This bill creates a new chapter in Title 29A RCW (sections 1–4) that imposes procedural requirements on county auditors and the Secretary of State related to engagement with federally recognized Indian tribes and studies of voting access. County auditors must schedule planning meetings with each federally recognized tribe in the county by August 1 of each odd-numbered year and follow‑up confirmation meetings by September 1 of each odd-numbered year; if a tribe chooses to establish voting centers or ballot drop boxes on reservation land, auditors must hold ongoing meetings during that election year. If a county auditor cannot contact a tribe, the auditor must contact the Secretary of State to facilitate contact, and a tribe may similarly request the Secretary’s assistance; the Secretary’s tribal liaison may help facilitate communication. The Secretary of State must also meet each biennium with federally recognized tribes to discuss and address barriers to voting. The bill authorizes the Secretary of State, within existing resources, to study the feasibility of an electronic ballot portal for certain “covered voters” (service voters, overseas voters, disabled voters, and tribal members residing on reservations). The study must consider specified design features (security, ballot secrecy and privacy, one vote per voter, an auditable paper record at the receiving end, and limits on who may authorize voting via the portal), may use independent evaluations and expert consultation, and explicitly does not authorize actual use of an electronic portal to return voted ballots. If conducted, the Secretary must report study results and recommendations to the appropriate legislative committees within 180 days of completing the study in compliance with RCW 43.01.036; the study-related statutory section expires 30 days after report submission and the Secretary must notify designated legislative and administrative offices of the expiration date. This is primarily a procedural and administrative change (new law creating a new chapter, meeting and coordination requirements, and authorization for a limited feasibility study). It creates no new criminal offenses and does not alter penalties. The text supplied defines “federally recognized Indian tribe” (by reference to RCW 43.376.010) and “covered voter” (by reference to existing RCWs), but the provided material does not define terms such as “voting centers,” “ballot drop boxes,” “voted ballot,” or “next regularly scheduled election cycle,” does not identify the specific legislative committees to receive the study report, does not fully list all recipients of the required expiration notice, and does not specify any budgetary appropriation.

County auditors will need to set up regular, scheduled meetings with each federally recognized tribe in their county every odd-numbered year and keep meeting during an election year if a tribe wants voting centers or drop boxes on reservation land. That will give tribes clearer, recurring opportunities to shape how and where voting services are offered, but it also creates recurring staff time and coordination costs for county auditor offices and for the secretary of state’s tribal liaison, with no new funding specified — counties and the SOS will likely absorb those costs. If auditors can’t reach a tribe, the SOS must be asked to help, and tribes can ask the SOS to intervene, so tribes may see faster follow-up where contact problems existed before. The secretary of state must hold biennial meetings with tribes about barriers to voting and may, using current resources only, study whether an electronic ballot-return portal could work for service, overseas, disabled, and reservation-resident tribal voters; the study must consider security and auditability but cannot authorize building or using such a portal. The study could produce recommendations to the Legislature, but its scope will likely be limited by available staff and money, the law names no specific legislative recipients here, and several practical details (exact definitions of voting centers/drop boxes, which legislative committees get the report, and which parties receive the study’s expiration notice) are left unclear.