Public safety, voter initiatives, and legislative decisions

Sen. Phil Fortunato sent this bulletin at 02/02/2026 11:42 AM PST

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

Among the bills debated and voted on this week on the Senate floor were two measures that stirred strong reactions across our state: Senate Bill 5855 and Senate Bill 5067. Both were heard and voted on Jan. 28, and I want to explain how I voted and why.

Senate Bill 5855 — law enforcement face coverings

I’ll start with Senate Bill 5855, which would prohibit most law enforcement officers — including federal officers — from wearing face coverings while interacting with the public, with limited exceptions. I voted no.

Before that vote, I asked for your input through a short survey, and the response was clear. Of the 270 people who responded, a strong majority of you opposed SB 5855. Many also shared concerns about how Washington’s sanctuary policies affect public safety and law enforcement practices. Your feedback mirrored what became clear during the floor debate: this bill targets the symptom, not the problem.

State law already requires officers to be reasonably identifiable while on duty. SB 5855 adds a new layer of legal exposure by creating an uncapped private right of action, opening the door to costly lawsuits against officers and local governments, even though supporters acknowledged there have been no complaints involving state or local agencies wearing face coverings.

Just as important, the bill ignores why many officers began wearing face coverings in the first place. Federal agents started doing so after being personally threatened, along with their families. This is not about secret police. It’s about protecting officers and their loved ones from doxing, harassment, and credible threats.

If lawmakers are serious about improving public safety, the focus should be state sanctuary policies that prohibit arrests in jails and courthouses—controlled environments. SB 5855 does nothing to address that reality.

Here's a video of my floor speech:

Sen. Phil Fortunato warns SB 5855 endangers law enforcement

I also discussed this issue in a recent interview with KIRO 7 News:

Senate Bill 5067 — lowering the DUI blood alcohol limit

On the same day, the Senate also voted on Senate Bill 5067, which would lower Washington’s legal blood alcohol concentration for driving from 0.08% to 0.05%. I voted no on this bill as well.

No one supports drunk driving. The real question is whether lowering the legal limit will actually make our roads safer. I don’t believe it will.

During debate, it became clear this bill focuses on changing a number rather than changing behavior. The most dangerous drivers, repeat offenders, and those involved in fatal crashes, are overwhelmingly at the higher end of impairment. That’s why I sponsored an alternative approach, Senate Bill 5664, which targets the problem where it actually exists.

Under current law, enhanced penalties begin at 0.10 and 0.15. SB 5664 moves the higher penalties down to 0.12 and imposes even stronger restrictions at 0.15, where repeat offenses and fatalities are most common. In my view, that is a more direct and effective way to improve public safety than lowering the limit for everyone.

There are also legitimate concerns about enforcement and fairness. A 0.05 standard creates more gray area for drivers trying to follow the law and places additional strain on law enforcement, without clear evidence that it will deter the most dangerous behavior.

Finally, SB 5067 raises real economic concerns for restaurants, wineries, breweries, and other hospitality businesses, particularly in rural communities already under pressure. I don’t believe this bill strikes the right balance between public safety, fairness, and economic reality.

Citizen initiatives before the Legislature

In addition to floor votes this week, the Legislature is also facing two certified, citizen-led initiatives that have now been formally introduced and are awaiting action. These measures were brought forward by voters, and under our state Constitution, initiatives are supposed to receive timely consideration by the Legislature.

Some of you have asked why I do not actively promote initiatives during the signature-gathering stage. As an elected legislator, I am prohibited from using state resources to support or oppose initiatives before they are certified. Once signatures have been verified and an initiative is formally before the Legislature, however, it becomes appropriate for legislators to discuss the proposal and how it is being handled in Olympia.

That is where we are now. These two initiatives have been certified and introduced, and the Legislature is responsible for considering them in a transparent and timely manner.

The first initiative would restore key elements of the Parents’ Bill of Rights that were adopted in 2024 and later weakened. This proposal would reaffirm parents’ rights to review instructional materials, access their children’s medical and mental-health records, and receive timely notification before medical services are provided at school. Many parents have told me they simply want transparency and a seat at the table when it comes to decisions affecting their children, and I believe that expectation is reasonable.

The second initiative focuses on fairness in school sports by limiting participation in girls’ athletic programs to biologically female students. Supporters argue this measure preserves the original intent of Title IX by ensuring girls have fair and equal opportunities to compete. Opponents raise concerns about implementation, but regardless of where you stand, this issue continues to generate strong opinions across the state and deserves an open and honest discussion.

Despite the significance of these initiatives, majority Democrats have so far declined to hold public hearings on either one. That said, you still have the ability to make your voice heard. You can sign in as PRO or CON on each initiative and submit written comments directly to lawmakers.

Register as PRO or CON by scanning or clicking on the QR code below:

Scan this code or click on it to sign in PRO or CON for the initiatives.

You can also submit written comments online. Those comments become part of the official legislative record, and legislators do see them. Choose one of these links and click on the button that says "Send comment to your legislators." See the example below.

What I Think — a new video and podcast series

I’ve also launched a new video and podcast series called What I Think, where I take a few minutes to talk directly about issues facing Washington and the legislation I’m working on, without the filters or talking points.

In the first episode, I focus on the rising cost of living in our state, including housing, gas prices, and inflation. I also discuss legislation I’ve introduced to help low-income residents relocate to more affordable states, giving families additional options and relief from Washington’s growing affordability crisis.

Stay connected

I appreciate hearing directly from you, whether it’s a question, a concern, or a new idea. You’re always welcome to reach out to my office to set up a meeting in Olympia or back home in the district.

Serving you is an honor.