OLYMPIA, WA – Amid rising tensions with Washington, D.C., state lawmakers advanced a bill Friday that would grant Gov. Bob Ferguson authority to prohibit another National Guard from entering his state.
The Senate State Government, Tribal Affairs & Elections Committee gave its approval Friday afternoon following a public hearing earlier that week. Democrats voted to advance the proposal to the Rules Committee without discussion, setting it up for consideration on the chamber floor.
The majority party passed House Bill 1321 out of the chamber of origin earlier this month with a party-line vote. If the Rules Committee sends it to the Senate floor for a vote over the coming weeks, Democrats could make it law without a single Republican vote, demonstrating their reach.
“We see the political winds change every four years in the other Washington right,” Rep. Sharlett Mena, D-Tacoma, testified during the March 25 hearing. “Regardless of what’s going on in Washington, D.C., Washington state should be able to enforce the policies and values that we have and not have other states coming in to enforce their policies without our consent.”
If approved, Washington state would join Idaho, Kansas, Maine, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Texas in passing the law. Mena said the language is almost identical to that passed by the other states, adding that “we’re a little late to the party.”
Every state has a National Guard, which operates under three different statuses. However, Republicans have cited confusion over what Mena is trying to fix with her proposal.
The statuses dictate when to activate the guard but under different levels of control. State Active Duty gives the governor sole control; Title 10 of the United States Code allows the president to federalize any guard troops; and Title 32 of the U.S.C. offers a hybrid, where the president authorizes the guard for federal duties under the governor’s control.
If approved, HB 1321 would reaffirm that guard troops can operate under state authority but cannot deploy into Washington state without Ferguson’s approval. However, it doesn’t change the president’s authority to federalize and deploy troops across state lines without permission.
Nick Fielden, an analyst with the Office of the Attorney General, testified in support of the bill on March 25. Representing state Attorney General Nick Brown, the successor to Ferguson’s position, Fielden said HB 1321 mirrors Idaho’s historic interpretation, passed in 1927 and last amended in the 1950s.
“It does not obstruct our National Guard’s mission. It does not affect our current state compacts or our ability to train or combat natural disasters,” Fielden testified. “It simply gives Washington state a protection that many other states, including Idaho, Maine and Texas, already have.”
During the House floor debate, Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, said Mena’s bill focuses on a “very small slice” of scenarios: instances in which neighboring states might need help without federalizing the guard but don’t have existing agreements with Washington state.
The Center Square reached out to Ferguson’s staff and Senate Republican leadership for comment but did not receive an immediate response. If passed, HB 1321 would take effect immediately.
“This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately,” according to the bill.
This article was originally published by The Center Square on March 31, 2025, and is republished with permission. Read the original article here.
