Washington lawmakers pass rent-control bill, approve unemployment for striking workers
In the final days of the Washington legislative session, lawmakers hashed out agreements to approve a bill that sets limits on rent increases and a measure that gives striking workers unemployment benefits. The two bills await decisions by Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat.
If signed into law, the rent stabilization bill would be among the first in the nation, adding Washington to states like Oregon and California that have sought new ways to curb homelessness. Washington joined Oregon in efforts to give striking workers unemployment payments, following recent walkouts by Boeing factory workers, hospital nurses and teachers in the Pacific Northwest.
Washington passed its bill on a 27-21 vote with some changes, while Oregon lawmakers continue to discuss the plan. The bill started with a 12-week cap on unemployment benefits. That was cut to four weeks in the House before the conference committee reached a compromise of six weeks.
Democratic state Sen. Marcus Riccelli, who sponsored Washington's bill, said it will level the playing field for workers, even with the shorter benefits period.
'A strike is a last resort, but the bill gives striking workers the ability to afford basic needs like food and housing,' Riccelli told The Associated Press on Tuesday. 'The whole thing for me is when there's not a safety net, they face tremendous pressure to end the strike quickly.'
The Employment Security Department must report strike data to the Legislature starting in 2026, so they can assess impacts, Riccelli said. The bill sunsets on Jan. 1, 2036.
Only two states, New York and New Jersey, give striking workers unemployment benefits. Senate Democrats in Connecticut have revived legislation that would provide financial help for striking workers after the governor vetoed a similar measure last year.
Washington's rent-control bill made it through both houses, but two unexpected amendments added on the Senate floor sent House Bill 1217 into a conference committee. Those amendments increased the cap from 7% to 10% plus inflation and exempted single-family homes.
Opponents of the bill warned that developers would leave the state if it became law and argued that similar policies in Oregon and California only added to those states' financial burdens instead of slowing the homeless crisis.
Oregon passed a rent-control bill in 2019, and lawmakers updated the measure to cap rent increases at either 7% plus the annual 12-month average change in the consumer price index for the U.S. West, or 10% — whichever is lower.
The Washington legislature's conference committee managed to get the cap down a bit, to 7% plus inflation or 10% — whichever is lower. They also restored protections for the 38% of renters who live in single-family homes. The rent-increase cap for manufactured homes remains at 5%.
Lawmakers approved the plan Sunday on a 54-44 vote, with five Democrats joining the Republican opposition.
Michele Thomas, director of policy for Low Income Housing Alliance, said the policy was hard-fought and she was happy the state made a step toward better protections for tenants.
'Excessive rent increases threaten nearly 1 million renter households in our state with displacement and homelessness, as rents continue to rise,' she said. 'This bill will help keep people in their homes as we continue to fight for stronger protections and for more affordable housing for our communities.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
23 minutes ago
- NBC News
Israel-Iran conflict splits Trump's MAGA backers
As the percussion of Israeli munitions rattled Tehran on Thursday night, President Donald Trump's MAGA movement observed a rare silence — a sign, influential Republicans say, of the divide within their own party when it comes to the prospect of a war between Israel and Iran. It took Trump, who comments publicly more often than any president in recent memory, about 10 hours to put out a statement on his Truth Social platform, in which he urged Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program. The first official U.S. assessment had been issued by the White House under Secretary of State Marco Rubio's name, and it emphasized that America was 'not involved' in the strikes. In the meantime, Charlie Kirk, the co-founder of Turning Point USA, polled his 5 million X followers on the question of whether America should 'get involved in Israel's war against Iran.' By Friday afternoon, the poll showed more than 350,000 votes, with an overwhelming proportion in the 'No' column. When Kirk read Rubio's statement on the strikes during a podcast Thursday night, Jack Posobiec, a right-wing activist popular with the MAGA audience, interjected that it was 'not a supportive statement at all.' Earlier Thursday, before the strikes, Posobiec had warned on X that a 'direct strike on Iran right now would disastrously split the Trump coalition.' And Steve Bannon, host of the 'War Room' podcast, which is influential with MAGA adherents within the administration and outside of it, steered clear of public commentary Thursday night. It all adds up to a demonstration of the quandary facing Trump as he and other elected Republicans seek safe political turf. Trump's electoral success owes in no small part to his isolationist-leaning 'America First' platform and his fierce criticism of drawn-out U.S. engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan that were launched by Republican President George W. Bush and continued by Democratic President Barack Obama. But Israel's latest action pits traditional Republican support for the Jewish state — and antipathy toward Iran — against the MAGA base's fear that the U.S. will be drawn into a new foreign war. And even within Trump's MAGA wing, there's a long-running split over American backing of Israel. Trump has always been on the pro-Israel side of the divide. 'Republicans are a pro-Israel party, and the president hasn't wavered on that,' said one longtime Trump adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity within the MAGA movement. 'I think the challenge here is not how to move forward. The question is how to sell that to the recalcitrant base.' If Trump is able to do that, it will be despite powerful voices on the other side of the debate weighing in. Tucker Carlson, one of Trump's most influential supporters, wrote in his newsletter Friday that the U.S. should "drop Israel." "If Israel wants to wage this war, it has every right to do so. It is a sovereign country, and it can do as it pleases,' Carlson wrote, according to Jewish Insider. 'But not with America's backing.' Israel launched its attack to forestall Iran's development of a nuclear weapon and perhaps pressure Tehran into giving up that goal. Trump has been trying to construct a new version of an Obama-era nuclear deal that he shredded during his first term, and he articulated his hope Friday that Israel's campaign will help serve as a catalyst for Iran to sign a new pact. But it is not at all clear that the fighting won't have the opposite effect and spark a broader war between the two Middle Eastern powers. That's a showdown that establishment Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have been itching for. 'Game on,' Graham — whose hawkish worldview predates the rise of the MAGA movement — wrote on X on Thursday night as video of explosions in Tehran bounced around the world. On the other side of the spectrum, Infowars host Owen Shroyer, one of the hundreds of people pardoned by Trump in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, posted a video to X that framed the new conflict as an existential question for the president's base. 'America, the Trump movement, MAGA — however you want to say it, there's going to be a lot of soul-searching as these events go on, because a lot of MAGA is anti-war,' Shroyer said. 'What good is 'Make America Great Again' if we can't even be isolated from this war-torn region of the world, if we can't even be isolated from these foreign countries and these foreign conflicts that are just filled with hate?' 'We'll never be able to make America great again,' he added, 'as long as we're entangled in the Middle East.' With Trump signaling approval for how Israel conducted strikes while cajoling Iran to make a deal Friday morning, some of the president's MAGA faithful seemed to settle on a narrative that U.S. involvement is acceptable to a point: troops on the ground. On a call with reporters Friday, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., asserted his own opposition to U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts while expressing confidence that Trump feels the same. 'It's one thing to support our ally, which we're doing, and we should do, unequivocally,' Hawley said. 'It's one thing to provide them with arms for their own self-defense, which we have done and should do. But I can't imagine a world in which we would send United States troops, in which we would be involved in any kinetic activity, as the defense people like to say, there in the region, unless it's just defending our own installations.' Israeli airstrikes on Iran are a far cry from American troops invading a nation that has been far more vulnerable to internal revolution than foreign conquest over the course of thousands of years of existence. Even the Republicans who are most aggressive when it comes to Iran talk about missiles and bombs rather than staging an incursion with American ground forces. But drawing a line on that is a middle ground that may satisfy most, if not all, Trump supporters for the moment. In the hours after the strikes, Trump allies hewed closely to the administration's sparse talking points. Alex Bruesewitz, a Republican consultant with close ties to the White House, shared Rubio's statement on X, emphasizing that the 'US WAS NOT INVOLVED IN STRIKES AGAINST IRAN.' Meanwhile, Laura Loomer, the right-wing conspiracy theorist aligned with Trump, posted several messages supportive of Trump and Israel. 'Iran,' Loomer wrote, 'must never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.' Mehek Cooke, an attorney and pro-Trump political commentator active in the MAGA movement, said Friday that her recent visit to Israel opened her eyes to the 'devastation of Iran's Oct. 7 proxy war' there. Israel's strikes, Cooke added, 'were not just justified; they were inevitable. This matters to every American, including the MAGA movement. You can't negotiate with regimes chanting 'Death to America.'' Cooke also pointed to recent polling from Rasmussen, a right-leaning firm, that found that 57% of respondents favored U.S. military action to combat Iran's nuclear weapons program. She said she believes MAGA loyalists will 'remain united' behind Trump. 'MAGA wants peace, but we're not blind,' Cooke added. 'Yes, some in MAGA lean isolationist. But appeasement is not an option. Iran's leaders just threatened both Israel and the U.S., bringing us to a dangerous tipping point. Trump's 60-day deadline — blatantly ignored by Iran was followed by real consequences.' Still, the political perils of taking sides in the early stages of what Israel says could be a sustained campaign were underscored by the reluctance of some MAGA figures to deal with the question head-on. Asked to explain the tension within the MAGA movement, former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., a close Trump ally, texted: 'MAGA is more concerned with the Battle for Los Angeles,' where Trump has deployed the National Guard and Marines in a standoff with Americans protesting against immigration raids, 'than the Battle for Tehran.' What the White House appears to be most concerned about, at least in terms of Trump's domestic politics, is portraying the U.S. as uninvolved in the Middle East conflict. The word that trickled out overnight from the White House, and from a phone interview Trump gave to Fox News, emphasized that U.S. military had no role in the strikes. It wasn't until Friday morning that Trump weighed in directly — and ominously. 'There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. God Bless You All!'
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US Senate Republicans seek to limit judges' power via Trump's tax-cut bill
June 13 (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans have added language to President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that would restrict the ability of judges to block government policies they conclude are unlawful. Text of the Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's contribution to the bill, opens new tab released by its chair, Senator Chuck Grassley, late on Thursday would limit the ability of judges to issue preliminary injunctions blocking federal policies unless the party suing posts a bond to cover the government's costs if the ruling is later overturned. The bond requirement in the Senate's version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is different from the provision the Republican-controlled House of Representatives included when it passed the bill last month that would curb courts' power in a different way. The House version curtails the ability of judges to enforce orders holding officials in contempt if they violate injunctions. Judges use contempt orders to bring parties into compliance, usually by ratcheting up measures from fines to jail time. Some judges who have blocked Trump administration actions have said officials are at risk of being held in contempt for not complying with their orders. Congressional Republicans have called for banning or curtailing nationwide injunctions blocking government policies after key parts of Trump's agenda have been stymied by such court rulings. The House in April voted 219-213 along largely party lines in favor of the No Rogue Rulings Act to do so, but the Senate has not yet taken up the measure. A White House memo in March directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post bonds if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. Such bonds can make obtaining an injunction a cost-prohibitive option in cases concerning multi-billion-dollar agenda items. Grassley's office said in a statement the language the Judiciary Committee proposed would ensure judges enforce an existing requirement that they make a party seeking a preliminary injunction provide a security bond to cover costs incurred by a defendant if a judge's ruling is later overturned. Judges rarely require such bonds when a lawsuit is not pitting two private parties against each other but instead challenging an alleged unlawful or unconstitutional government action. Several judges have denied the Trump administration's requests for bonds or issued nominal ones. Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47, are using complex budget rules to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 votes needed to advance most legislation in the 100-seat chamber. The Senate Judiciary Committee's piece of the bill would also provide the judiciary funding to study the costs to taxpayers associated with such injunctions and provide training for judges about the problems associated with them. A spokesperson for Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, criticized the Republican-drafted legislative text, saying "Republicans are targeting nationwide injunctions because they're beholden to a president who is breaking the law — but the courts are not."
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Muslim mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is outraged by this photo of him shared by rival - can you see why?
New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani slammed rival Andrew Cuomo alleging his campaign super PAC allegedly photoshopped images of the Muslim lawmaker to lengthen and darken his beard. Mamdani, 31, accused Cuomo of 'blatant Islamophobia' in the former governor's recent attack ad highlighting controversial past statements from Mamdani. The mayoral hopeful took the lead over Cuomo in a poll this week despite Cuomo previously holding a healthy lead in the upcoming Dem race, with Mamdani saying Cuomo's campaign lengthened his beard because 'he is afraid he'll lose.' 'His donors want you to fear me,' he said in an X post, putting the apparently edited picture next to an original image where he sported a much shorter beard. Mamdani appeared to suggest that his beard had been lengthened to try and imply that he is a Muslim extremist in a bid to deter prospective voters. The advert was attributed to Cuomo's super PAC Fix the City, and aimed to highlight Mamdani's past calls to defund the police, rejection of capitalism, and criticism of Israel. The ad said Mamdani 'supports the BDS movement against Israel', is a 'socialist', and 'refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.' A spokesperson for Fix the City said that the advert was never intended for distribution, and said it was 'proposed by a vendor; upon review it was immediately rejected for production and subsequently corrected.' The PAC did not explain why Mamdani's beard appears to have been made longer and darker. Rich Azzopardi, a spokesperson for Cuomo's campaign, added in a statement: 'It's absurd and disrespectful for anyone to attempt to distort anyone else's image in campaign material — period.' Hours after Cuomo's campaign rejected any affiliation with the mailer, Mamdani and Cuomo traded blows on the debate stage where Mamdani slammed the former governor for the ad. 'It is ridiculous to hear Mr. Cuomo talk about himself as a man of unity, when just yesterday, we found out his super PAC was sending mail that artificially darkened and lengthened my beard, to stoke the very fears of that division in this city,' he said. 'The reason he doesn't have a message to Muslim New Yorkers, is because he has nothing to say to us. Because he doesn't see us as every other New Yorker.' Mamdani's campaign told The Gothamist that they learned of the mailer when journalist Jacob Kornbluh shared it on social media. After Mamdani shared his outrage at the ad, a spokesperson for Cuomo's super PAC said they were 'outraged that this was posted online without our consent', insisting it was never intended to be distributed. The clash over the 'racist' ad was one of several hostile moments on the debate stage between Cuomo and the other candidates. Many attacked Cuomo over his 2021 scandal where he was accused by over a dozen women of sexual harassment, which he resigned over. Cuomo has since denied the allegations and said he regrets resigning. 'Everyone here knows you sexually harassed women, that you created a toxic work environment,' New York City Comptroller Brad Lander said. Cuomo shot back that Lander's remark was a 'bold-faced lie.' Mamdani took a similar line of attack, seeking to distance himself from Cuomo and portray himself as a fresh face in the city's politics. 'I've never had to resign in disgrace,' Mamdani said. 'I've never cut Medicaid. I've never stolen money from the MTA. I've never hounded the 13 women who credibly accused me of sexual harassment.' It comes as early voting in the mayor's race begins on Saturday, with the primary being held on June 24 to see which Democrat will be nominated in the general election, which they would be heavily expected to win. In the latest poll from Public Policy Polling last week, Mamdani took a surprise lead over Cuomo, registering 35 percent support to Cuomo's 31 percent.
