Enacted appropriations
$157.3BTotal Budgeted Funds in Chapter 268, Laws of 2026, Partial Veto, after the 2026 supplemental changes. Washington's capital and transportation budgets are separate and are not included in this operating-budget headline.
Washington budget, debt, and interest
Washington state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.
The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is Washington state government. Federal debt is not allocated to Washington; a state budget is not the federal budget.
State debt outstanding$30.62BFY2024 · #11 of 50 · highest first
Interest expenditure$1.2BFY2024 · #11 of 50 · highest first
Total state tax collections$37.34BFY2024 · #13 of 50 · highest first
Washington over time
Explore Washington readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Washington officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Washington effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Washington change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
No comparable time series is retained for this topic. The chart shows events and reviewed actions; current state comparisons appear below.
Washington government actions Washington · source units
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
3 of 3 reviewed Washington actions match · 3 date markers shown. 50 major events shown separately.
How major events are selected
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
State debt and interest
Compare state-government balances and interest expenditure from the same Census fiscal-year survey.
Washington · FY2024$30.62B
Washington rank#11among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.1TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
State debt outstanding
Long-term debt outstanding plus short-term debt outstanding at fiscal year end.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Excludes local-government debt. Dollar ranks describe scale, not credit quality.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Washington stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Washington has a dark outline.
Lower value · $728.59MHigher value · $166.39BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Washington with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $166.39B | — |
| #2 | New York | $120.59B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $70.05B | — |
| #4 | Massachusetts | $65.87B | — |
| #5 | New Jersey | $57.23B | — |
| #6 | Pennsylvania | $48.67B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $43.38B | — |
| #8 | Virginia | $33.73B | — |
| #9 | Connecticut | $33.27B | — |
| #10 | Ohio | $32.29B | — |
| #11 | Washington · your comparison | $30.62B | — |
| #12 | Maryland | $25.9B | — |
| #13 | Michigan | $25.02B | — |
| #14 | Colorado | $23.57B | — |
| #15 | Wisconsin | $22.79B | — |
| #16 | Florida | $20.14B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $17.03B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $16.91B | — |
| #19 | Louisiana | $16.09B | — |
| #20 | South Carolina | $15.36B | — |
| #21 | West Virginia | $15.08B | — |
| #22 | Georgia | $14.05B | — |
| #23 | North Carolina | $13.13B | — |
| #24 | Hawaii | $11.72B | — |
| #25 | Rhode Island | $11.41B | — |
| #26 | Alabama | $10.99B | — |
| #27 | Oklahoma | $10.15B | — |
| #28 | Kentucky | $10.08B | — |
| #29 | Tennessee | $9.03B | — |
| #30 | Indiana | $8.52B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $8.06B | — |
| #32 | Arkansas | $8.05B | — |
| #33 | Mississippi | $7.72B | — |
| #34 | New Hampshire | $7.58B | — |
| #35 | Kansas | $7.16B | — |
| #36 | New Mexico | $7.12B | — |
| #37 | Missouri | $6.99B | — |
| #38 | Arizona | $6.88B | — |
| #39 | Alaska | $5.72B | — |
| #40 | Utah | $5.55B | — |
| #41 | Maine | $5.3B | — |
| #42 | North Dakota | $4.89B | — |
| #43 | South Dakota | $4.67B | — |
| #44 | Delaware | $3.69B | — |
| #45 | Nebraska | $3.39B | — |
| #46 | Nevada | $2.89B | — |
| #47 | Montana | $2.76B | — |
| #48 | Vermont | $2.67B | — |
| #49 | Wyoming | $1.26B | — |
| #50 | Idaho | $728.59M | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Where state revenue comes from
All measures use Census state-government records for FY2024. Categories describe collections; they do not rank statutory tax rates.
Washington · FY2024$22.81B
Washington rank#4among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$465.4BSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
General sales-tax collections
Census category T09.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Washington stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Washington has a dark outline.
Lower value · $0Higher value · $54.35BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Washington with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Texas | $54.35B | — |
| #2 | California | $53.33B | — |
| #3 | Florida | $40.09B | — |
| #4 | Washington · your comparison | $22.81B | — |
| #5 | New York | $19.99B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $16.33B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $16.05B | — |
| #8 | Pennsylvania | $15.6B | — |
| #9 | New Jersey | $14.31B | — |
| #10 | Tennessee | $14.08B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $13.16B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $12.7B | — |
| #13 | North Carolina | $12.16B | — |
| #14 | Indiana | $10.96B | — |
| #15 | Massachusetts | $9.4B | — |
| #16 | Georgia | $9.01B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $8.49B | — |
| #18 | Nevada | $8.4B | — |
| #19 | Wisconsin | $7.59B | — |
| #20 | Virginia | $7.4B | — |
| #21 | Maryland | $6.85B | — |
| #22 | South Carolina | $6.44B | — |
| #23 | Connecticut | $6.23B | — |
| #24 | Kentucky | $5.8B | — |
| #25 | Missouri | $5.26B | — |
| #26 | Mississippi | $5.07B | — |
| #27 | Arkansas | $5.07B | — |
| #28 | Louisiana | $4.87B | — |
| #29 | Hawaii | $4.79B | — |
| #30 | Colorado | $4.67B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $4.64B | — |
| #32 | Utah | $4.63B | — |
| #33 | Alabama | $4.59B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $4.33B | — |
| #35 | New Mexico | $4.33B | — |
| #36 | Oklahoma | $3.81B | — |
| #37 | Idaho | $3.09B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $2.97B | — |
| #39 | Maine | $2.35B | — |
| #40 | West Virginia | $1.82B | — |
| #41 | South Dakota | $1.68B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $1.63B | — |
| #43 | Oregon | $1.34B | — |
| #44 | North Dakota | $1.32B | — |
| #45 | Wyoming | $1.01B | — |
| #46 | Vermont | $597.33M | — |
| #47 | Alaska | $0 | — |
| #47 | Delaware | $0 | — |
| #47 | Montana | $0 | — |
| #47 | New Hampshire | $0 | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Where state operating spending goes
Census categories allow consistent comparisons. These selected categories are not a breakdown of the current Washington appropriations act.
Washington · FY2024$19.6B
Washington rank#19among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.02TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Public welfare current operations
Current operations for public welfare institutions and other public welfare, excluding capital and transfers.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Washington stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Washington has a dark outline.
Lower value · $1.09BHigher value · $156.71BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Washington with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $156.71B | — |
| #2 | New York | $97.35B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $57.32B | — |
| #4 | Illinois | $41.13B | — |
| #5 | Florida | $40.11B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $39.77B | — |
| #7 | Pennsylvania | $39.34B | — |
| #8 | Massachusetts | $34.12B | — |
| #9 | North Carolina | $30.64B | — |
| #10 | New Jersey | $28.06B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $26.02B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $24.37B | — |
| #13 | Virginia | $23.68B | — |
| #14 | Minnesota | $23.37B | — |
| #15 | Indiana | $22.93B | — |
| #16 | Maryland | $21.61B | — |
| #17 | Kentucky | $20.54B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $20.47B | — |
| #19 | Washington · your comparison | $19.6B | — |
| #20 | Georgia | $18.99B | — |
| #21 | Louisiana | $18.69B | — |
| #22 | Tennessee | $16.42B | — |
| #23 | Wisconsin | $16.26B | — |
| #24 | Missouri | $15.65B | — |
| #25 | Oklahoma | $14.57B | — |
| #26 | Colorado | $13.6B | — |
| #27 | South Carolina | $12.84B | — |
| #28 | New Mexico | $10.72B | — |
| #29 | Iowa | $10.26B | — |
| #30 | Alabama | $9.73B | — |
| #31 | Arkansas | $8.67B | — |
| #32 | Mississippi | $8.08B | — |
| #33 | Utah | $6.91B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $6.84B | — |
| #35 | Nevada | $6.62B | — |
| #36 | West Virginia | $6.24B | — |
| #37 | Maine | $5.7B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $4.97B | — |
| #39 | Connecticut | $4.88B | — |
| #40 | Rhode Island | $4.54B | — |
| #41 | Hawaii | $4.14B | — |
| #42 | Delaware | $3.97B | — |
| #43 | Idaho | $3.73B | — |
| #44 | Alaska | $3.27B | — |
| #45 | Montana | $2.89B | — |
| #46 | New Hampshire | $2.72B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $2.69B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $2.09B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $1.95B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $1.09B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
State operating costs and the enacted budget
The enacted plan, spending categories and audited activity use different periods and accounting scopes; they are kept separate.
Washington · FY2024$49.82B
Washington rank#13among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$2.04TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Current operation expenditure
Sum of Census current-operation expenditure categories, excluding capital outlay, interest, and assistance/subsidy expenditure.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. This FY2024 comparison differs in scope and period from Washington’s 2025–27 biennium appropriations and Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 audit shown below.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Washington stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Washington has a dark outline.
Lower value · $4.01BHigher value · $287.03BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Washington with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $287.03B | — |
| #2 | New York | $161.37B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $136.18B | — |
| #4 | Florida | $86.61B | — |
| #5 | Pennsylvania | $77.15B | — |
| #6 | Illinois | $75.67B | — |
| #7 | Ohio | $66.77B | — |
| #8 | New Jersey | $64.53B | — |
| #9 | Massachusetts | $61.38B | — |
| #10 | North Carolina | $59.01B | — |
| #11 | Michigan | $57.27B | — |
| #12 | Virginia | $53.45B | — |
| #13 | Washington · your comparison | $49.82B | — |
| #14 | Georgia | $45.19B | — |
| #15 | Maryland | $45.06B | — |
| #16 | Oregon | $41.41B | — |
| #17 | Arizona | $38.71B | — |
| #18 | Minnesota | $38.1B | — |
| #19 | Indiana | $37.4B | — |
| #20 | Kentucky | $36.94B | — |
| #21 | Wisconsin | $34.5B | — |
| #22 | Missouri | $34.43B | — |
| #23 | South Carolina | $32.85B | — |
| #24 | Colorado | $32.73B | — |
| #25 | Louisiana | $31.67B | — |
| #26 | Tennessee | $31.12B | — |
| #27 | Alabama | $26.99B | — |
| #28 | Oklahoma | $24.28B | — |
| #29 | Utah | $22.7B | — |
| #30 | New Mexico | $21.94B | — |
| #31 | Connecticut | $21.22B | — |
| #32 | Iowa | $19.89B | — |
| #33 | Kansas | $18.39B | — |
| #34 | Hawaii | $16.62B | — |
| #35 | Mississippi | $16.46B | — |
| #36 | Arkansas | $16.28B | — |
| #37 | West Virginia | $13.19B | — |
| #38 | Nevada | $12.43B | — |
| #39 | Nebraska | $10.41B | — |
| #40 | Maine | $10.12B | — |
| #41 | Delaware | $9.24B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $8.93B | — |
| #43 | Alaska | $8.4B | — |
| #44 | Idaho | $8.21B | — |
| #45 | New Hampshire | $7.12B | — |
| #46 | Montana | $6.44B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $6.28B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $5.63B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $4.55B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $4.01B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Where State tax revenue comes from
FY2025 audited actualShares of the $36.3 billion in taxes reported as general revenue for Washington's primary government. The denominator excludes grants, charges for services, investment earnings, endowment contributions, and local-government tax collections.
- Sales and use tax
- $16.3B · 44.9%
- Business and occupation tax
- $7.1B · 19.4%
- State property tax
- $4.7B · 13.1%
- Excise taxes
- $2.7B · 7.3%
- Other taxes
- $4.0B · 10.9%
- Motor vehicle and fuel taxes
- $1.6B · 4.3%
2025–27 enacted operating spending plan
2025–27 biennium after the 2026 supplementalEvery statewide operating category in the Legislative Budget Notes is assigned exactly once to one of these service groups. The groups reconcile to Total Budgeted Funds and exclude Washington's separate capital and transportation budgets.
- Health and human services
- $81.3B · 51.7%
- Education
- $55.9B · 35.5%
- Government operations and statewide appropriations
- $15.0B · 9.6%
- Natural resources
- $4.0B · 2.5%
- Judicial
- $768.8M · 0.5%
- Transportation agencies
- $354.2M · 0.2%
Audited government-wide results
Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025- Revenue
- $100.9B
- Expenses
- $103.5B
Audited government-wide activity for Washington's primary government. Revenue is the ACFR management summary's total program and general revenue before endowment contributions and internal transfers; these accrual-accounting results are not the biennial operating appropriation.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt from FactVote’s Washington candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
2026 Washington U.S. House — District 2 — General Election
Edwin H. Feller
2 statementsBudgets, spending & debt
He supports robust law enforcement, secure borders, fair elections, and balanced budgets. Feller supports Title IX protections for women and girls. He believes that our first responders deserve respect, appreciation, and support.
Read exact statement & source
He supports robust law enforcement, secure borders, fair elections, and balanced budgets. Feller supports Title IX protections for women and girls. He believes that our first responders deserve respect, appreciation, and support.Edwin H. Feller — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 1 more statement from Edwin H. Feller
Budgets, spending & debt
He supports robust law enforcement, secure borders, fair elections, and balanced budgets. Feller supports Title IX protections for women and girls. He believes that our first responders deserve respect, appreciation, and support. He adheres to the principles of sovereignty for the individual and the…
Read exact statement & source
He supports robust law enforcement, secure borders, fair elections, and balanced budgets. Feller supports Title IX protections for women and girls. He believes that our first responders deserve respect, appreciation, and support. He adheres to the principles of sovereignty for the individual and the nation, and that the rule of law protects those principles. Feller believes that the affordability crisis is self-inflicted due to taxes being too high, and the government growing too large.2026 Washington official voter-guide statement — Edwin H. Feller ↗
Rick Larsen
1 statementBudgets, spending & debt
I believe health care is a right, and I support universal, affordable coverage. That is why I am fighting to reduce health care costs and expand access to high-quality health care that fits families’ budgets. I voted to lower the cost of health care and prescription drugs for working families and se…
Read exact statement & source
I believe health care is a right, and I support universal, affordable coverage. That is why I am fighting to reduce health care costs and expand access to high-quality health care that fits families’ budgets. I voted to lower the cost of health care and prescription drugs for working families and seniors: by letting Medicare negotiate drug prices, capping out-of-pocket costs for seniors, and capping the price of insulin at $35 per month. I also voted to restore the ACA tax credits for 26,000 people in Northwest Washington, as Republicans and the Trump administration removed their coverage.Rick Larsen — candidate-owned primary source 4 ↗
2026 Washington U.S. House — District 4 — General Election
Amanda McKinney
1 statementBudgets, spending & debt
Fiscal Responsibility and Protecting Taxpayers Amanda McKinney believes Washington spends too much and delivers too little.She has uncovered fraud, opposed wasteful spending, and demanded accountability at the local level. In Congress, she will fight for fiscal discipline, transparency, and policies…
Read exact statement & source
Fiscal Responsibility and Protecting Taxpayers Amanda McKinney believes Washington spends too much and delivers too little.She has uncovered fraud, opposed wasteful spending, and demanded accountability at the local level. In Congress, she will fight for fiscal discipline, transparency, and policies that respect working families and small businesses.Every dollar wasted in Washington is a dollar taken from American families.Amanda McKinney — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
2026 Washington U.S. House — District 6 — General Election
Teresa Fox
3 statementsBudgets, spending & debt
I am running to represent everyone in the 6th District. I will listen to your concerns, respect your values, and fight for a future where every Washingtonian has the opportunity to thrive. Vote Fox for positive change, public safety, balanced budgets & economic vitality.
Read exact statement & source
I am running to represent everyone in the 6th District. I will listen to your concerns, respect your values, and fight for a future where every Washingtonian has the opportunity to thrive. Vote Fox for positive change, public safety, balanced budgets & economic vitality.2026 Washington official voter-guide statement — Teresa Fox ↗
View 2 more statements from Teresa Fox
Budgets, spending & debt
Stop runaway government spending
Read exact statement & source
Stop runaway government spendingTeresa Fox — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Budgets, spending & debt
Reduce runaway federal spending and impose greater fiscal restraint.
Read exact statement & source
Reduce runaway federal spending and impose greater fiscal restraint.Teresa Fox — Part 70 verified source ↗
Race groups · Page 1 of 2
How statements are selected
This section matches specific budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt terms in retained, attributed source text from published Washington candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Washington legislators and Washington’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Washington’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
3 matching sponsorships or proposals · 3 Washington incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Rep. Marilyn Strickland
U.S. representative for Washington, District 10 · D–WA
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Marilyn Strickland
Gun Violence Prevention Research Act of 2025
Jul 29, 2025 · Introduced
Rep. Marilyn Strickland · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
authorize the appropriation of funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Why this record is included
The official record directly regulates firearms or addresses shootings, firearm safety, trafficking, or gun-violence prevention. It does not establish an effect on Washington's firearm mortality rate.
Retained Washington evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
authorize the appropriation of funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence preventionReview official supporting evidence ↗
Sen. June Robinson
Washington Senate, District 38 · D–WA
1 proposalView proposals from Sen. June Robinson
Aligning statutory language concerning the retired state employee and retired or disabled school employee health insurance subsidy with the historical interpretation and implementation of the relevant subsidy language in the operating budget.
Mar 19, 2024 · Enacted · Chapter 197
Sen. June Robinson · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Aligning statutory language concerning the retired state employee and retired or disabled school employee health insurance subsidy with the historical interpretation and implementation of the relevant subsidy language in the operating budget. AN ACT Relating to aligning statutory language concerning the retired state employee and retired or disabled school employee health insurance subsidy with the historical interpretation and implementation of the relevant subsidy language in the operating budget;
The official Washington Legislature record shows the measure was enacted by March 19, 2024 as Chapter 197.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, premiums, benefits, Medicaid coverage, or Washington's health-benefit exchange. It does not establish an effect on Washington's uninsured rate.
Retained Washington evidence context: People under age 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Aligning statutory language concerning the retired state employee and retired or disabled school employee health insurance subsidy with the historical interpretation and implementation of the relevant subsidy language in the operating budget. AN ACT Relating to aligning statutory language concerning the retired state employee and retired or disabled school employee health insurance subsidy with the historical interpretation and implementation of the relevant subsidy language in the operating budget;Review official supporting evidence ↗
Sen. Patty Murray
U.S. senator for Washington · D–WA
1 proposalView proposals from Sen. Patty Murray
Continuing Appropriations and Extensions and Other Matters Act, 2026
Oct 9, 2025 · Floor action
Sen. Patty Murray · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Continuing Appropriations and Extensions and Other Matters Act, 2026 This bill provides continuing FY2026 appropriations for federal agencies, permanently extends the expanded premium tax credit for purchasing health insurance, provides additional funding for Medicaid and security for federal officials, and extends various expiring programs. Specifically, the bill provides continuing FY2026 appropriations to federal agencies through the earlier of October 31, 2025, or the enactment of the applicable appropriations act. It is known as a continuing resolution (CR) and prevents a government shutdown that would otherwise occur if the FY2026 appropriations bills have not been enacted when FY2026…
Motion by Senator Schumer to reconsider, under the order of 10/9/2025, not having voted on the prevailing side, the vote by which the third cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S. 2882 was not invoked (Record Vote No. 557) entered in Senate.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, premiums, benefits, Medicaid coverage, or Washington's health-benefit exchange. It does not establish an effect on Washington's uninsured rate.
Retained Washington evidence context: People under age 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Continuing Appropriations and Extensions and Other Matters Act, 2026 This bill provides continuing FY2026 appropriations for federal agencies, permanently extends the expanded premium tax credit for purchasing health insurance, provides additional funding for Medicaid and security for federal officials, and extends various expiring programs. Specifically, the bill provides continuing FY2026 appropriations to federal agencies through the earlier of October 31, 2025, or the enactment of the applicable appropriations act. It is known as a continuing resolution (CR) and prevents a government shutdown that would otherwise occur if the FY2026…Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us
Only current Washington officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Washington statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 4, 2026.