This bill adds two new sections to chapter 29A.52 RCW and creates a new statutory scheme requiring public notice and a comprehensive voter education program whenever a "voting jurisdiction" changes its method of selecting candidates from the methods described in chapter 29A.52 RCW. The act takes effect January 1, 2026. The bill treats changes that introduce "unique elements" to candidate selection (the text explicitly lists ranking candidates as an example) as triggering these requirements. The law requires the affected voting jurisdiction, working with the county auditor, to develop and pay for an education campaign that begins with the candidate filing period. Required elements include mailed education materials to each registered voter’s mailing address, a continuously accessible electronic information portal that contrasts the new and prior methods (with FAQs, translation, question submission, and a monitored contact), and a toll‑free hotline available during regular business hours beginning with candidate filing. Materials and online content must be translated into all languages required by federal, state, and local law. The jurisdiction must run a monthly advertising and education campaign during the applicable period using at least three specified communication methods, and must provide instructional materials and instructors to local high schools on request. The bill explicitly provides that any costs incurred by the county election office must be reimbursed by the voting jurisdiction and states "Notwithstanding RCW 43.135.060" regarding cost allocation. The bill creates new private enforcement procedures and civil penalties. Any voter eligible to participate in the jurisdiction may sue in superior court to enforce the education requirements or seek penalties. Injunctive relief actions must be filed between the last day of the candidate filing period and the election, are to be given priority, and a court may order injunctions if the jurisdiction is not in substantial compliance; prevailing parties in injunctive actions are not entitled to damages or attorney fees. Penalty actions must be filed within one year after the first election using the changed method; such actions are automatically stayed until one year after that election and are to be consolidated except for compelling reasons. If the court finds noncompliance by a preponderance of the evidence, it may impose a civil penalty up to $25,000 total payable to the prevailing voter, with reasonable attorney fees and costs awarded to prevailing plaintiffs in penalty actions. The extracted text does not define the term "voting jurisdiction," does not reproduce or summarize the candidate selection methods in chapter 29A.52 RCW, does not specify calendar dates or statutory definitions for the "candidate filing period" or the "applicable education period," and does not define "single event election process" or reconcile overlapping timing provisions that refer to four months of portal availability versus starting at candidate filing. These gaps were not resolved in the provided material.

If a local government decides to change how it picks candidates (the bill explicitly covers changes that include ranked-choice-style elements), that government will have to run and pay for a large voter-education effort: mail materials to every registered voter, create a 24/7 online information portal for at least four months before the candidate selection process, operate a toll-free hotline during the candidate filing period, provide translated materials as required by law, run monthly advertising using at least three communication types, and provide optional instruction to local high schools. Practically, this shifts clear budget and staffing responsibility to the jurisdiction making the change and may require reimbursing county election offices for any costs they incur, meaning local election budgets and outreach plans will need to expand. The change also increases legal risk and enforcement exposure for those jurisdictions: any voter can seek an injunction between the last day of candidate filing and the election if the education requirements aren’t being met, and voters can bring penalty lawsuits up to one year after the first election using the new method that could result in up to $25,000 total in penalties and, for penalty actions, recovery of attorney fees. Most affected are the jurisdiction that changes its method (new costs and duties), county auditors and election offices (consultation role and potential cost reimbursement), voters with limited English or disabilities and students (who will receive targeted outreach), and superior courts (which will handle enforcement); however, the text does not define which entities count as a “voting jurisdiction,” does not give calendar dates for the candidate filing period, and does not define “single event election process,” so timing and exact scope remain unclear.