WA House APP - Committee Meeting
(April 21, 2021) - SB 5476 - Executive Session

Over Republican opposition, the committee approved a striking amendment on legislation to re-criminalize drug possession with reduced penalties while expanding prevention and treatment offerings.

Here are some observations from the Wednesday April 21st Washington State House Appropriations Committee (WA House APP) meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

• Legislative counsel described numerous amendments and replied to questions on SB 5476, “Responding to the State v. Blake decision by addressing justice system responses and behavioral health prevention, treatment, and related services.”
  • On April 5th, the original legislation was heard by the Washington State Senate Ways and Means Committee (WA Senate WM) and subsequently passed without recommendation on April 10th. The Washington State Senate (WA Senate) incorporated a modified striking amendment and passed the bill on April 15th.
  • WA House APP held a public hearing on the bill on April 19th where Washington State House Healthcare and Wellness Committee (WA House HCW) Counsel Chris Blake and Washington State House Office of Program Research (WA House OPR) Community and Economic Development Counsel Cassie Jones were among staff who discussed the House striking amendment from Representative Eileen Cody, H-1608.1, which had a dozen effects on the overall bill:
    • Removes the intent language.
    • Adds provisions requiring basic law enforcement training to include training on interactions with persons with substance use disorders.
    • Reclassifies criminal penalties for possession of a controlled substance or counterfeit substance to a misdemeanor (rather than a felony in current law or a gross misdemeanor in the underlying bill).
    • Expires provisions containing criminal penalties for possession of a controlled substance, possession of a counterfeit substance, and possession of a legend drug on July 1, 2023, and replaces those provisions with provisions establishing a class 2 civil infraction for such violations. Requires the law enforcement officer issuing an infraction to refer the person to a recovery navigator program (as established in the bill) for evaluation and services. Allows a person to avoid the $125 infraction fine if they receive an assessment by the program within 30 days. Requires deposit of funds collected through infraction fines into the State v. Blake Reimbursement Account.
    • Includes persons with substance use disorders and references to relevant professionals in the provisions authorizing alternatives to arrest for persons with behavioral health disorders. Includes additional alternatives to arrest including referral to mobile crisis response services and referral to the regional entity responsible for receiving referrals in lieu of legal system involvement.
    • Directs the Health Care Authority (Authority) to establish the substance use recovery services advisory committee (advisory committee) and to collaborate with the advisory committee to adopt a substance use recovery services plan (plan) to implement measures to assist persons with substance use disorders in accessing outreach, treatment, and recovery support services. Requires the Authority to submit the plan to the Governor and the Legislature by December 1, 2021, and implement the plan by December 1, 2022.
    • Directs each behavioral health administrative services organization (BHASO) to establish a recovery navigator program to provide community-based outreach, intake, assessment, referral, and long-term intensive case management services to individuals with substance use disorders who are referred to the program from various sources. Directs the Authority to provide funding to the BHASOs to establish their programs. Requires each BHASO to hire a substance use disorder regional administrator for its recovery navigator program.
    • Directs the Authority to establish a grant program to provide treatment services for low-income individuals with substance use disorders who are not eligible for medical assistance programs and to provide treatment services that are not eligible for federal matching funds to individuals enrolled in medical assistance programs. Requires the Authority, in consultation with others, to adopt regional standards under the program to provide access to meet regional needs for opioid treatment programs, low-barrier buprenorphine clinics, outpatient substance use disorder treatment, withdrawal management services, secure withdrawal management and stabilization services, inpatient substance use disorder treatment services, inpatient co-occurring disorder treatment services, and behavioral health crisis walk-in and drop-off services.
    • Directs the Authority to establish the Expanded Recovery Support Services Program to fund increased access to recovery services for individuals in recovery from substance use disorder. Requires the Authority, in consultation with others, to adopt regional expanded recovery plans to provide access to meet the regional needs for recovery housing, employment services, recovery coaching and substance use disorder peer support, social connectedness initiatives, family support services, technology-based recovery support services, transportation assistance, and legal support services.
    • Directs the Authority to establish a homeless outreach stabilization transition program to expand access to modified assertive community treatment services. Directs the Authority to establish a project for psychiatric outreach to the homeless program to expand access to behavioral health medical services for people who are experiencing homelessness and living in permanent supportive housing. Directs the authority to increase contingency management resources for opioid treatment networks that serve people with cooccurring stimulant use and opioid disorders.
    • Adds a severability clause.
    • Makes technical changes.
  • Amendment BLAC 057 was Cody’s change to her own striking amendment requiring “that the Substance Use Recovery Services Plan's consideration of barriers to accessing the behavioral health system include indigent youth and adult populations in need of assessments, services, treatment, and waivers of civil infraction penalties. Requires that the grant program for treatment services for low income individuals with a substance use disorder who are not eligible for medical assistance programs prioritize the use of the funds for very low-income individuals” (audio - 2m, video). 
    • Schmick inquired about “the responsibilities held by the counties” in administering the services laid out in SB 5476, and how the funding was expected to work. He noted the extensive role of the state Health Care Authority (WA HCA) “but in practical matters how are these administered and how does the money flow to make sure the services are rendered?” (audio - 4m, video).
      • Blake told Schmick that money “comes from the Health Care Authority who is responsible for funding the program itself, so they do the actual set up of the programs.” He continued, saying of five programs created in the legislation “for the first four programs they’re basically structured so that the Health Care Authority meets with each of the BHASOs to decide what the region needs would be” to do “some of the supplementing of these services.” Blake gave an example using “recovery support services” and stated that WA HCA would work with BHASOs, “NCOs in that region,” and “behavioral health providers” to find available “recovery housing, employment services, recovery coaching” then develop a plan and costs. At that point he said WA HCA would disburse money “as appropriated to the region who would then distribute it according to the plan” with money given to “people who are either providing the services or it might be for supplementing” training or “other credentialing type of activities that would help get these additional services set up and going.”
      • WA House WM Fiscal Analyst Andrew Toulon joined in to say that “a number of the provisions in the bill are subject to appropriations for this specific purpose” and “the bill calls out that the funding would be administered through the BHASOs. There’s other times where it talks about a grant program which could be the BHASOs, but would not necessarily be, so it would depend on how the Health Care Authority administered it.” He qualified that some parts of the bill weren’t “subject to” any specific appropriations, for example, the “recovery navigator program” wasn’t part of an appropriation as “the expectation is that the authority would be working with” the BHASOs “to fund those programs.”  
  • Amendment BLAC 058 by Representative Tana Senn changed Cody’s striking amendment so it (audio - 2m, video):
    • Requires that the Substance Use Recovery Services Plan and related rules give due consideration to the needs of youth.
    • Specifies that the Recovery Navigator Program must provide services and coordinate resources to both youth and adults.
    • Specifies that the treatment services grant program and the Expanded Recovery Support Services Program must provide access to both youth and adults to meet regional needs.
    • Specifies that the family support services included in the Expanded Recovery Support Services Program includes family reconciliation services.
    • Requires that the basic law enforcement training related to interactions with persons with substance use disorders include the unique referral processes for youth. 
  • Amendment BLAC 055 from Assistant Ranking Minority Member Kelly Chambers modified the striking amendment so that the bill “Directs the Health Care Authority to develop a plan for implementing a comprehensive substance misuse prevention effort by January 1, 2022, subject to appropriation” (audio - 1m, video).
  • Amendment BLAC 056 also from Chambers, altered the striking amendment to instruct “the Health Care Authority to administer a competitive grant process to broaden existing local community coalition efforts to prevent substance misuse by increasing protective factors and decreasing risk factors, subject to appropriation” (audio - <1m, video).
    • Chambers’ amendments were likely adapted from draft language submitted by Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention (WASAVP) Lobbyist Seth Dawson who mentioned proposing two prevention amendments during the public hearing (audio - 2m, video).
  • Amendment HARO 554 by Vice Chair Nicole Macri would revise the striking amendment and “Removes provisions requiring or encouraging 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 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” (audio - 1m, video). 
    • Ormsby wanted to understand “the distinction between counterfeit substances, legend drugs” and other controlled substances” (audio - 1m, video).
    • Chambers asked what “available” meant in this context, was it a service “with the capacity to take someone on new, or does it mean...a treatment center for example that potentially could take on someone new?” Jones answered that the word wasn’t “defined further” in the bill, only that a law enforcement officer was “only required to make those referrals when there are services or assessments capacity available” (audio - 1m, video). 
    • Later in the session Macri asked to withdraw her amendment but asked to offer comment on the reason. “My intent with this amendment is to move from a pre-trial diversion - so after someone has been charged and has had some interaction with the criminal legal system,” she said, “and to a pre-booking or pre-arrest diversion.” Macri wanted police to have the option to divert people to services “rather than to issue charges and take them into custody.” However, as drafted, she said it “cross references” numerous statutes and had “technical inconsistencies” that meant she would wait and “fix that for a floor amendment.” She advocated for it as an “important improvement to the bill” and hoped that, when presented, other lawmakers would support its adoption. Ormsby thanked Macri and confirmed the proposal was withdrawn (audio - 1m, video). 
  • Amendment H-1618.1, a proposed amendment to SB 5476 from Ranking Minority Member Drew Stokesbary, would remove “the expiration date from sections reclassifying possession of a controlled substance, possession of a counterfeit substance, and possession of a legend drug as a misdemeanor and strikes sections reclassifying those offenses as a class 2 civil infraction. Makes technical corrections” (audio - <1m, video).
  • Amendment HARO 555, another edit to the striking amendment from Cody, “Makes changes for clarity and to correct technical errors” (audio - <1m, video). 
  • Amendment JONC 247, a modification from Stokesbary to the striking amendment, “Adds a provision that creates an exception to the preemption clause in the Uniform Controlled Substances Act to allow local jurisdictions to enact laws and ordinances relating to possession of controlled substances and counterfeit substances” (audio - <1m, video). 
  • Amendment H-1616.1 by Representative Michelle Caldier would amend the bill with three effects (audio - <1m, video):
    • Strikes all provisions of the striking amendment.
    • Adds a mens rea element to the crime of unlawful possession of a controlled substance so that a person must knowingly possess a controlled substance in order to be convicted of the offense.
    • Includes an emergency clause.
  • Amendment H-1617.1, an amendment to SB 5476 from Stokesbary, was almost identical to Caldier’s change (audio - <1m, video): 
    • Strikes all provisions of the striking amendment.
    • Adds a mens rea element to the crimes of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, unlawful possession of a counterfeit substance, unlawful possession of a legend drug, and unlawful possession of 40 grams or less of marijuana so that a person must knowingly possess the substance in order to be convicted of the offense.
    • Includes an emergency clause.
    • Cody was curious about the difference in amendments from Caldier and Stokesbary. Jones said that both amendments added the “mens rea element” to unlawful possession of drugs, but Stokesbary’s proposal added the element to “unlawful possession of counterfeit drugs and legend drugs,” as well as for possession of 40 grams or less of cannabis (audio - 1m, video).
  • Schmick asked an “overall question for clarification, if these services” in rural parts of the state “do not happen, who bears the responsibility? Who’s liable” if an area didn’t have availability (audio - 3m, video).
    • Toulon responded that it could depend “on the section” of the bill and which program was at issue. He said some provisions were “limited to being required within amounts specifically provided, so there would be a cap on that” and no jurisdiction would be “required to provide more services beyond in those cases.” In his earlier example about recovery navigators, Toulon said the bill indicated WA HCA would set “a standard for responding to those calls and that then there could be issues around the, the bill creating a requirement without that cap subject to appropriations provided for this purpose on having to implement more teams” was something he believed would “fall back to the Health Care Authority to provide the funding for that.” He didn’t know what would happen if there “wasn’t the local capacity” but would review the bill with Blake to “come up with a better answer for you while you’re in caucus.”
    • Blake added that he thought there was a specification of availability in terms of “referrals from law enforcement.”
    • Jones told the committee that was language in Macri’s amendment, HARO 554, which would later be withdrawn. 

• Following caucus by committee members to discuss the amendments, the parties returned to make motions and take votes that would result in a further amended striking amendment being adopted.
  • Cody moved that her striking amendment, H-1608.1, be adopted into SB 5476 (audio - <1m, video) followed by her motion to include amendment BLAC 057 within that striking amendment (audio - <1m, video).
    • Cody said the change to her amendment “simply makes sure that we’re including youth in the assessment...and services treatments and also that we want to focus on making sure that our lowest income and indigent populations get treatment” (audio - <1m, video) 
    • Schmick sought clarification on the amendment’s effects from Blake (audio - 1m, video) before saying Amendment BLAC 057 “will make the overall bill better” (audio - <1m, video). 
    • Amendment BLAC 057 was adopted with a unanimous voice vote (audio - <1m, video) 
  • Senn moved for adoption of her amendment BLAC 058 to Cody’s striking amendment (audio - <1m, video).
    • Senn commented that, “as we think about addressing the Blake decision,” the Washington State Department of Corrections and the State juvenile justice office “should be aware” of any changes. She wanted officials to be sure to “look at the services and the treatment of youth and adults” with awareness of the “unique needs of youth.” Senn explained her amendment would emphasize this distinction “and in one particular place [added] family reconciliation services” as that would be more relevant for youth than adults (audio - 1m, video).
    • Schmick said “the clarification is needed, and so we would support this amendment” (audio - <1m, video). 
    • Amendment BLAC 058 was adopted by unanimous voice vote (audio - <1m, video) 
  • Chambers made a motion to adopt her change to the striking amendment, amendment BLAC 055 (audio - <1m, video).
    • Chambers told the committee her amendment directed WA HCA to develop a “plan for implementing a prevention program subject to appropriation” as the bill represented a “significant policy change and I wish that we had had more time to have processed this but while this is going on I think including prevention in the conversation is significantly important” (audio - 1m, video). 
    • Senn stated that she “could not agree more” with Chamber’s perspective because “we really need to look upstream” when making policy decisions, “and prevention is a critical component.” She cited the Communities That Care program from the University of Washington (UW), calling it a “great combination with diversion and...with treatment” (audio - 1m, video). 
    • Amendment BLAC 055 was adopted following a unanimous voice vote (audio - <1m, video).
    • WA HCA operates multiple statewide prevention programs.
  • Chambers called for adoption of her second change to the striking amendment, amendment BLAC 056 (audio - <1m, video).
    • Chambers’ second amendment would have WA HCA create “a competitive grant process for increasing prevention programs...that are shown to be effective.” Using the adage “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” Chambers felt the policy situation arising from State v. Blake merited expansion of prevention efforts (audio - 1m, video).
    • Representative Laurie Dolan was grateful for “this really important amendment” as prevention and “intervention” relied upon “local community coalitions.” She argued this had been done longer in urban areas “because there’s lots of mental health professionals that are working, probably, with police departments.” Dolan said that “smaller, rural towns” would benefit from the grant program it created and get “police with intervention and prevention specialists.” She asked for a “resounding yes” on the amendment (audio - 1m, video). 
    • Amendment BLAC 056 was adopted by unanimous voice vote (audio - <1m, video) 
    • In 2011, WA HCA collaborated with other state agencies on a prevention grant program called the Community Prevention and Wellness Initiative (CPWI) organizing prevention efforts in 80 cities around Washington. In 2017, the Society for Prevention Research evaluated the program, finding it “either lowered the risk or eliminated the gap in the level of risk between CPWI and non-CPWI students for alcohol use and related risk factors. These findings also indicate that CPWI communities are still at an increased risk for tobacco and marijuana.” 
  • Next, Stokesbary moved for adoption of amendment H-1618.1 into the legislation (audio - <1m, video).
    • Stokesbary said the amendment was “straightforward,” reclassifying possession as a misdemeanor instead of a gross misdemeanor as in the version of SB 5476 passed by the WA Senate. His “reasonable middle ground” amendment would also remove the language in the striker that, eventually, “doesn’t make it a misdemeanor at all” (audio - 1m, video).
    • Representative Drew Hansen commented that he “respectfully disagreed” and supported the eventual downgrade to a civil infraction for possession in Cody’s striking amendment as a “more healthcare oriented approach to questions of substance abuse.” Possession would remain “still illegal, but it’s not the sort of illegality that lands you in jail or prison.” Instead of seeking to lower penalties, Hansen noted amendment H-1618.1 goes “in the opposite direction.” He felt “we should continue towards making this still illegal...but dealt with in a civil infraction instead of in the criminal system” (audio - 1m, video). 
    • Representative Skyler Rude noted that SB 5476 included “two diversions and after that point a misdemeanor seems completely reasonable” (audio - 1m, video). 
    • Amendment H-1618.1 received a divided voice vote with Ormsby remarking that “the noes appear to have it” and the amendment would not be adopted (audio - 1m, video).
  • Cody moved for a vote on her other striking amendment revision, amendment HARO 555 (audio - <1m, video).
    • Cody explained her amendment was needed to remedy a “purely technical correction” (audio - <1m, video). 
    • Schmick spoke up to say he agreed (audio - <1m, video). 
    • Amendment HARO 555 was adopted after unanimous voice vote (audio - <1m, video). 
  • Stokesbary called for adoption of amendment JONC 247 to the striking amendment (audio - <1m, video).
    • Stokesbary told the committee existing law had a “pretty robust preemption in state law of local governments criminalizing and regulating possession of controlled substances.” While he had not looked at “whether that existing approach is good or bad, per se,” he did think that what lawmakers were “attempting to do now” meant they should give local jurisdictions flexibility “to regulate criminal conduct in this field as they see fit for their communities.” The bill was focused on treatment, which Stokesbary found “badly needed and quite important,” but opportunities for services varied “based on where you are in the state.” He thought the “exact same penalty scheme that might exist in an ideal world” wouldn’t be “workable in every single community” and wanted local officials to be able to use the criminal justice system “to do what they think is right for their community” by removing state preemption in this area (audio - 2m, video).
    • Representative Larry Springer disagreed even though he was a “former local government person” but the legislation dealt with a “special situation” that tasked the legislature with “reimagining how we approach drug law” as well as the “regulation and the punishments” that may be involved. While the State attempted that, “this is not the time to create what could end up being a patchwork of laws and regulations different from one city to the next,” he said, which would “subject the public to different rules depending on which city you’re in is probably not a wise move at this point.” Springer also believed small jurisdictions would benefit “working off the same set of rules, it encourages them to cooperate with one another and share resources, facilities, that they might not otherwise do if each city had a different set of rules” (audio - 1m, video) 
    • Amendment JONC 247 received a divided voice vote with Ormsby saying “the noes appear to have it” and the amendment was not adopted (audio - 1m, video).
  • Caldier moved for amendment H-1616.1 to be adopted into SB 5476 (audio - <1m, video).
    • Caldier called her amendment “the true fix for the Blake decision” by requiring that people “knowingly have possession” of the controlled substance with which they’re being charged. Though appreciating the work done by others, she thought “quite honestly as we reimagined how we are going to deal with people who are chemically dependent...even if people were able to get treatment and only need it once, we don’t have the facilities or the workforce for that. That will take time.” Caldier felt her amendment offered a “temporary fix while we are able to get our workforce up and running” ahead of a “true fix to some of our state’s problems” (audio - 1m, video). 
    • Cody asked for the committee to oppose the change, observing that “we can all agree that our current policy of a felony and incarcerating individuals is a failed drug policy….we have lost the war on drugs and to try and continue the same thing” would be “inexplicable” (audio - 1m, video). 
    • Amendment JONC 247 received a divided voice vote with Ormsby finding a majority were against adoption (audio - 1m, video).
  • Stokesbary called for adoption of amendment H-1617.1 (audio - 1m, video).
    • Stokesbary told committee members that his language was “largely similar” to the just rejected amendment H-1616.1 from Calider. He described his language as “slightly broader” by putting a “knowing component” in multiple drug statutes. There was “consensus that our past efforts to combat drug use have not been as good as they could have been” and greater “attention needs to be paid toward treatment and diversion,” Stokesbary said. However, he noted there “were bills this session, and in previous sessions, to undo the underlying statutory regime” of criminalizing drug possession “and those bills got nowhere.” He argued the Supreme Court’s ruling had “ripped the Band-Aid straight off...on legal and due process grounds” and legislators were using SB 5476 “to figure out the best way forward.” He said the idea that “it is unthinkable that we might consider to continue to criminalize” personal behavior like substance possession “is inconsistent with the fact that” the legislature had “been unable to ever muster enough votes to change the status quo that this bill would now get us mostly back to.” Stokesbary favored “additional treatment and services” while still keeping “underlying penalties in certain instances.” He considered his amendment a statement that “we should not be so quick to depart from a policy in the closing days of session that has been part of our approach for decades” (audio - 3m, video). 
    • Hansen said his opposition to Stokesbary’s proposal largely echoed Cody’s comments on the prior amendment: “we do want to diverge from the path we have taken precisely because,” as Stokesbary had admitted, “it’s not been working real well.” He suggested the new approach being attempted by SB 5476 would be undermined by amendment H-1617.1 (audio - 1m, video). 
    • Amendment H-1617.1 received a divided voice vote with a majority choosing not to adopt the change (audio - 1m, video).
    • HB 1499, legislation legalizing personal use drug amounts in favor of expanded treatment programs had been heard and recommended for passage by the Washington State House Public Safety Committee (WA House PS) with the primary opposition coming from Stokesbary’s own caucus. Though once referred to WA House APP the bill was never scheduled for a hearing on its fiscal implications.
  • The amended striking amendment H-1608.1 was put to a voice vote and garnered majority support to adopt the changes into SB 5476 (audio - 1m, video).

• Several lawmakers shared their final thoughts on the legislation before a divided roll call vote of 19 to 14 recommended passage of the bill; at publication time, it awaited consideration on the WA House floor.
  • Macri moved for passage of the bill “as amended” by the committee “with a ‘do pass’ recommendation” (audio - 1m, video). 
  • Cody said the debate on amendments clarified “the direction that we want to take now is not the same direction that we have had in the past” and revealed a commitment to treatment over incarceration. She said the legislation added “meat to the bone on treatment and how we are going to move forward as a state.” Cody wanted the policy to become a model to “see this happen across the country” and have Washington tax money spent “to actually make sure that we are getting people rehabilitated rather than locked up” (audio - 1m, video). 
  • Schmick acknowledged the immensity of the bill and the policy chance “at day 101 of a 105-day session.” He said there was uncertainty about the cost of implementing the legislation following numerous remarks in the briefing that “it will be done to the availability of the money that we’ve put in there.” Additionally, Schmick was concerned about the ability to provide the promised services in rural regions because “we just don’t have ample providers.” He feared that SB 5476 would contribute “to a false promise” in places that couldn’t meet the need for treatment. Schmick noted there also wasn’t money for law enforcement “training costs.” Even while he wasn’t “totally opposed to the legislation,” he wished there’d been more time and fiscal specificity because when services weren’t available or possible “who's on the hook then?” He would vote against the bill because there were “more things that need to be answered” (audio - 3m, video). 
  • Caldier said there was a “disconnect” between what lawmakers did in the Capitol “and what happens on the ground floor.” She claimed legislators had congratulated themselves for passing policies “and what really happens is that there are major hiccups along the way.” Caldier asked, “why is it that some of the dependency cases that we have within our foster care system take years and years to finish?” She said the reason was parents with “drug dependency” go to court and were allowed “the opportunity to get clean” before losing custody. But without enough health funding or capacity, parents returned to courts “and their attorney says ‘there was no treatment available’,” judges agree to extensions, and keep kids in foster homes. If space in treatment programs wasn’t available in these cases, Caldier stated, “how on earth do we think we’re going to leave and we’re going to have the workforce and we’re going to have the treatment facilities” to meet the goals laid out in SB 5476. She preferred “to take a step back” and ensure there was adequate staff and resources before committing to any drug policy changes (audio - 3m, video).
  • Macri reported that she would be supporting passage “with some reservations” as she believed “we don’t need to hurt people to help them” and the amended legislation was “a much stronger bill than was sent to us by the Senate.” She maintained concerns “about re-criminalizing drug possession” given the “abject failure” of drug prohibition and interactions with the criminal justice system don’t “assist people with substance use disorders,” rather “services and treatments and ongoing care is what helps them.” Confident SB 5476 could be made to accomplish that, Macri asked her colleagues to move the bill along to “continue conversations about it” while still concerned “about the racial, disability, and income disparities we see in who is charged” with drug possession violations (audio - 2m, video). 
  • Rude had hoped he “could get to a yes on this bill” as he found a felony charge to be “excessive” for controlled substance possession - “but I also think a civil infraction is a bit of a joke.” He wanted to see if the bill would improve on the House floor, believing the bill to be “more comprehensive than addressing Blake” but not having had “the time to develop.” Rude wished a legal fix for the decision had been passed “and then next session come back and, and tackle these more complicated issues” of mental health and criminal justice reform. He said he’d oppose the bill “without recommendation” (audio - 1m, video).
  • A roll call vote on passage of the legislation resulted in a party line vote with all 14 Republican members dissenting (audio - 4m, video):
    • Voting not to pass the bill:
      • Ranking Minority Member Drew Stokesbary 
      • Assistant Ranking Minority Member Kelly Chambers 
      • Assistant Ranking Minority Member Chris Corry 
      • Assistant Ranking Minority Member Drew MacEwen 
      • Representative Matt Boehnke 
      • Representative Bruce Chandler 
      • Representative Mary Dye 
      • Representative Larry Hoff 
      • Representative Cyndy Jacobsen 
      • Representative Joe Schmick
    • Opposed without recommendation:
      • Representative Michelle Caldier
      • Representative Paul Harris
      • Representative Skyler Rude
      • Representative Mike Steele
  • Following adoption of the revised striking amendment, SB 5476 was referred to the Washington State House Rules Committee (WA House RUL). An engrossed version of the House striking amendment, H-1622.1, was published along with a bill report by WA House APP. At publication time, the bill had been subsequently calendared in the House. If the chamber chooses to consider and pass a modified bill, the Senate could choose to vote to concur with those changes, reject them, or appoint a conference committee to produce compromise bill language before the adjournment of the regular legislative session on Sunday April 25th.

Information Set