New Washington Laws and Changes Starting July 1, 2026

Several Washington state laws and policy changes take effect July 1, 2026, affecting taxes, licenses, workplace rules, and more.

1. Millionaire’s Tax (partial implementation)
While the “millionaire’s tax” was passed in January 2026, a key revenue measure — a 0.5% Business and Occupation (B&O) tax on annual business income over $250 million — will officially start on July 1. The law also updates sales tax definitions and exempts certain services for schools and libraries.

2. Data Center Tax Exemptions Expire
Existing sales and use tax exemptions for refurbishing older data centers will end. New data centers can still apply for exemptions, but existing ones cannot get tax breaks on replacement server equipment 

3. Mortgage Interest B&O Tax Exemption Changes
A new rule replaces the current state limit (operating in 10 or fewer states) with a financial threshold — lenders with less than $10 billion in annual mortgage originations will lose the exemption. Revenue will go to wildfire preparation and firefighting AOL+1.

4. Work Zone Speed Camera Fines Increase
First-time speeding tickets in road work zones will rise to $125; repeat offenses will be $248 

5. Hunting & Fishing License Fee Hikes
Senate Bill 5583 raises fees 38%:

• Big game deer license: $39 → $53.82
• Freshwater + saltwater combo: $45.50 → $62.79
• Annual Discover Pass to state lands: $30 → $45 (effective Oct. 1) 

6. Public Employee Retirement Benefits
A one-time 3% cost-of-living increase for certain public retirees will apply starting July 1 

7. Local Government Revenue Use
Local governments can now use existing revenue streams for criminal justice and affordable housing 

8. Healthcare Licensing & Fees
Changes to healthcare title and fee structures will take effect, along with adjustments to temporary staffing at hospital-based clinics

9. Immigrant Worker Protections
New rules prohibit employers from using workers’ immigration status to coerce wage or labor law violations 

10. Gas Tax Increase
A 6¢ per gallon hike in Washington’s gas tax begins July 1, with annual inflation adjustments

Sources: AOL, washingtonstatestandard.com, KREM.com

On this day in history, the South African government passed the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (to go into effect as of July 8, 1949), making marriages between whites and non-whites illegal. Even though between 1946 and the enactment of this law, only 75 mixed marriages had been recorded, compared with some 28,000 white marriages, the government felt the possibility was a sufficient threat and affront to legislate against it. In 1950 the law was amended to ban even sexual relations between white and black South Africans.

To facilitate enforcement, the Population Registration Act of 1950 required South Africans to register as members of one of four racial groups as set out in the Population Registration Act of 1950. The four groups were White, Coloured, Indian and Black. Subsequent to the passing of this legislation, a number of people were arrested and charged for breaking its provisions.

The law also nullified interracial marriages of South Africans that occurred outside of the country.  

For the complete article and Source:

legallegacy.wordpress.com

For the first time in U.S. history, the House of Representatives exercises its constitutional power of impeachment and votes to charge Senator William Blount of Tennessee with “a high misdemeanor, entirely inconsistent with his public duty and trust as a Senator.”

In 1790, President George Washington appointed Blount, who had fought in the American Revolution, as governor of the “Territory South of the River Ohio,” now known as Tennessee. Although he was a successful territorial governor, personal financial problems led him to enter into a conspiracy with British officers to enlist frontiersmen and Cherokee Indians to assist the British in conquering parts of Spanish Florida and Louisiana. Before the conspiracy was uncovered, Blount presided over the Tennessee Constitutional Convention and in 1796 became the state’s first U.S. senator.

The plot was revealed in 1797, and on July 7 the House of Representatives voted to impeach Senator Blount. The next day, the Senate voted by a two-thirds majority to expel him from its ranks. On December 17, 1798, the Senate exercised its “sole power to try all impeachments,” as granted by the Constitution, and initiated a Senate trial against Blount.

Source: for the complete article history.com

President Ronald Reagan nominates Sandra Day O’Connor, an Arizona court of appeals judge, to be the first woman Supreme Court justice in U.S. history. On September 21, the Senate unanimously approved her appointment to the nation’s highest court, and on September 25 she was sworn in by Chief Justice Warren Burger.

Sandra Day was born in El Paso, Texas, in 1930. She grew up on her family’s cattle ranch in southeastern Arizona and attended Stanford University, where she studied economics. A legal dispute over her family’s ranch stirred her interest in law, and in 1950 she enrolled in Stanford Law School. She took just two years to receive her law degree and was ranked near the top of her class. Upon graduation, she married John Jay O’Connor III, a classmate.

Source: history.com article

Even after Shelby County v. Holder (2013) dismantled Section 5 preclearance, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) remains a powerful federal tool for challenging discriminatory voting practices — and the DOJ still uses it, though its reach is narrower.

Why the DOJ Can Still Use the VRA

• Section 2 remains in force: Section 2 prohibits voting practices or procedures (including redistricting plans and voter registration systems) that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or language minority status, whether intentionally or as a result of discriminatory effect 
• Nationwide application: Unlike Section 5, Section 2 applies everywhere, so the DOJ can litigate in any state or territory 
• Enforcement tools: The DOJ can bring federal lawsuits, seek injunctions, and work with federal courts to block or alter laws that dilute minority voting power 
• Recent DOJ actions: The DOJ has won cases like United States v. State of Alabama, where a preliminary injunction halted a voter removal program after a Section 2 challenge 

What Part of the Weakened VRA Still Allows Federal Intervention

• Section 2 litigation: This is the core remaining federal enforcement mechanism. It can be used to block laws or maps that show racial vote dilution or discriminatory intent 
• Federal court injunctions: Courts can issue temporary or permanent injunctions under Section 2, stopping harmful laws from taking effect while litigation proceeds 
• DOJ as lead plaintiff: In some cases, the DOJ is the only entity allowed to sue under Section 2, giving it significant leverage 

How Advocates and Lawyers Can Use These Tools

1. File Section 2 lawsuits: Even without preclearance, plaintiffs can challenge laws or maps that have a discriminatory effect or intent. This is the most direct way to block restrictive measures.
2. Seek injunctions: Use federal courts to get immediate relief before elections or before laws take effect.
3. Target high-impact jurisdictions: Focus on states or counties with histories of discrimination, where Section 2 claims are more likely to succeed.
4. Coalition litigation: Partner with civil rights groups to pool resources and expertise.
5. Monitor DOJ enforcement: Track DOJ actions to identify patterns and opportunities for coordinated legal challenges.
6. Leverage recent DOJ wins: Use cases like Alabama to build legal arguments and public support.

Bottom line: The DOJ can still use the VRA because Section 2 remains a live, nationwide prohibition on discriminatory voting practices. Advocates can use this by litigating under Section 2, seeking injunctions, and focusing on jurisdictions where the law’s reach is strongest — even if the Act’s preventive preclearance power is gone.

 U.S. Department of Justice

Source: govfacts.org, peopleslawreview.com, factually.co ,