During first week of the legislative session, Rep. Lauren Davis introduces three pieces of legislation to reform criminal justice system
Thursday, January 15, 2026
 |
| Rep. Lauren Davis 32nd LD |
Helping victims of crime (House Bill 2457)
In 2023, the legislature passed HB 1169, with a commitment to shift the cost of paying for victim advocates who work in prosecutors’ offices from criminal defendants to the state general fund.
However, the state budget now only covers 25 percent of the prior level of funding, resulting in a 75 percent cut to victim advocacy services.
House Bill 2457 would reinstate the Crime Victim Penalty Assessment, while accounting for the reality that up to 80 percent of those convicted of crimes are impoverished and can’t pay the assessment.
Davis’s bill would include an exemption for the indigent and, to make up for that, raise the assessment to $2,000 upon conviction of a felony or gross misdemeanor and $1,000 upon conviction of a misdemeanor crime.
The old fee hadn’t been raised since 1995.
Her proposal would also give judges the option to impose a surcharge, between zero and $50,000, for convictions of wealthy defendants.
Preventing youth gun violence (House Bill 2456)
Under current law, a juvenile must be found guilty of possession of a firearm five times before they are committed to the state’s youth prison system, Juvenile Rehabilitation.
House Bill 2456 would focus on preventing gun violence and addressing the underlying issues for that juvenile. If the participant immediately agrees to and successfully completes a 12-month program with significant services and intensive supervision, the charges would be dismissed.
These services would be funded by a $100 increase in the concealed carry pistol license fee. This fee, Davis said, also hasn’t been raised since 1995.
Court reform (House Joint Resolution 4211)
A proposed constitutional amendment would help address conflicts between the state Supreme Court and the other two branches of government: the Legislature and the executive branch.
Davis said that this proposed constitutional amendment is in response to recent Supreme Court overreach. She cited the Supreme Court lowering indigent defense caseload standards by two-thirds, even though appropriations are a function of the legislative branch, not the judiciary.
The measure by Davis would create an Interbranch Commission on Court Rules to assess whether proposed court rules violate the separation of powers between the three branches and, if yes, require judges pro tempore, not sitting justices, to make the ruling.
As a constitutional amendment, the measure would need a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate, then ratification by the voters.
“The state made a promise not to defund victim services,” Davis said.
“We failed to keep that promise.”
House Bill 2457 would reinstate the Crime Victim Penalty Assessment, while accounting for the reality that up to 80 percent of those convicted of crimes are impoverished and can’t pay the assessment.
Davis’s bill would include an exemption for the indigent and, to make up for that, raise the assessment to $2,000 upon conviction of a felony or gross misdemeanor and $1,000 upon conviction of a misdemeanor crime.
The old fee hadn’t been raised since 1995.
Her proposal would also give judges the option to impose a surcharge, between zero and $50,000, for convictions of wealthy defendants.
Preventing youth gun violence (House Bill 2456)
Under current law, a juvenile must be found guilty of possession of a firearm five times before they are committed to the state’s youth prison system, Juvenile Rehabilitation.
“Say that a youth is caught with a gun,” Davis said.
“Overwhelmingly, they are not kept in detention before trial and receive very limited services and no meaningful supervision while out of custody.
"Many months later when the case resolves, if they’re convicted, they receive a maximum of thirty days in detention, a felony on their record, and still no adequate intervention. King County has repeatedly filed homicide and assault 1 charges on juveniles with prior convictions for unlawful possession. Our current approach is not working.”
House Bill 2456 would focus on preventing gun violence and addressing the underlying issues for that juvenile. If the participant immediately agrees to and successfully completes a 12-month program with significant services and intensive supervision, the charges would be dismissed.
“My bill includes evidence-based interventions like multisystemic therapy,” Davis said, “and having case managers work with the kid’s family and school. There would also be random checks of their person and residence to make sure they aren’t carrying a firearm again.”
These services would be funded by a $100 increase in the concealed carry pistol license fee. This fee, Davis said, also hasn’t been raised since 1995.
Court reform (House Joint Resolution 4211)
A proposed constitutional amendment would help address conflicts between the state Supreme Court and the other two branches of government: the Legislature and the executive branch.
Davis said that this proposed constitutional amendment is in response to recent Supreme Court overreach. She cited the Supreme Court lowering indigent defense caseload standards by two-thirds, even though appropriations are a function of the legislative branch, not the judiciary.
“Our system of government relies on checks and balances,” Davis said.
“But when the Supreme Court issues court rules that have the effect of law, there is no check on that power. The state Supreme Court issued a rule broadly barring the issuance of arrest warrants for juveniles, except in the most serious cases. The Court of Appeals rightly recognized that this is the province of the legislature, not the courts, and overturned the court rule.
"But when that case was appealed to the Supreme Court, the justices unsurprisingly upheld their own rule. Our current system affords the Court unchecked power.”
The measure by Davis would create an Interbranch Commission on Court Rules to assess whether proposed court rules violate the separation of powers between the three branches and, if yes, require judges pro tempore, not sitting justices, to make the ruling.
As a constitutional amendment, the measure would need a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate, then ratification by the voters.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment