights and costs, and sets burdens of proof at trial: the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person remains a sexually violent predator or that conditional release would not be in the person’s best interest or would not protect the community. The bill establishes substantive and procedural conditions for LRAs: courts must give special weight to whether the person has expressed remorse and must find numerous factors before LRA release (qualified treatment provider, specific treatment plan and reporting, suitable housing meeting distance/security rules, DOC supervision, prior treatment participation, remorse, willingness to comply, and fair-share considerations when placement is outside the county of commitment). It requires DOC to investigate proposed LRAs and recommend individualized conditions within 60 days, allows counties to deny out-of-county placements that do not comply with “fair share principles,” mandates minimum safety conditions (including electronic monitoring and minimum 500-foot distance from child care and K–12 schools), prescribes discharge planning and clinical transition requirements (including a clinical transition of care at least 15 days before release), monthly provider reporting, annual court reviews, and procedures for revocation or modification of conditional release. Some referenced statutory text is not included in the extracted material: the full content of the amended RCW 71.09.092 (the detailed LRA requirements), the precise statutory mechanism implementing county rejection based on “fair share principles,” and the remainder of certain subsections are not present in the provided facts.

If enacted, the bill creates more steps and stricter conditions before people civilly committed as sexually violent predators can move from total confinement to a less restrictive placement or be discharged. State agencies—mainly the Department of Social and Health Services and the Department of Corrections—will have new duties and deadlines: DSHS must try to identify suitable housing and treatment within 90 days or certify its efforts, file notices, and continue to authorize petitions; DOC must investigate proposed placements and recommend conditions within 60 days and may be required to assign a social worker for discharge planning if money is appropriated. Treatment and housing providers must sign agreements, report monthly, and accept real‑time electronic monitoring and minimum proximity limits (including at least 500 feet from K–12 schools and child care), which will shrink available placement options, likely raise housing and supervision costs, and slow some releases. Counties, sheriffs, and elected county officials gain more say: if a proposed out‑of‑county placement does not meet broadly referenced “fair share” principles, the receiving county can vote to deny it, shifting where people may be placed and potentially increasing placement disputes and relocation costs. Prosecuting agencies must present prima facie evidence at show‑cause hearings and the state generally pays for expert evaluations and other costs, while indigent respondents get one expert paid by the Office of Public Defense; courts must give special weight to expressions of remorse and other specific findings before release. Important implementation details are missing from the provided text—notably the exact criteria in RCW 71.09.092, the precise fair‑share formula, and how much funding will be provided for social workers—so the pace and cost of these changes are uncertain.