The Washington State Legislature operates under a bicameral system, meaning bills must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The legislative process involves several stages, including introduction, committee review, floor debate, and voting. For a bill to become law in Washington, it must be passed by a simple majority in both chambers. After passage by both the House and Senate in identical form, the bill is then presented to the Governor. The Governor has several options: sign the bill into law, veto the entire bill, or take no action, in which case the bill becomes law without the Governor’s signature after a specified period. The Governor can also veto specific sections of an appropriations bill, known as a line-item veto. However, the Washington State Constitution does not grant the Governor a “pocket veto” power as seen in the U.S. Congress, where a bill fails to become law if the executive does not sign it and adjourns within a specified period. In Washington, if the Governor takes no action on a bill within a specific timeframe (typically 20 days, excluding Sundays, if the legislature is in session, or 30 days if adjourned), the bill automatically becomes law. The question asks about the outcome if the Governor vetoes a bill and the legislature is adjourned. In Washington, an adjourned legislature cannot override a veto. Therefore, a vetoed bill, when the legislature is adjourned, does not become law and cannot be overridden until the legislature reconvenes.

The scenario presented involves a legislative proposal in Washington State concerning the regulation of drone usage in agricultural settings. The core of the question lies in understanding the appropriate legislative mechanism for enacting such regulations. Washington State utilizes several tools for administrative rulemaking, primarily through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW. Agencies like the Department of Agriculture are empowered to adopt, amend, or repeal rules that implement or clarify statutes. When a new statutory directive is given, or when existing statutes require further detail for practical application, an agency can initiate a rulemaking process. This process typically involves public notice, comment periods, and the filing of the adopted rule with the Code Reviser’s Office. The legislative intent behind authorizing an agency to regulate a specific area, such as agricultural drone use, is to allow for expert-driven, adaptable regulations that can keep pace with technological advancements and evolving needs. Therefore, the most direct and appropriate method for the Washington State Department of Agriculture to establish specific operational standards, safety protocols, and licensing requirements for drones in farming, as directed by a new statute, is through the formal administrative rulemaking process as defined by the APA. This process ensures transparency, public input, and legal compliance, making the resulting regulations legally sound and effective.

In Washington State, the process of amending the state constitution is governed by Article II, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution. This section outlines two primary methods for proposing amendments: by the legislature or by initiative. For a legislative proposal, an amendment must be agreed to by two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the legislature. Following legislative approval, the proposed amendment must be submitted to the voters for ratification at the next general election. If a majority of the voters approve the amendment, it becomes part of the constitution. The question asks about the minimum threshold for legislative approval of a constitutional amendment in Washington. Given that the Washington State Senate has 49 members and the House of Representatives has 98 members, two-thirds of the members elected to the Senate is \( \lceil \frac{2}{3} \times 49 \rceil = \lceil 32.66… \rceil = 33 \) members. Two-thirds of the members elected to the House of Representatives is \( \lceil \frac{2}{3} \times 98 \rceil = \lceil 65.33… \rceil = 66 \) members. Therefore, the minimum number of votes required is 33 in the Senate and 66 in the House. The question specifically asks for the number of votes required in the House of Representatives.

The Washington State Legislature’s Committee on Administrative Procedure’s role in reviewing proposed administrative rules is crucial for ensuring compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter \(34.05\) RCW. When an agency submits a proposed rule for review, the committee examines it for clarity, consistency with legislative intent, and adherence to statutory authority. The committee’s review process is designed to prevent arbitrary or capricious agency action and to ensure that rules are accessible and understandable to the public. The committee may recommend disapproval of a rule, which, if sustained by the legislature, can prevent the rule from becoming effective. This oversight function is a key aspect of the legislative branch’s constitutional duty to ensure that administrative agencies act within the bounds of the powers delegated to them by the legislature. Therefore, the committee’s primary concern is not the policy wisdom of the rule in isolation, but rather its legal sufficiency and procedural regularity under Washington law.

The Washington State Legislature operates under a bicameral system, with the House of Representatives and the Senate. Bills can originate in either chamber, except for revenue-raising bills, which must originate in the House per Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution. Once a bill is introduced, it typically proceeds through a series of committee reviews in its chamber of origin. These committees hold public hearings, mark up the bill (propose amendments), and vote on whether to recommend it for passage. If a bill passes one chamber, it then moves to the other chamber, where it undergoes a similar committee process. If the second chamber passes the bill without amendments, it is sent to the Governor. However, if amendments are made, the bill must return to the originating chamber for concurrence on those amendments. If concurrence is not achieved, a conference committee, composed of members from both chambers, is formed to reconcile differences. The conference committee’s report must then be approved by both the House and the Senate. After passage by both chambers in identical form, the bill is presented to the Governor for signature, veto, or approval without signature. The Governor has ten days (excluding Sundays) to act. If the Governor vetoes the bill, the legislature can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers. The question asks about the process after a bill passes the originating chamber and is sent to the second chamber, specifically focusing on the scenario where the second chamber passes the bill with amendments. In this situation, the bill must be returned to the originating chamber for concurrence on the amendments. If the originating chamber concurs, the bill proceeds to the Governor. If it does not concur, a conference committee is typically appointed. Therefore, the immediate next step after the second chamber passes the bill with amendments, and assuming the originating chamber has not yet acted on those amendments, is for the bill to be returned to the originating chamber for its consideration of the amendments.

The core of legislative drafting involves ensuring clarity, consistency, and enforceability. When drafting amendments to existing statutes, particularly those concerning regulatory frameworks like those found in Washington state’s environmental regulations, a drafter must consider how the proposed changes interact with the current statutory language and its established interpretations. A critical aspect of this is avoiding ambiguity that could lead to litigation or ineffective implementation. The principle of “in pari materia” suggests that statutes dealing with the same subject matter should be construed together. Therefore, when amending a section of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), a drafter must ensure the amendment harmonizes with other related RCWs, including those that define terms or establish procedural requirements. Failure to do so can create internal inconsistencies within the code, making enforcement difficult and potentially rendering parts of the law inoperative. For instance, if a new amendment alters a definition or a procedural step in one chapter without corresponding adjustments in another chapter that relies on the original definition or procedure, it creates a conflict. The goal is to produce legislation that is not only legally sound but also practically workable, reflecting the intent of the legislature while respecting the existing legal landscape. This involves a meticulous review of the entire relevant body of law to anticipate and mitigate potential conflicts or unintended consequences.

The core principle being tested here is the distinction between an enrolled bill and a bill that has been vetoed or has become law without the governor’s signature in the context of Washington State legislative procedure. An enrolled bill is the final version of a bill that has passed both houses of the legislature in identical form. Once a bill is enrolled, it is sent to the governor for action. The governor has several options: sign the bill into law, veto the entire bill, or veto specific provisions of the bill (line-item veto, if applicable). If the governor neither signs nor vetoes the bill within a specified timeframe, it becomes law without the governor’s signature. A bill that has been vetoed by the governor is not yet law and requires an override vote by the legislature. Therefore, a bill that has been vetoed is not considered an enrolled bill that has successfully navigated the entire legislative and executive approval process. The question asks for the status of a bill that has been vetoed. This means it has passed the legislature but has not yet been enacted into law due to the governor’s objection, and it requires further legislative action (an override) to become law. It is no longer simply an enrolled bill awaiting executive action; it is a bill subject to a specific executive action that has occurred.

The core principle being tested here is the proper application of the Washington State Administrative Procedure Act (APA), specifically RCW 34.05.395, concerning the effective dates of administrative rules. When a legislative act amends an existing statute that an administrative rule implements or interprets, the APA dictates that the rule does not become effective or remain effective if it conflicts with the amended statute. The question presents a scenario where a new bill, Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 1234, amends RCW 70.105.020, which is the statutory basis for the Washington Department of Ecology’s rule WAC 173-303-040. The amendment to the statute takes effect on July 24, 2023. The administrative rule, WAC 173-303-040, was scheduled to take effect on August 1, 2023. Because the rule, as currently written, would conflict with the newly amended statute, it cannot take effect as scheduled. The APA mandates that administrative rules must be consistent with the statutes they implement. Therefore, the rule’s effective date is superseded by the statutory amendment’s effective date, preventing the rule from becoming operative in its current form until it is revised to comply with the amended statute. This ensures that administrative actions remain subordinate to legislative intent as expressed in statutes. The rule effectively becomes void or unenforceable on the date the conflicting statute takes effect, which is July 24, 2023, in this scenario.

The scenario involves a legislative bill in Washington State that proposes to amend an existing statute concerning environmental impact assessments for new infrastructure projects. The core issue is how to define “significant adverse environmental impact” for the purpose of triggering a more detailed review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The bill introduces a new criterion: a project’s contribution to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions exceeding a specific threshold. This requires understanding the interplay between existing SEPA procedural requirements and the introduction of new substantive criteria. When drafting legislation, clarity and precision are paramount. The definition of “significant adverse environmental impact” is crucial because it determines the scope and depth of the environmental review. If the threshold for cumulative greenhouse gas emissions is not clearly defined, it could lead to ambiguity in its application, potentially resulting in either overly burdensome reviews for minor contributions or insufficient scrutiny for projects with substantial cumulative impacts. The process of amending a statute involves identifying the precise section to be modified and ensuring that the new language integrates seamlessly with the existing legal framework. This includes considering how the new criterion interacts with other factors already used to determine significance, such as impacts on air quality, water resources, or endangered species. The drafter must ensure that the new language does not create unintended consequences or conflicts with other provisions of Washington law, including relevant federal environmental regulations. The goal is to create a workable and legally sound standard that accurately reflects the legislative intent to address climate change through infrastructure project review.

The scenario describes a legislative bill in Washington State that proposes to amend existing statutes concerning environmental impact assessments for new infrastructure projects. Specifically, the bill aims to introduce a tiered system for review based on the project’s potential impact, as defined by specific thresholds of land disturbance and water usage. The core of the question lies in understanding the procedural requirements for enacting such a change within the Washington State legislative process, particularly concerning how amendments to existing law are handled. When a bill proposes to amend a statute, the legislative drafting process requires careful consideration of the existing statutory language and how the proposed changes will integrate with it. This involves identifying the precise sections of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) that are to be altered, added to, or repealed. The drafting must ensure that the amended language is clear, unambiguous, and consistent with the overall intent of the legislation and existing law. Furthermore, the process often involves ensuring that the bill clearly indicates which sections of the RCW are being amended and how. The bill’s structure would typically involve a section that explicitly states, “Section X of this act amends RCW Y.Z.A to read as follows:” followed by the new text. The proposed tiered system, based on land disturbance and water usage, necessitates defining these terms precisely within the bill itself or by referencing existing definitions in state administrative codes or statutes. The process of legislative drafting in Washington, governed by legislative rules and best practices, emphasizes clarity, consistency, and adherence to established legal frameworks to avoid ambiguity and ensure effective implementation of legislative intent. The correct approach involves directly amending the relevant sections of the RCW, ensuring the bill clearly delineates the changes to existing law.

The core principle tested here is the distinction between substantive legislative changes and procedural or technical amendments within the context of Washington State’s legislative process. When a bill is amended to remove a specific requirement for a state agency, such as the Department of Ecology, to conduct a particular type of environmental impact study for a new industrial facility, this constitutes a significant alteration of the agency’s mandated duties and the regulatory framework governing industrial development. Such a change directly impacts the substantive rights and obligations of regulated entities and the public’s access to environmental review. Consequently, according to legislative drafting best practices and rules governing legislative procedure in Washington, a bill that undergoes such a substantive amendment typically requires a new fiscal note. A fiscal note is a document that estimates the financial impact of proposed legislation on state and local governments. Removing a mandated study implies either a reduction in workload and associated costs for the agency or a potential increase in costs if the study is replaced by a less efficient or more expensive alternative, or if the removal leads to unforeseen consequences that require additional governmental expenditure. Therefore, a new fiscal note is essential to accurately reflect these potential financial implications for legislative consideration. Conversely, amendments that merely correct typographical errors, clarify existing language without altering its meaning, or adjust effective dates are generally considered non-substantive and do not necessitate a new fiscal note. The scenario describes a direct alteration of a mandated governmental function, making it a substantive change.

The Washington State Legislature’s Committee on Administrative Procedures Act (APA) governs the process for creating, amending, and repealing administrative rules. When drafting legislation that proposes to amend an existing administrative rule, a key consideration is the legislative intent behind the original rule and how the proposed amendment aligns with or deviates from that intent. The legislative counsel’s office, tasked with assisting in bill drafting, must ensure that amendments are clear, unambiguous, and effectively communicate the desired change in regulatory policy. This involves understanding the scope and purpose of the existing rule, as well as the specific problem the proposed legislation seeks to address. For instance, if a rule was initially designed to promote equitable access to public services, an amendment that introduces new eligibility criteria must be carefully worded to either reinforce, modify, or expressly supersede that original intent. The drafting must consider the potential impact on regulated entities and the public, ensuring that the language used in the bill accurately reflects the intended regulatory outcome without creating unintended consequences or loopholes. This requires a deep understanding of statutory construction principles and the specific context of the agency’s regulatory authority. The process emphasizes precision in language to avoid ambiguity and ensure the rule, once amended, is legally sound and practically implementable, adhering to the established principles of administrative law in Washington state.

The question probes the understanding of statutory interpretation principles specifically within the context of Washington State law, focusing on the hierarchy and application of interpretive aids when a statute’s meaning is ambiguous. Washington follows a general principle that courts will first look to the plain language of the statute. If the plain language is clear and unambiguous, it is generally applied as written. However, when ambiguity arises, courts may consult various sources to discern legislative intent. These sources can include legislative history, which encompasses documents generated during the legislative process such as committee reports, floor debates, and bill analyses. Other aids might include dictionaries, scholarly articles, and judicial decisions interpreting similar statutes. The Washington State Legislature’s intent is paramount. When drafting legislation, drafters must anticipate potential ambiguities and aim for clarity to avoid reliance on external interpretive aids, which can sometimes be contradictory or subject to differing interpretations themselves. The effectiveness of legislative history as an interpretive tool is often debated, but it remains a significant resource when the statutory text alone does not resolve a question of meaning. The core principle is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative will.

The scenario describes a situation where a proposed bill in Washington State aims to regulate the use of certain types of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for commercial purposes within a specified distance of critical infrastructure. The core issue for legislative drafting is ensuring the bill’s provisions are clear, enforceable, and consistent with existing state and federal law, particularly concerning aviation and privacy. A key consideration is how to define “critical infrastructure” in a way that is both comprehensive and avoids ambiguity, as well as establishing the specific prohibited activities for UAVs. The concept of preemption, where federal law might supersede state law in certain areas of aviation, is also paramount. When drafting such legislation, a legislative drafter must analyze the scope of the proposed regulation, identify potential conflicts with federal aviation regulations (e.g., those from the FAA), and ensure that the language used in the bill provides sufficient clarity for both regulated entities and enforcement agencies. The drafter must also consider the impact on existing businesses and the potential for unintended consequences. The process involves meticulous attention to detail in defining terms, specifying prohibitions and exceptions, and establishing mechanisms for enforcement and penalties. The bill must also navigate potential constitutional challenges, such as those related to privacy rights. The drafter’s role is to translate policy objectives into legally sound and effective statutory language.

The scenario describes a situation where a legislative bill is introduced in the Washington State Legislature that proposes to amend existing statutes related to environmental protection. The core of the question revolves around the process of legislative engrossment and enrollment in Washington State. Engrossment is the process of incorporating all amendments adopted by a house into the bill, creating a clean, amended version. Enrollment, on the other hand, is the final step where the bill, having passed both houses in identical form, is prepared in its final form for presentation to the Governor. This process involves printing the bill as finally agreed upon by the legislature. In Washington, the Secretary of the Senate or the Chief Clerk of the House is responsible for the enrollment of bills. The enrolled bill is then signed by the presiding officer of each house and transmitted to the Governor. Therefore, the correct sequence for a bill that has undergone amendments and is ready for final legislative processing before going to the Governor is engrossment followed by enrollment.

The Washington State Legislature uses a specific process for amending existing statutes. When a bill is introduced that proposes to amend a section of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the amendment is typically indicated by striking through existing text and italicizing new text. The legislative drafting process requires precision to ensure that the intent of the amendment is clearly conveyed and that the resulting statute is unambiguous. The question tests the understanding of how amendments to existing statutes are visually represented in legislative drafting, a core skill for legislative drafters. Specifically, the correct method involves clearly showing what is being removed and what is being added. Existing language to be deleted is shown with a strikeout, and new language to be inserted is shown in italics. This convention is vital for clarity and to avoid confusion about the operative text of the law. Other methods, such as simply deleting old text without indicating new text, or adding new text without showing deletions, or using different formatting like bolding for deletions, would lead to ambiguity and are not standard practice in Washington legislative drafting. The process ensures that legislators and the public can easily discern the changes being made to the law.

The core principle being tested is the proper application of statutory interpretation rules, specifically when a legislative intent is unclear and a court must rely on established canons of construction. In Washington, as in many jurisdictions, courts often look to the plain meaning of the words used in a statute. If the meaning is still ambiguous, they may consider legislative history, the purpose of the statute, and canons of interpretation. One such canon is *ejusdem generis*, which states that when general words follow specific words in a statute, the general words are construed to include only those things of the same kind as the specific words. Another relevant concept is the presumption against surplusage, which dictates that every word, clause, and sentence of a statute should be presumed to have a meaning and purpose. When drafting, understanding these interpretive principles is crucial to avoid ambiguity that could lead to unintended judicial interpretations. For instance, if a statute lists specific types of prohibited substances followed by a general category, and the intent was to capture all similar substances, the drafting must be precise to avoid limiting the scope through *ejusdem generis* if that was not the legislative intent. Alternatively, if the intent was to limit the scope, the drafting should be clear to invoke such a limitation. The question focuses on the practical implication of drafting clarity versus ambiguity in relation to established legal interpretation tools.

The core principle being tested here is the proper application of statutory interpretation rules in Washington State, specifically concerning the hierarchy and precedence of legislative enactments when amendments conflict. When a new law is enacted that amends an existing statute, the amendment takes precedence over the original text it modifies. However, if a later enacted law, even if it doesn’t explicitly state it’s amending a prior section, directly contradicts or revises the effect of a prior amendment without repealing the amending section itself, the most recent legislative intent, as expressed in the later enactment, generally prevails. In this scenario, the 2021 Act directly addresses the same subject matter and establishes a new threshold for eligibility, effectively superseding the threshold set by the 2019 amendment to the original statute. The 2019 amendment is not repealed, but its practical effect on the eligibility calculation is nullified by the later, more specific provision in the 2021 Act. Therefore, the eligibility is determined by the 2021 Act’s provision, which is a threshold of $50,000. This reflects the principle that later statutes control over earlier ones, especially when they cover the same subject matter and express a clear intent to change the existing law.

The Washington State Legislature’s process for amending existing statutes involves several key considerations regarding clarity, consistency, and avoiding unintended consequences. When a bill proposes to amend a section of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the drafting must precisely identify the section to be altered. This involves referencing the specific RCW chapter and section number. The amendment itself must be drafted to clearly express the intended change to the existing language. A critical aspect is ensuring that the amendment does not create conflicts with other provisions of the RCW or existing case law. This often requires reviewing related statutes and considering how the proposed change might interact with them. For instance, if a bill amends a definition in one chapter, the drafter must ensure that this change is reflected or accounted for in other chapters that rely on that definition, or that the amendment explicitly states its limited scope. The principle of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” (the express mention of one thing excludes all others) is relevant here; by amending a specific part, one implies that other parts remain unchanged unless also specified. Furthermore, legislative intent, as expressed in committee reports or floor debates, plays a crucial role in interpreting the amendment, but the statutory language itself is paramount. The drafter’s role is to translate that intent into precise legal language that is unambiguous and self-executing, without relying on external or future interpretive aids beyond the text of the law itself.

The Washington State Legislature’s process for amending the state constitution is a complex, multi-step procedure designed to ensure deliberation and broad consensus. Article II, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution outlines this process. A proposed amendment must first pass the legislature by a supermajority vote. Specifically, it requires the assent of two-thirds of the members elected to each house. Following legislative approval, the proposed amendment must be submitted to the voters for ratification at the next general election. For the amendment to become part of the constitution, it must receive the approval of a majority of the voters who vote on the proposition. This contrasts with the process for enacting ordinary legislation, which typically requires a simple majority vote in each house and is subject to gubernatorial veto, though vetoes can be overridden by a similar supermajority. Constitutional amendments, once passed by the legislature, are not subject to gubernatorial veto. The question asks for the legislative vote threshold required to propose an amendment. Based on Article II, Section 1, this threshold is two-thirds of the members elected to each house.

The core principle tested here is the distinction between an enrolled bill and a bill that has been signed by the Governor of Washington State, or has otherwise become law. An enrolled bill is the final version of a bill that has been agreed upon by both houses of the legislature. It is then sent to the governor for approval. Once the governor signs the bill, or if the governor takes no action within a specified period and the legislature is in session, the bill becomes an act of law. Therefore, the document that is presented to the governor for signature is the enrolled bill, not yet an enacted law. Subsequent actions by the governor or the legislature determine its enactment. The question focuses on the status of the document *before* it officially becomes law. The Washington State Legislature’s process dictates that the enrolled bill is the form presented for gubernatorial action. This is a critical step in the legislative process, distinguishing the legislative product from the executive action that finalizes it. Understanding this progression is fundamental for legislative drafters to accurately track and reference legislative actions.

The Washington State Legislature’s process for amending the state constitution is a rigorous one, designed to ensure broad consensus and public deliberation. Article XXIII of the Washington State Constitution outlines the specific procedures. An amendment can be proposed by either house of the legislature. If a proposed amendment receives a two-thirds vote of all members elected to each house, it is then submitted to the voters for ratification at the next general election. The proposed amendment must be published in at least one newspaper in each county that has a newspaper, for at least three months immediately preceding the election. For the amendment to be adopted, a majority of the voters voting on the measure must approve it. This multi-step process, involving legislative supermajorities and direct voter approval after public notice, reflects a commitment to stability and democratic participation in fundamental law changes. The explanation focuses on the constitutional requirements for proposing and ratifying amendments, emphasizing the legislative and electoral stages.

The core principle being tested here is the application of the Washington State Administrative Procedure Act (APA), specifically concerning the process of adopting new administrative rules and the requirements for public notice and participation. When a state agency in Washington proposes to adopt a new rule, the APA mandates a specific procedural framework. This framework includes providing adequate public notice of the proposed action. The purpose of public notice is to inform interested parties, including the regulated public, stakeholders, and the general public, about the proposed rule, its intended effect, and the opportunity to provide input. RCW 34.05.322 outlines the requirements for rule adoption. Key among these is the provision for a public comment period. Agencies must publish notice of the proposed rule in the Washington State Register, which serves as the official publication for proposed and adopted administrative rules. This notice must include, at a minimum, the text of the proposed rule or a description of the subject matter and the purpose of the rule, the time and place of any public hearing, and the manner in which interested persons may present their views. The APA generally requires at least 20 days for written comments and may also include a public hearing. The scenario presented involves a proposed rule change by the Washington State Department of Ecology regarding water quality standards. The department published a notice in the Washington State Register, but this notice only contained a summary of the proposed changes and did not include the full text of the rule. Furthermore, the notice provided only a 15-day comment period. Under RCW 34.05.322, the notice must provide the text of the proposed rule or a clear description of its subject matter and purpose, and the comment period is typically longer, with a minimum of 20 days for written comments being a common standard to ensure adequate opportunity for public input. The insufficient comment period and the omission of the full text of the rule in the initial notice are procedural defects that could render the adoption process vulnerable to legal challenge. The correct course of action for the Department of Ecology to ensure compliance and the validity of the rule adoption would be to reissue the notice with the full text of the proposed rule and provide a sufficient comment period, adhering to the minimum requirements of the APA.

The core principle tested here is the distinction between substantive legislative changes and procedural housekeeping or clarifying amendments. Washington’s legislative drafting process, like many others, prioritizes clarity and avoiding unintended consequences. When a bill is amended, particularly in a way that alters its fundamental meaning or impact on existing law, it often triggers a requirement for a fiscal note under RCW 43.135.055. This statute mandates that a fiscal note be prepared for any bill that “appropriates funds or imposes a tax, fee, or other revenue-raising measure, or that has a substantial fiscal impact on state or local government.” An amendment that changes the eligibility criteria for a state-funded program, thereby increasing or decreasing the number of beneficiaries and consequently the program’s cost, clearly falls under the purview of having a substantial fiscal impact. Such an amendment alters the program’s scope and the financial obligations of the state, necessitating a fiscal analysis to inform legislators about the budgetary implications. Conversely, amendments that merely correct grammatical errors, clarify existing language without changing its meaning, or remove redundant provisions are typically considered non-fiscal and do not require a new fiscal note if the original bill did not necessitate one, or if the changes do not introduce new fiscal impacts. In this scenario, altering the income threshold for eligibility directly impacts the number of individuals who can access state funds, thus creating a direct and substantial fiscal impact that requires a new fiscal note.

The core principle being tested is the application of the doctrine of severability in statutory construction, specifically within the context of Washington State law. Severability clauses, often found in legislative acts, stipulate that if a portion of a law is found to be unconstitutional or invalid, the remaining parts of the law should still be given effect. This doctrine is crucial for drafters to ensure that the legislative intent behind a bill is preserved to the greatest extent possible, even if certain provisions are struck down by a court. In Washington, like many jurisdictions, the presumption is that the legislature intends for the valid portions of a statute to stand independently. The question scenario involves a hypothetical statute enacted by the Washington State Legislature that addresses environmental regulations for the aerospace industry. A specific section of this statute, dealing with emission standards for a particular type of aircraft sealant, is challenged and subsequently declared unconstitutional by the Washington Supreme Court due to an overbroad delegation of authority. The question asks about the consequence for the remainder of the statute. Given the presence of a standard severability clause and the established legal principle, the unconstitutional section would be excised, and the rest of the environmental regulation statute would remain in effect, provided that the remaining provisions can still function independently and reflect the legislature’s overall intent. This demonstrates the practical application of a drafter’s consideration for the potential impact of constitutional challenges on the entirety of a legislative enactment. The objective is to uphold the legislative will as much as possible.

The Washington State Legislature’s authority to enact laws is primarily derived from the state constitution and the powers vested in it by the people of Washington. When drafting legislation, drafters must ensure that proposed laws do not infringe upon the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Washington State Constitution. Specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection and due process, while Article I of the Washington State Constitution contains a robust Bill of Rights, including provisions for due process, equal protection, and prohibitions against special privileges. A bill that creates a class of citizens who are exempt from a generally applicable regulation, without a rational basis for the distinction, would likely violate the Equal Protection Clause. For instance, if a proposed law regulating the use of recreational drones exempted all drones owned by residents of a specific county from registration requirements, while requiring registration for all other drone owners, this would create an arbitrary classification. The rationale for such an exemption would need to be compelling and directly related to a legitimate state interest to withstand constitutional scrutiny. Without a clear and justifiable reason for this differential treatment, the law would be vulnerable to a legal challenge based on equal protection principles. Therefore, legislative drafters must carefully consider the potential for creating unconstitutional classifications when drafting provisions that treat different groups of people or entities differently. The principle of equal protection mandates that similarly situated individuals should be treated alike under the law.

The core principle tested here is the legislative intent behind statutory interpretation, specifically concerning amendments that alter existing language. When a statute is amended, the presumption is that the legislature intended to change the meaning of the law. This is often referred to as the “presumption of change.” Therefore, if a provision is amended to remove a specific term or phrase, it implies that the legislature no longer wishes for that term or phrase to be included in the scope of the statute. This contrasts with situations where an amendment clarifies existing language or adds new provisions without altering the fundamental meaning of previously established terms. The question presents a scenario where a prior act, RCW 43.10.050, defined “state agency” to include entities receiving state funds, and a subsequent amendment to RCW 43.10.050 explicitly removed the phrase “or receiving state funds.” This removal directly signals a legislative intent to narrow the definition, excluding entities that solely rely on state funding without other qualifying criteria. Consequently, an entity that previously qualified as a “state agency” solely by virtue of receiving state funds would no longer be considered such under the amended statute. The task of a legislative drafter is to accurately reflect this intent and ensure the statutory language unambiguously conveys the intended scope.

The Washington State Legislature operates under a bicameral system, meaning legislation must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The process begins with the introduction of a bill in either chamber. After introduction, a bill is referred to a standing committee for review. In committee, the bill may undergo amendments. If a committee approves the bill, it is then scheduled for a floor vote. To advance, a bill requires a simple majority vote in its chamber of origin. Following passage in one chamber, the bill is transmitted to the other chamber, where it essentially repeats the committee and floor vote process. If the second chamber passes the bill without amendments, it is sent to the Governor. However, if the second chamber amends the bill, it must return to the originating chamber for concurrence on the amendments. If the originating chamber agrees to the amendments, the bill proceeds to the Governor. If it does not concur, a conference committee, comprised of members from both chambers, may be appointed to reconcile the differences. The conference committee’s report, detailing the agreed-upon version of the bill, must then be approved by both the House and the Senate. Once both chambers approve the identical version of the bill, it is presented to the Governor for signature, veto, or approval without signature. The Governor has ten days (excluding Sundays) to act. If the Governor signs the bill, it becomes law. If vetoed, the legislature can override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers. If the Governor takes no action within the ten-day period, and the legislature is in session, the bill becomes law without signature. If the legislature has adjourned, the bill does not become law (a pocket veto). Therefore, for a bill to become law in Washington, it must successfully navigate committee review and a majority vote in both the House and the Senate, and then receive gubernatorial approval or have a veto overridden.

The core principle being tested here is the application of the Washington State Administrative Procedure Act (APA), specifically regarding the process of legislative review of administrative rules. Under RCW 34.05.610, the Joint Administrative Rules Committee (JARC) is tasked with reviewing proposed and existing rules. When a rule is found to be inconsistent with legislative intent, the committee can adopt a “statement of legislative review.” This statement, if adopted by a two-thirds vote of the committee members present, can trigger a process that may lead to the rule’s repeal or amendment by the agency. The question focuses on the specific threshold required for JARC to formally express disapproval of a rule’s consistency with legislative intent, which is a two-thirds vote of the members present. This mechanism is a crucial check on agency rulemaking power, ensuring alignment with the broader policy objectives established by the legislature. The explanation emphasizes the procedural step and the required voting threshold within the context of Washington’s APA framework, highlighting the committee’s role in overseeing administrative regulations and ensuring they reflect the will of the legislature.

The question concerns the legislative process in Washington State, specifically the interplay between bill sponsorship, committee referral, and the subsequent actions that can occur. A bill introduced in the Washington House of Representatives is referred to a standing committee. The committee can take several actions, including holding public hearings, amending the bill, voting to recommend passage, or voting to not recommend passage. If a bill is voted out of committee with a recommendation for passage, it is then sent to the floor of the House for consideration. If the bill is not recommended for passage, or if it is amended in a way that fundamentally alters its purpose, it may not advance. The scenario describes a bill that passed its initial committee referral with amendments. This means it has successfully navigated the first stage of committee review. The subsequent step in the Washington legislative process, after a bill passes a committee, is its referral to another committee or its progression to the floor of the chamber for a full vote. Given that it has already been amended and passed out of its initial committee, the most logical next step for a bill that is progressing is to be considered by the full chamber. The question asks about the *most likely* next procedural step. While it could be referred to another committee for further review, especially if it has fiscal implications or touches on multiple policy areas, a direct progression to the floor for debate and a vote is a common and direct path for bills that have successfully cleared their initial committee hurdle. The other options represent either a premature end to the bill’s journey or a less direct path than immediate floor consideration. The critical aspect here is understanding the sequential nature of legislative action and the typical progression of a bill once it has received a favorable committee report. The legislative process is designed to allow for scrutiny at multiple stages, but once a bill has passed a committee, its journey towards a floor vote is the primary objective for its proponents.