WA House - Session - Afternoon
(April 24, 2021)

Saturday April 24, 2021 2:35 PM - 5:32 PM Observed
Washington State House of Representatives Logo

The Washington State House of Representatives (WA House) convenes sessions to read, debate, amend, and vote on legislation.

Second and Third Reading

  • SB 5476 - “Responding to the State v. Blake decision by addressing justice system responses and behavioral health prevention, treatment, and related services.”
https://app.leg.wa.gov/far/House/Calendar

Observations

House lawmakers shared personal accounts of how drug use had impacted their lives while deeply amending Senate legislation to re-enact drug possession offenses.

Here are some observations from the Saturday April 24th Washington State House of Representatives (WA House) afternoon session.

My top 4 takeaways:

  • On the floor, members debated substantial changes to the committee amendment, including pre-arrest diversion to treatment, a revised implementation schedule, and nearly $85M in appropriations within the bill itself.
    • Deputy Speaker Pro Tempore John Lovick instructed the presiding WA House Clerk to provide a second reading of SB 5476 and stated that the WA House APP committee amendment “is before us for the purpose of amendment” (audio - <1m, video). He identified three amendments that had been withdrawn and heard no objections from members (audio - <1m, video). 
    • Amendment 765 - H-1630.1 by Representative Lauren Davis had a bevy of implications for the legislation (audio - 1m, video):
      • Specifies the membership of the Substance Use Recovery Services Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) to include
        •  the Director of the Health Care Authority (Authority), or the Director's designee, to serve as chair and to convene the committee;
        • four legislators;
        • at least one adult and one youth in recovery from substance use disorder who has experienced criminal legal consequences due to substance use;
        • one expert from the Addictions, Drug, and Alcohol Institute at the University of Washington;
        • one outreach services provider; one substance use disorder treatment provider; one peer recovery services provider; one recovery housing provider;
        • one expert in serving persons with co-occurring substance use disorders and mental health conditions;
        • one expert in antiracism and equity in health care delivery systems;
        • one employee who provides substance use disorder treatment or services as a member of a labor union representing workers in the behavioral health field;
        • one representative of the Association of Washington Health Plans; 
        • one expert in diversion from the criminal legal system to community-based care for persons with substance use disorder; 
        • one representative of public defenders;
        • one representative of prosecutors;
        • one representative of sheriffs and police chiefs;
        • one representative of a federally recognized tribe;
        • and one representative of local governments.
      • Requires Advisory Committee members to be reflective of the community of persons living with substance use disorders.
      • Removes the requirement that the Authority, when making appointments, consult with the University of Washington Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and an organization that represents the interests of people who have been directly impacted by substance use and the criminal legal system. Authorizes the Advisory Committee to create subcommittees.
      • Eliminates items of the Substance Use Recovery Services Plan (Plan) related to:
        • The manner in which persons with substance use disorder access the behavioral health system;
        • workforce needs for the behavioral health services sector;
        • the design of research regarding the types of services desired by people with substance use disorders;
        • and innovative mechanisms for outreach and engagement to persons in active substance use disorder.
      • Adds items to the Plan related to:
        • Recommendations regarding the appropriate criminal legal system response, if any, to possession of controlled substances, recommendations regarding the collection and reporting of data that identifies the number of persons law enforcement officers and prosecutors engage related to drug possession and disparities, and the design of a mechanism for referring persons with substance use disorder or problematic behaviors resulting from substance use into the supportive services.
        • Requires that the Authority submit a preliminary report by December 1, 2021, and extends the submission of the final Plan from December 1, 2021, until December 1, 2022. Extends the date by which the Authority must adopt rules and enter into contracts to implement the Plan from December 1, 2022, until December 1, 2023.
        • Adds references to persons with co-occurring substance use disorders and mental health conditions to the scope of the Plan and several Plan topics, to the persons served by the Recovery Navigator Program, and to the Expanded Recovery Support Services Program. Extends the establishment of the grant program for behavioral health treatment services not covered by medical assistance and for those not eligible for medical assistance and the Expanded Recovery Support Services program from January 1, 2022, until January 1, 2023.
        • Extends the establishment of the Homeless Outreach Stabilization Transition programs and the Project for Psychiatric Outreach to the Homeless programs from January 1, 2022, until January 1, 2024, and the distribution of funds from March 1, 2022, until March 1, 2024.
        • Extends the completion of a plan for implementing a comprehensive statewide substance misuse prevention effort from January 1, 2022, until January 1, 2024.
      • Davis described how her amendment would “appoint the committee members” of the Substance Use Recovery Services Advisory Committee to be composed of “half individuals that represent the behavioral health field and half individuals that represent the criminal legal system.” The group would be tasked “with coming back with recommendations in December of 2022 regarding the relationship between the criminal legal system, the behavioral health system, and individuals in possession of controlled substances” so that the “legislature can act in the 2023 session,” she said (audio - 1m, video). 
      • Minority Caucus Vice Chair Gina Mosbrucker stated that she knew “this is where [Davis’] heart and soul lies in life” and encouraged a yes vote, appreciative of the advisory body and early recommendations (audio - <1m, video). 
      • Amendment 765 was unanimously approved (audio - 1m, video).
    • Amendment 761 - TOUL 230 from Representative Timm Ormsby (audio - <1m, video):
      • Provides that the requirements that the Health Care Authority establish requirements for recovery navigator programs to provide immediate response to in-custody referrals from law enforcement; provide funding to Behavioral Health Administrative Services Organizations (BHASOs) for their recovery navigator programs; establish regional access standards for the grant program for behavioral health treatment services not covered by medical assistance and for those not eligible for medical assistance; and establish regional expanded recovery plans for the Expanded Recovery Support Services program are subject to the availability of amounts appropriated for those purposes.
      • Appropriates the following amounts to the Health Care Authority Community Behavioral Health program:
        • $45 million from the state general fund to implement a statewide recovery navigator program and for related technical assistance;
        • $4.8 million from the state general fund and $3.9 million from the general fund-federal account to implement Clubhouse services in every region of the state;
        • $12.5 million from the state general fund to implement the homeless outreach stabilization team program;
        • $5 million from the state general fund to expand efforts to provide opioid use disorder medication in city, county, regional, and tribal jails; 
        • $1 million from the state general fund to expand opioid treatment network programs for people with co-occurring opioid and stimulant use disorder;
        • $2.8 million from the state general fund for BHASOs to develop regional recovery navigator program plans and to establish positions focusing on regional planning to improve access to and quality of regional behavioral health services with a focus on integrated care;
        • $150,000 from the state general fund for the authority to contract with an organization with expertise in supporting efforts to increase access to and improve quality in recovery housing and recovery residences;
        • $1 million from the state general fund to provide short-term housing vouchers for individuals with substance use disorders;
        • $500,000 from the state general fund to issue grants for substance use disorder family navigator services;
        • $400,000 from the state general fund for support for the Recovery Oversight Committee; and 
        • $5.1 million from the state general fund to develop and implement the recovery services plan and carry out other requirements of the act.
      • Appropriates the following amounts to other state agencies as follows:
        • $4.5 million from the state general fund to the Administrative Office of the Courts (Office) for therapeutic courts operated by municipalities and district courts to be allocated pursuant to a formula established by the Office which distributes funding equitably between courts located east and west of the Cascade mountains;
        • $1.5 million from the state general fund to the Department of Commerce to provide grants for the operational costs of new staffed recovery residences which serve individuals with substance use disorders who require more support than a level 1 recovery residence; and
        • $300,000 from the state general fund to the Criminal Justice Training Commission to compensate trainer time to deliver a curriculum related to law enforcement interactions with persons with a substance use disorder.
      • Ormsby called SB 5476 “a little bit unusual" in terms of how the legislature approaches budget appropriations but the changes in law came “in the waning hours” of a legislative session. He said the appropriations in the bill would ensure that the “commitments that we are making to fund the programs in the underlying striking amendment are fulfilled” and the “implementation of the underlying policy gets off to a good start” (audio - 2m, video).
        • During a February 22nd WA House APP hearing, Ormsby, the committee chair, reprimanded a lawmaker for trying to include an appropriation in HB 1480.
      • Mosbrucker was thankful for Ormsby for funding “something that we all think is critical and in crisis” (audio - <1m, video).
      • Representative Andrew Barkis observed parts of SB 5476 were “being funded, some for the very first time” particularly the navigator program which he anticipated would “be a critical piece to the success of the implementation of the underlying policy.” He viewed the money allocated by the bill as "a down payment...on a future” attempt to address “one of the single greatest crisises [sic] facing our state” (audio - 1m, video).
      • Assistant Minority Whip Cyndy Jacobsen commented that she appreciated seeing “the therapeutic courts in this amendment. We have those in Puyallup and it gives people a chance to restore trust and get back into the community” (audio - <1m, video). 
      • Amendment 761 was adopted after a unanimous vote (audio - 1m, video).
    • Amendment 764 - BLAC 060 by Representative Joe Schmick was declared out of order by Lovick (audio - <1m, video). 
    • Amendment 760 - BLAC 062 from Representative Michelle Caldier “Directs the Director of the Health Care Authority to assure that rates paid by managed care organizations and behavioral health administrative services organizations to community-based voluntary withdrawal management providers who serve low-income individuals at a specified level of care are paid at the rate that is the greater of 80 percent of the daily rate paid by medicare for the same service or 500 dollars, adjusted annually for inflation, per day” (audio - <1m, video). 
      • Caldier told representatives that “our state’s managed care organizations adequately fund some of those [behavioral health] codes.” However, she indicated other codes were not sufficiently funded “and one of those is withdrawal management and we’ve seen a couple clinics close over this last year.” Caldier reported that her amendment would “increase the rate and also allow for an inflationary adjustment” (audio - 1m, video). 
      • Cody said that while “we can all agree that we’d like to see our Medicaid rates increase” there was also interest in “a corresponding decrease in our commercial rates, including our PEBB and SEBB program.” Mentioning the prior amendment, Cody said lawmakers were “choosing to spend our precious dollars to expand treatment options and to start the navigator program” and asked for a no vote (audio - 1m, video). 
      • The measure failed 37-52 (audio - 1m, video).
    • Amendment 762 - H-1627.2 by Roger Goodman (audio - <1m, video):
      • “Removes provisions requiring a prosecutor to divert to treatment alleged violations of possession of a controlled substance, possession of a counterfeit substance, or possession of a legend drug. Requires instead that, for such violations, law enforcement officers must offer a referral to available assessment and services in lieu of jail booking and referral to the prosecutor. Provides that if law enforcement records indicate that a person has previously been diverted to referral for assessment and services at least twice, the officer may, but is not required to, make additional diversion efforts. Provides that prosecutors are not precluded from exercising discretion to divert or decline to file charges when referred drug possession cases, and are encouraged to divert such cases for assessment, treatment, or other services.
      • Removes provisions that reclassify misdemeanor drug possession offenses as class 2 civil infractions on July 1, 2023, and instead reverts to current law for possession offenses on that date.
      • Provides that law enforcement training on interaction with persons with substance use disorders must be developed by the Criminal Justice Training Commission in collaboration with the University of Washington Behavioral Health Institute, rather than by the University of Washington Behavioral Health Institute in collaboration with the Criminal Justice Training Commission. Specifies that, for purposes of the training, persons with substance use disorders includes persons with co-occurring substance use disorders and mental health conditions. Provides that, in addition to including the training in basic law enforcement training, the training must be made available to law enforcement agencies for use during in-service training (rather than for use at the agencies' convenience and determined by internal training needs and resources).
      • Makes an exception to the requirement that the defendant's fingerprints are affixed to the judgment and sentence for circumstances in which the judgment and sentence is an amended judgment and sentence issued pursuant to State v. Blake, there are no other offenses of conviction from the original judgment and sentence, and the defendant is in custody in a correctional facility.”
      • Goodman commented that his revision had “a few important changes" including a “request from the [Superior] Courts that they not have to collect the fingerprints” of those who qualify for resentencing as well as a change in law enforcement training “to deal with individuals with substance use disorder” (SUD) which required CJTC to “take the lead” on the training in collaboration with UW. He said the major change under his amendment was “intervention will happen further upstream” instead of having prosecutors divert offenders because “we think that’s too far into the criminal system” and police should “make the initial referral.” This would help avoid “wasting resources” spent between detaining an individual and bringing them to court, Goodman noted, and police would make the initial “offering of assessment and treatment and other services.” He indicated the other changes were for diversion at prosecutorial discretion “as well,” and to sunset “the criminal penalty but not to a civil infraction,” instead reverting to “current law because we don’t know how this is going to work” before more permanent policies were adopted “in two years” (audio - 2m, video). 
      • Mosbrucker stated that the amendment “addressed some of the concerns that we repeatedly heard throughout” the bill’s progress through the legislature. Mosbrucker said the role of police “being able to be the one to interact and make decisions...is really critical.” She concluded the change would “help heal the narrative not only in Washington state but across the country” but acknowledged “concern about sunset,” in particular “that this will go back to full decriminalization” (audio - 1m, video).
      • Amendment 762 was adopted with a vote of 71-11 (audio - 1m, video).
    • Amendment 767 - JONC 251 from Representative Jim Walsh proposed to reclassify “the crimes of possession of a controlled substance and possession of a counterfeit substance from a misdemeanor (in the striking amendment) to a gross misdemeanor. Removes the expiration date on the criminal penalties for possession of a controlled substance, possession of a counterfeit substance, and possession of a legend drug. Removes provisions that would have reclassified these crimes as civil infractions on July 1, 2023. Makes technical corrections” (audio - <1m, video). 
      • Walsh was of the opinion that his amendment was “essential, really” as it resolved “a major flaw in the underlying bill” wherein “criminal drug possession” was a “simple misdemeanor.” The amendment moved the penalty to “a more appropriate gross misdemeanor and makes that the lasting policy of the State until we decide to change it,” he said. Walsh had sympathy for “a lot of the supporters and the movement to reform criminal justice for those who are drug addicted,” but he was not an “anarchist.” As a nation founded on law, he said Washington state lawmakers must “defend lawful behavior.” Walsh felt SB 5476 without his amendment returned the state “after two years to a state of lawlessness” by not criminalizing personal use of controlled substances. Wanting laws “clearly defined and permanent,” he felt this would mean citizens “understand what is lawful and what is not. If we move the goal posts too often...we confuse and confound public policy and the people” (audio - 2m, video).
      • Representative David Hackney understood Walsh’s concerns but called for a vote against the amendment as it “raises the penalty from a simple misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor and also takes away the impact of the sunset.” He argued the overall premise of SB 5476 was “behavioral health is the appropriate response to simple possession rather than incarceration” and the proposed change was “bad public policy” likely to increase incarceration “which is an obstacle to recovery, rather than a facilitator” (audio - 1m, video).
      • Representative Robert Sutherland claimed “we’re locking too many people up for every reason under the sun” and he wanted “wise, intelligent reform.” But, he continued, “we must realize that sometimes, you know, locking people up is good” because incarceration could be “putting people in a safe environment” that might “just save their life.” Sutherland didn’t feel the bill was “a black and white issue of punishment versus no punishment...it’s a matter of saving lives” and Amendment 767 was a “step in the right direction” as “doing nothing is not an option.” He thought forced abstinence was the best option for some with SUD and the language of the bill meant “we still have the two years to fix this” (audio - 2m, video).
      • Goodman explained that he opposed the amendment since “elevating the criminal penalty to a gross misdemeanor...would double the confinement time under law from what was existing law even before the Blake decision.” He said, "under the drug sentencing grid," even with two prior convictions, it “calls for only a maximum of six months in jail” whereas a gross misdemeanor penalty “would double that.” Goodman said lawmakers shouldn’t “go in the wrong direction in the punitive approach. It’s the therapeutic approach that works” (audio - 1m, video). 
      • Jacobsen returned to the issue of therapeutic courts, saying “part of the reason that they’re working is because if you get into this therapeutic court you’ve committed a crime and they have sort of a way of keeping you in the program.” She was fearful that letting individuals decide when they want to enter treatment would mean “that more of our sons and daughters in this state will die because we are allowing them to live in a state of addiction” (audio - 1m, video).
      • Mosbrucker stood “in support of this amendment” because “until we have the infrastructure in place to get help [to] those that are suffering from addiction” prison would be “the only hope for them, to keep them alive.” Mosbrucker didn’t find incarceration to be better than treatment offerings, “but we have to build it first,” she said. And to avoid loss of life until programs were operational, jails and prisons “might be the safest place for a time until we build the infrastructure” (audio - 1m, video). 
      • Representative Ed Orcutt described his support of the change as stemming from a “concern that if we extend a penalty for two years and automatically expire it that if the legislature doesn’t take action” there was “nothing in its place.” He was comfortable postponing with a “placeholder” law until “we get something else to take its place” because it was “too great of a risk for those who are drug addicted” who may opt “not to get the help they need” (audio - 2m, video).
      • Representative Jamila Taylor argued that the inclusion of a sunset provision kept the State v. Blake ruling “top of mind” and allowed more time to work with stakeholders at “building the solutions for our communities.” She said “solutions that [work] for [a] specific community” could vary, but “a heavier penalty permanently can increase the costs” for enforcement in jurisdictions for “housing individuals who simply need to be in treatment.” Taylor was certain that “the community wants to be involved in this decision making and by having a sunset the community knows that we are coming back to the table next session and the session after that to have what is right for our state” (audio - 1m, video). 
      • Representative Vicki Kraft spoke in favor of the amendment, calling the court ruling the bill dealt with “one of the most difficult situations...we have faced this session.” She had been motivated by the 2019 KOMO News documentary Seattle is Dying wherein she heard “people who had been on the streets, drug addicted, who had been thrown into jail, who literally were sitting around the table” and saying “if I had not been thrown in jail I would be dead today. I am very thankful I was thrown in jail.” Kraft said she backed Amendment 767 with its, “I don’t want to say harsher, but you know, a harsher reality of a deterrent such as a gross misdemeanor” (audio - 3m, video). 
      • Representative Tom Dent said “the disease of addiction is a disease of denial” which enabled individuals to get “deeper and deeper into your addiction and it’s telling you you’re fine.” No one sought SUD recovery “without some kind of help. That’s not how it works,” he stated, and some needed social “consequences to help you find that bottom” whether it was damaged relationships or incarceration. Finding that consequences from substance use disorder lacked ample encouragement for people to seek treatment, Dent thought the amendment “puts a bottom there that’s not harsh” while still having repercussions for substance use (audio - 2m, video).
      • The amendment failed to muster sufficient support with a vote of 44-53-1 (audio - 1m, video).
    • Amendment 759 - WILJ 029 by Michelle Caldier (audio - <1m, video) was stopped before deliberations when Majority Floor Leader Monica Jurado Stonier asked for a “Scope and Object Ruling” from the Speaker. Lovick determined the amendment “concerns the capital budget process for higher education institutions, a topic not addressed in the underlying bill. The speaker therefore finds and rules that the amendment is outside the scope and object of the bill” (audio - 1m, video).
    • Lovick said that due to the adoption of “Amendment 762, Amendment 755 is out of order” (audio - <1m, video). 
    • The final proposed revision, Amendment 766 - BLAC 064 from Gina Mosbrucker (audio - <1m, video):
      • “Restores all provisions in the underlying bill which includes provisions
        • reclassifying the crimes of possession of controlled substance and possession of a counterfeit substance as a gross misdemeanor;
        • requiring a prosecutor to divert a person's first two drug possession offenses to treatment;
        • modifying the elements of the crime of unlawful use or delivery of drug paraphernalia by excluding use or delivery for the purposes of introduction into the human body, or for analyzing, testing, or storing a controlled substance;
        • requiring the Health Care Authority to establish the Substance Use Recovery Services Advisory Committee to make recommendations for implementation of a substance use recovery services plan;
        • allowing the presiding judge of the superior court of a county of any population size to appoint criminal court commissioners and allowing commissioners to conduct resentencing hearings and vacate convictions pursuant to State v. Blake; and
        • clarifying the circumstances under which a person who is entitled to a shorter confinement period due to an invalidated possession conviction may be released from the Department of Corrections pursuant to court order.
      • Modifies the provisions of the underlying bill by adding to the responsibilities of the Substance Use Recovery Services Advisory Committee, the development of recommendations related to the establishment of:
        • a comprehensive statewide substance misuse prevention effort;
        • regional programs to serve persons who are homeless and living with serious substance use disorders;
        • a competitive grant process to broaden existing local community coalition efforts to prevent substance misuse by increasing protective factors and reducing risk factors;
        • programs that meet the needs of youth including family support services; and
        • programs that prioritize access to treatment and services for parents with substance use disorder who are involved with the state child welfare system.
      • Directs the Health Care Authority to give due consideration to the needs of youth in the substance use recovery services plan.”
      • Mosbrucker explained that her amendment acknowledged that “it’s never okay to do nothing” and returned drug possession to a gross misdemeanor “in order to help those until we have that infrastructure in place and then I think you’ll see a completely different dialogue.” She described how a person looking for treatment availability in Yakima could expect that a “wait period could be up to four to six weeks” while other rural communities had no treatment options. Mosbrucker claimed jails provided safety for those waiting to get help, and wanted to be sure that treatment plans in SB 5476 didn’t “just fall away and we have decriminalization after two years.” She said “some” in the legislature backed drug decriminalization but the majority considered it “very harmful to people themselves.” Mosbrucker didn’t want kids to be in possession of drugs “that could kill them” without facing criminal repercussions. She said the language was similar to the bill that passed the WA Senate on April 15th which had “bipartisan support on that side.” Additionally, she considered the programs in the striking amendment to be “scientific treatment” (audio - 3m, video).
      • Representative Kirsten Harris-Talley called for a no vote on Amendment 766. “The war on drugs is not working,” she remarked, “we know it's not working because” friends and family members “continue to find themselves in crisis with addiction.” Harris-Talley believed the amended language of SB 5476 went “well beyond what we received” from the WA Senate and would create “a behavioral health system with the dollars needed to make sure that no one has to wait for that treatment anywhere in our state.” She said the policy helped to see that those “who find themselves in addiction can find themselves in care and wellness” (audio - 1m, video). 
      • Sutherland concurred that “the war on drugs has been an abysmal failure...we are locking too many people up” when they would “be better served getting help, getting treatment” and coming back as “a functioning member” of society. Nonetheless, “we’re not ready” in terms of treatment offerings and funding, “yet,” he said. “We’re heading in the right direction,” Sutherland stated, adding that Amendment 766 was a step on that path (audio - 2m, video).
      • Caldier referenced the “disconnect” she’d mentioned during the WA House APP executive session between lawmakers intentions when passing legislation and the logistical difficulties of enacting. “Even though...there was additional funding that was put in to increase rates to providers...historically when we’ve added rates for the providers the NCOs took the money and didn’t pass the rates on to the providers,” she explained. Caldier encouraged the legislature to “be far more thoughtful” on the issue and pointed to the fact that the chamber hadn’t adopted Republican amendments, saying it was “too bad that they weren’t accepted” because the WA Senate had done “a better job” in revising SB 5476 (audio - 2m, video).
      • Goodman said many lawmakers could “agree or disagree with some of the elements of this amendment but it’s important to remember that this is a striking amendment, this is not a line amendment.” If the amendment were adopted, “we would be striking the tens of millions of dollars...in what we have already voted for,” he explained, “so there would be no outreach to those suffering, there would be no recovery services” nor intervention by law enforcement. Goodman closed by asking members to not modify the legislation further (audio - 1m, video). 
      • Amendment 766 failed to be adopted, garnering a vote of 34-56 (audio - 1m, video).
    • Lovick announced that the WA House APP committee amendment as further amended on the House floor was adopted (audio - <1m, video).
  • During the third reading of the bill, members offered at times personal remarks on the range of challenging issues addressed in the legislation before a majority approved passage of SB 5476.
    • Lovick declared that SB 5476 had reached its third reading and opened the floor to remarks (audio - <1m, video). 
    • Davis offered input based on her experience in the substance use prevention field reminiscent of her advocacy in WA House PS on HB 1499 on the difficulties those with SUD had in finding treatment opportunities. SB 5476’s creation of a “statewide recovery navigator program” would speak to this problem, she argued, because it would “accept referrals from all sources” whether it was an individual or law enforcement request “and meet people in active addiction where they are.” Davis described the program as destigmatizing and respectful of people’s humanity to help them “fiercely believe that they can be more than their current circumstances.” She promised that “navigator staff will be individuals in recovery themselves” offering “hope and motivation” to those without it and called the bill “the first time in state history that we’ve ever made significant investments in the outreach services...that connect people to care on the front end and the recovery support services on the back end” which enabled “long term recovery” (audio - 3m, video). 
    • Klippert, a Benton County Sheriff’s deputy, announced that he would be voting yes “with a heavy heart” on the bill. He found it “significant to note” in the State v. Blake decision that the justices were split, and “four supreme court justices said ‘this is a bad idea.’” Klippert claimed the dissenting justices knew “there are people who are suffering an addiction who cannot defeat it by themselves.” While he had heard “incarceration is such a horrible thing in these instances, I’ve found the opposite to be true.” Klippert believed SB 5476 was better than having no criminalization of substance possession, insisting that “many of them are coming to investigators and saying ‘the supreme court just signed my death sentence because without you law enforcement officers intervening in my life I can’t defeat this.’” He wanted a “better solution” than the bill provided, but nonetheless saw it as an improvement (audio - 3m, video). 
      • Neither supreme court dissenting opinion in State v. Blake mentions dependency, addiction, or treatment. They instead focused on constitutional and legal issues around due process, intent, and legislative authority around “liability crimes.”
    • Representative Jessica Bateman shared the personal story of a constituent who had become romantically involved with “with someone experiencing an addiction, and within a year, she was, too.” She was “self-medicating to cope with a history of untreated trauma” and continued using drugs until friends began to die or go to prison, when she “permanently abstain[ed].” Bateman noted that Suboxone, an opioid medication, “and countless hours of therapy” were “life saving” and helped the woman avoid relapse, find a stable home, graduate college, and “now [had] been clean for over 14 years." She then said that “many of these things wouldn’t have been possible” with a felony conviction, and the woman’s story was “unique simply because she was lucky” whereas many had suffered under a “failed policy of punishment and fear instead of treatment and hope.” Bateman’s voice cracked as she said, “I know this story because that young woman is now speaking to you on the floor of the House of Representatives” and she was “living proof that we are more than our worst moments and that compassion and opportunity are stronger than iron bars” (audio - 2m, video).
    • Representative Jenny Graham relayed that she’d been moved by Bateman’s “heartfelt story” that she related to "as the mother of, of a child that's suffered." She’d dreaded the feeling of worrying about her child engaging in behavior “that may harm them, kill them, or kill other people” and expressed support for the “bipartisan steps that we are taking to recognize that we as a State” had to create opportunities for “the ability to get help.” Graham claimed that the focus on individual possession had obscured that “the other side of this” was “drug cartels," criminal gangs, and “the others that profit from preying on our children.” She said SB 5476 would “embolden” those groups and was saddened thinking about "crime victims" from someone’s possession arrest being "re-victimized by a justice system that makes it easier and easier for individuals that choose...not to get help and then they wind up hurting or killing other people in our neighborhoods.” Upholding constitutional rights in this circumstance “sends a wrong message to our children," Graham suggested, as kids and parents relied on “healthy boundaries” in State law. She said accountability was important to avoid ending “up with the death of people that we care about” and she therefore couldn’t vote for a law that wasn’t suitably punitive (audio - 3m, video). 
    • Taylor said she was in support of the bill as it was a "down payment on rebuilding communities" and would get citizens “involved and invested in the solutions that we need.” She echoed other remarks that the "war on drugs is a failed policy" which had “a disproportionate impact on Black and Brown communities." Instead, she said there were community and “family driven options” that needed investment from the State “to do something better than what we’ve been doing in the past.” Taylor stated the importance of staying “at the table with community" when making decisions they’d be impacted by and looking for “the root causes of the problems” around Washington. “This bill is addressing a very narrow part of the problem, the simple possession,” she told members, and public safety accountability would continue “for folks who are driving under the influence, who are committing petty theft, who are committing other types of crimes.” There were also “therapeutic interventions” in courts and programs to “get someone housing,” Taylor noted, adding the “first down payment” in the bill was not sufficient. “We need more than a billion dollars to address this problem,” she argued (audio - 3m, video). 
    • Minority Whip Dan Griffey told representatives that he supported the legislation “with some stern warnings” as a first responder who’d encountered a suicidal individual running around a highway “in a stuporous state” who was found to be "severely intoxicated on marijuana...uh, and on alcohol" at an area hospital. Following a mental health evaluation, he said the person was approved for release only to be found "drunk again on a bench" and refusing further help. Griffey emotionally revealed that the person hanged himself the following day “and we had to go cut him down.” He said the ability of officials to “put someone away for a little while” had failed in that instance, more mechanisms for diversion were being lost, and he didn’t “want any criminal sanctions. I don’t want that for people who are suffering....I want to save lives.” Griffey fearfully predicted that "hundreds of gallons of new tears will be shed" regardless of whether lawmakers approved SB 5476 (audio - 3m, video). 
    • Representative April Berg explained that she was supporting the legislation as “addiction impacts us all.” She spoke as “a suburban mom” who had been struck in a “head on” collision with an intoxicated person that “didn’t touch his brakes, not once.” She’d faced significant injuries and “months to learn how to walk again unassisted, but yes, I survived.” She felt that, “when you hit someone head on, it’s a crime and the driver should be punished for the crash.” Unfortunately, “that won’t solve his addiction problem,” she observed, having found that access to treatment was critical. Despite her trauma from the experience, “I’m voting yes for this bill,” Berg said, because “addiction can hit you even when you’re doing everything right.” She’d found that treatment didn’t just benefit those with SUD, “it’s the right solution for all of our families and our communities'' (audio - 2m, video).
    • Barkis agreed SB 5476 was "tough policy" and the supreme court “didn't do us any favors" by striking down the possession statute. But, Barkis argued, from “our most adverse situations come our greatest opportunities.” His nephew was someone who believed he wouldn’t have survived SUD absent intervention by the courts. He mentioned the stories they’d heard from members and said he was “ready to do more...we must do more.” Even as "the war on drugs may be a failed policy,” Barkis argued that we “cannot turn a blind eye to the amount of drugs...that have permeated every part of our society” as one could “see the results of failed policy everywhere" (audio - 3m, video).
    • Harris-Talley pointed out that the drug war had failed to stop “access to cheap drugs in our communities,” nor had it “kept families from the devastating loss of a loved one dying from an overdose,” nor provided SUD treatment at “the scale that they deserve.” Moreover, casualties of the drug war had “been Black people and Brown people and Indigenous people,” those in every sized town, and “overwhelmingly poor people everywhere,” she said. Harris-Talley noted that decades of incarceration policies “instead of giving them care is not working” and that, as “an abolitionist,” she considered prison an institution that “perpetuates and is an extension of slavery.” Though she “struggled with my choice, today I’m voting yes because this bill moves us beyond felony charges as a response to addiction.” Harris-Talley commented that the bill “invests over $75 million as a down payment to building a system of care and valuing everyone in our state” and though not perfect, “we’re coming back in two years to continue our path towards justice” (audio - 3m, video). 
    • Dent told the group he would be voting in favor of passage even as he believed that “we’ve watered it down a lot.” He credited Davis’ understanding of “what treatment looks like” and his understanding that “addiction is genetic.” He was worried that without significant criminal sanctions the State was losing a “reason to get people into recovery.” He aimed to incentivize recovery and wanted a "strong enough approach" in law to achieve that. Dent was grateful to the representatives that had shared personal stories about SUD and recovery, admitting he “will be 34 years" in sobriety the following month (audio - 3m, video). 
    • Goodman described how the court’s ruling "left a vacuum in the law" necessitating action while providing a “opportunity to take a critical look at our drug policy.” He declared that "decades of criminalization has only compounded the harm" and cost people access to “paths to success in life.” Additionally, there were "shockingly egregious disparities" in how the law was applied, Goodman noted, and felt it was “time to move in another direction."  He stated that, under the bill, Washington “for the first time, offers a helping hand rather than handcuffs" by relying on “front end” therapeutic diversion while investing "more than $100 million to build out the behavioral health infrastructure" rather than a punitive approach. Beyond that, he believed it would stop a “revolving door,” in the court system where SUD was an “underlying factor in their other offenses.” Considering SB 5476 to be an “interim measure" in response to having State v. Blake “thrust upon us,” Goodman said the police could intervene, “confiscate substances,” and offer treatment. He wanted the advisory body in the bill to spend the next two years “reaching out to our communities” to develop “long term solutions” (audio - 3m, video). 
    • Representative Kelly Chambers agreed with others' remarks that SB 5476 was “really just a start” rather than a long term strategy. She believed there were few “in this body who [haven’t] been affected by addiction” including her own family, where she had “lost the best years with my dad, and I needed him when he was in prison.” Chambers was disappointed “this bill didn’t go farther in, in prioritizing prevention” claiming that “more money up front”---despite previous decades of prevention spending---would make it possible to “not have people suffering from addiction in our society” instead of continuing “to allow our culture to normalize and rationalize drug use” (audio - 3m, video). 
    • Walsh reported that he was voting no on the “flawed bill” that was "thrust on us in haste by a flawed opinion from the state supreme court.” While everyone wanted “to help addicts,” he said, there was disagreement on “the best means” as he believed "addiction is an intensely personal thing. We flatter ourselves that public policy changes that,” Walsh reasoned, when "only the individual person" could choose to embrace sobriety. "We need a soft approach, we also need tough love in many cases," Walsh remarked, adding "let's not pretend that soft love is kinder or more compassionate than tough love." He argued there would be times when “jail is the solution that saves the life of the addict in his self destructive spiral." Walsh was against letting an “imperfect split decision...force us into policy made hastily” and wanted to keep “all options on the books" (audio - 3m, video). 
    • Craft was also moved by the stories she’d heard throughout the debate and revealed that she’d be voting against passage of the bill, as “without some stronger deterrents or opportunities, I’ll say, for those who may not want to get help” the state could see increased mortality due to drug use. She claimed the bill could lead to SUD among youth at higher rates than under the former statute somehow “making it easier for youth to access” controlled substances which “are going to be more readily available.” For those who would not voluntarily enter treatment when the government suggested it, Craft thought "maybe jail would help them, force them" (audio - 3m, video).
    • Mosbrucker said a “colleague” conveyed to her that “this was the most difficult vote taken this entire legislative session” and she predicted mixed support from Republican members as a result. She said that according to the Washington State Department of Corrections (WA DOC) there were “21,151 people who are either incarcerated or in community custody which will be affected by State v. Blake.” Members of her caucus backing SB 5476 “are happy this was addressed,” Mosbrucker explained, while calling attention to “dropping five republican bills immediately” as evidence Republicans were interested in maintaining public safety. Others would back the bill, she believed, because of the massive investment in recovery programs that she said Davis had “been begging for” or because of a “philosophy that we shouldn’t lock people up, we should give them a bed and give them help.” Predicting opposition due to the “sunset clause,” Mosbrucker said “two years is a very short time” in which to make changes "and then everything's decriminalized." She wasn’t open to making any currently illicit substance “legal to use,” stating that “we worry because if law enforcement loses the power to make arrests for narcotic possession then they lose, we lose the deterrent for keeping children off drugs. What message does that give to our youth?” Mosbrucker expected some opposition because “treatment isn’t mandatory” under the bill. She closed by suggesting “drugs take you to hell disguised as heaven” (audio - 3m, video).
    • Lovick instructed staff to commence a vote on final passage of the bill which resulted in a vote of 80-18 with three Democrats and 15 Republicans against SB 5476 (audio - 1m, video):  
    • Lovick concluded, “With the consent of the House, the bill will be immediately transmitted to the Senate" (audio - <1m, video).
  • Hours later, the Washington State Senate concurred with the House changes to SB 5476 and the bill was declared to have passed the Legislature on the evening of Saturday April 24th.
    • The legislation was subsequently signed and delivered to Governor Jay Inslee on Monday April 26th. As it was passed within five days of adjournment, Inslee had 20 days to sign or veto the measure.

Information Set