This bill reenacts and amends RCW 29A.84.320 to make it a class B felony for a person to file a declaration of candidacy using a nonexistent or fictitious name, using a name that is not the filer’s true name, using a name similar to an incumbent seeking reelection with the intent to confuse and mislead electors, or using a surname similar to a widely known candidate for the same office with intent to confuse and mislead electors regardless of filing order. Criminal punishment is prescribed according to chapter 9A.20 RCW. The bill also adds a new section to chapter 29A.36 RCW requiring the filing officer, when two or more candidates for the same office have names so similar as to be confusing to voters, to list those candidates consecutively on the ballot and to include additional information with the name (for example occupation or status as incumbent or challenger, or other means the filing officer deems fair and impartial) to differentiate them. The filing officer may solicit suggestions and input from the involved candidates. The text provided does not define the term “filing officer” or the terms “incumbent” and “challenger,” does not give a specific section number for the new chapter 29A.36 provision, and does not include an effective date, appeal or enforcement procedures, or detailed standards for selecting the differentiating information. The bill was read for the first time on 02/13/25.

If enacted, people who file to run for office using a nonexistent or false name, using a name that is not their true name, or deliberately using a name similar to an incumbent or a well-known candidate to confuse voters would face a class B felony charge, so anyone considering such tactics would face serious criminal risk. Voters would likely see fewer cases of intentionally confusing candidacies, and ballot presentation would change so that similarly named candidates are listed next to each other with extra identifying information (for example occupation or incumbent/challenger status), which is intended to make it easier for voters to tell them apart. The immediate practical burden falls on filing officers, who must judge when names are confusing, list those names consecutively, choose or solicit distinguishing information from candidates, and apply these new rules; this creates additional administrative responsibility and possible staff time costs. Key implementation details are missing from the text provided—“filing officer” is not defined, there is no effective date or appeal process stated, and no specific procedure for selecting differentiating information—so how exactly officials will carry out and review these duties is unclear.