This bill adds new sections to chapter 29A.72 RCW and amends RCW 29A.72.010, .020, and .030 to change procedures for initiative and referendum filings and to create a civil prohibition on per-signature payment for petition circulators. It makes it unlawful to provide or receive money or other consideration that is based, directly or indirectly, on the number of signatures obtained on an initiative or referendum petition; compensation that is not based on the number of signatures is not prohibited. The bill authorizes a private person who has reason to believe a violation occurred to bring a citizen's action in the name of the state for civil remedies, including civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. If the private plaintiff prevails the judgment escheats to the state and the plaintiff may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as fixed by the court; if a suit is dismissed and found frivolous or brought in bad faith the court may order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s reasonable attorneys’ fees. Venue rules and a two-year statute of limitations for citizen actions are specified. The bill imposes a new filing requirement for proposed initiatives: the filer must submit a petition bearing at least 1,000 signatures of legal voters (name and registration address) when filing with the secretary of state, and those signature sheets must comply with RCW 29A.72.100 except for inclusion of the title. Signatures collected to meet the 1,000-signature sponsorship requirement must count toward the total number of signatures required for filing an initiative under RCW 29A.72.150. The secretary of state must, by rule, establish procedures to implement these provisions, may use statistical sampling techniques authorized under RCW 29A.72.230 to verify petitions, and may refuse to accept for filing a proposed measure if required documents, the filing fee, or the required petition are missing or clearly bear insufficient signatures. The bill also revises the interaction with the Office of the Code Reviser: the secretary of state must submit a copy of a verified proposed initiative to the code reviser before assigning a serial number; the assistant code reviser must review and may advise within seven working days; a certificate of review is required and the sponsor must file the measure with that certificate within fifteen working days for assignment of a serial number. Filing timelines for initiatives and referenda are specified (including ten-month windows, minimum signature filing deadlines of four months or ten days depending on the type of initiative, and a 90-day period for referenda), and the bill includes a severability clause. The provided extracts are incomplete in places: parts of Sec. 3(2)(a) are cut off and the full amended language of some sections, detailed procedures, and any additional definitions or enforcement mechanics referenced elsewhere in the bill are not included here.

If enacted, paid signature gatherers and the firms that hire them would no longer be able to structure pay based on the number of signatures collected, so they will likely have to change contracts to flat fees, hourly pay, or other non–per-signature arrangements; those entities and initiative sponsors also face new civil exposure because private citizens can sue for violations, with penalties up to $10,000 per violation and the potential for defendants to owe the plaintiff’s court-fixed attorney fees while any monetary judgment goes to the state. Sponsors must also bring a petition with at least 1,000 verified registered-voter signatures when first filing certain initiatives, and the secretary of state and code reviser will gain new procedural steps and timing requirements (including rulemaking, use of statistical sampling for verification, a sevenand fifteen-working-day review timeline with a required certificate before a serial number is assigned, and tighter refusal rules), so sponsors should expect added compliance steps, possible filing delays, and modest increased administrative burdens on state offices. Key implementation details are unclear in the provided text: the truncated verification provision, the exact filing fee amount, how “directly or indirectly” is proved or interpreted, and other enforcement mechanics are not included, so parties cannot be certain how strictly the pay prohibition will be applied or how verification and penalties will operate in practice.