As Shift WA readers know, Democrats have made it significantly harder for citizens to challenge potentially ineligible voter registrations, raising the standard of proof to a level typically reserved for criminal convictions. Under ESHB 1916, which took effect this week after being signed by Gov. Bob Ferguson, anyone challenging a voter registration must now prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the registration is improper—a burden prosecutors use in murder cases. If challengers fail to meet that standard, their challenge is automatically dismissed and any challenged ballot must be counted.

The law also strips away many of the practical tools citizens previously used to verify whether a voter had moved or registered elsewhere. Property records, telephone directories, statewide voter databases, and registration records from other states can no longer serve as the basis for an address-related challenge. Instead, challengers must navigate a growing maze of paperwork, including separate ink-signed affidavits for every voter challenged, while county auditors are required to dismiss filings that fail to meet the law’s strict procedural requirements.

But that’s not all the law does. Adding to the deterrent, the law also imposes steep penalties on challengers. Knowingly submitting false information can result in fines of up to $10,000, while filing a challenge without what authorities deem reasonable cause can lead to misdemeanor charges. Each allegedly improper challenge counts as a separate offense. Supporters say the measure protects voters from frivolous challenges, but critics argue it sends a clear message: once a name lands on the voter rolls, removing it will require extraordinary proof, substantial effort, and the willingness to assume legal risk.

The measure follows a familiar Olympia pattern—when concerns are raised about election integrity, Democrats’ preferred solution is often to make scrutiny more difficult rather than improve verification upfront. Read more at Seattle Red.

A years-long battle over the massive Horse Heaven wind project landed before the Washington Supreme Court this week, with opponents arguing that former Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee steamrolled both local concerns and his own state’s review process to advance a signature green energy project. The proposal near the Tri-Cities would be one of the largest renewable energy developments in Washington history, featuring up to 222 wind turbines, solar arrays, and battery storage facilities spread across the region.

At the center of the dispute is whether Inslee improperly overrode recommendations from the state’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), which initially sought to scale back the project to reduce impacts on wildlife, local communities, and Yakama Nation cultural resources. Attorneys representing local residents, Benton County, and the Yakama Nation argued that EFSEC spent years reviewing evidence, hearing testimony, and crafting mitigation measures, only to have Inslee largely discard those concerns in favor of preserving the project’s original scope.

Project supporters insist the process worked exactly as intended and argue opponents are simply trying to kill the project outright. But critics contend the case highlights a familiar problem with Washington’s climate agenda: when local residents, tribal leaders, and environmental concerns stand in the way of a politically favored green energy project, Olympia suddenly becomes far less interested in “listening to stakeholders.” The Yakama Nation argued that state officials failed to adequately balance renewable energy goals against cultural and environmental impacts, despite laws requiring special consideration of affected communities.

The case now rests with the Supreme Court, which will determine whether Inslee had the authority to override EFSEC’s recommendations and whether the approval process properly accounted for the project’s significant impacts. Read more at Center Square.

As Shift WA previously called out, Democrats have carved out a brand-new funding stream for abortion providers, creating what they call an “abortion savings program” and backing it with a new tax on health insurance carriers. Under SB 6182, insurers offering plans through the state exchange will pay an assessment of $0.82 per enrollee per month in the first year—raising an estimated $10 million—before settling into a smaller ongoing tax expected to bring in roughly $2 million annually.

The money isn’t headed to general healthcare services. The law explicitly directs at least 85% of the funds to grants supporting abortion providers and abortion advocacy organizations. While Democrats claim insurers must absorb the cost and not pass it along to consumers, they included an escape clause allowing costs to be shifted if regulators determine insurers could face financial harm. In other words, taxpayers and policyholders may ultimately end up footing the bill anyway.

As if creating a dedicated abortion tax wasn’t enough, lawmakers also built secrecy into the program. The Department of Health is prohibited from collecting or releasing identifying information about practitioners, staff, or patients tied to grant-funded services, and much of the information is exempt from public records requests. So taxpayers are expected to fund the program while having fewer ways to scrutinize how the money is being spent.

The measure follows a broader pattern in Olympia, where Democrats continue expanding government-funded abortion programs while piling new taxes and fees onto an already expensive state. Every Republican in the Legislature voted against the bill, but Democrats used their majorities to pass it anyway and Gov. Bob Ferguson quickly signed it into law. Read more at Seattle Red.

Please consider making a contribution to ensure Shift continues to provide daily updates on the shenanigans of the liberal establishment. If you’d rather mail a check, you can send it to: Shift WA | PO Box 956 | Cle Elum, WA 98922

Forward this to a friend.  It helps us grow our community and serve you better.

You can also follow SHIFTWA on social media by liking us on Facebook and following us on Twitter.

If you feel we missed something that should be covered, email us at [email protected].