The Washington House has passed a bill restricting the presence of out-of-state militia within the state’s borders, a move proponents believe is necessary to retain state sovereignty.
However, during the House floor vote, some legislators questioned its timeliness and effectiveness.
Rep. Jeremie Dufault, R-Selah, described House Bill 1321 as “172 years late, and it’s in the wrong state.”
Sponsored by Rep. Sharlett Mena, D-Tacoma, HB 1321 contains the following provision:
No armed military force from another state, territory, or district is permitted to enter the state of Washington for the purpose of doing military duty therein, without the permission of the governor, unless such force has been called into active service of the United States, and is acting under authority of the president of the United States.
Militia in Washington state is defined as “the military forces provided for in the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington.”
Speaking in favor of the bill on the House floor, Mena said there currently is “absolutely nothing to prevent another state from sending its military, its national guard into our borders to carry out its own agenda. I think the sooner that we can get this on, the better this is a protective measure and hopefully we won’t need it. But I think it’s time that we implement it, we catch up, we align ourselves with other states and we protect Washington’s autonomy.”
While the governor can activate the state national guard, the president is also authorized to call them into active duty or call them into federal service.
States can also enter into mutual agreements with other states regarding authorization for other national guard units to enter for purposes such as fighting wildfires or responding to a natural disaster incident. Washington’s Military Department has two multi-state compacts: the Emergency Management Assistance Compact and the Pacific Northwest Emergency Management Arrangement.
Rep. Darya Farivar, D-Seattle, told colleagues on the House floor that “this bill is about consent of the governed. Nobody wants uninvited guests in their living room or in their backyard, and I would say that is doubly the case if those guests arrive with guns.”
She added that “we can still invite the National Guard and other states to come help us, which they will do, like they always have. This legislation is about making sure that we have consent when that happens.”
Although some supporters argued that the bill is adopting the same policies as other states, such as Idaho, Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, said HB 1321 is fundamentally different than Defend the Guard Act legislation.
Walsh proposed a striking amendment that would have replaced the bill language in HB 1321 with language taken from Defend the Guard Act laws in states like Idaho.
Idaho’s Defend the Guard Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the Idaho national guard and any member thereof shall not be released from the state into active duty combat unless the United States congress has passed an official declaration of war or has taken an official action pursuant to clause, section 8, article I of the United States constitution to explicitly call forth the Idaho national guard and any member thereof for the enumerated purposes to expressly execute the laws of the union, repel an invasion, or suppress an insurrection.
The governor shall take all actions necessary to comply with the requirements of this section. Nothing in this section limits or prohibits the governor from consenting to the deployment of any Idaho national guard member pursuant to 32 U.S.C. 101 et seq., defense support for civil authority missions within the United States and United States territories.
However, the amendment was rejected, with Mena saying “there are in fact some states that have something similar to this, but this is not going to work for the state of Washington.”
Other failed amendments would have made exemptions for when national guard units enter Washington state to fight drug cartels and wildfires.
Walsh questioned the purpose of the bill, stating that “speaking hypothetically, if President Trump federalizes the national guard to take some kind of action here in Washington, this bill does not prevent that from happening.”
“All it (HB 1321) does is focus on a sort of gray area where a compact doesn’t exist, the troops have not been federalized, and national guard units from another state may want to come to help us in a time of crisis,” he added. “That’s a very small slice of the scenarios in which national guard and militia units would come into the state.”
Meanwhile, Dufault noted if “an invasionary force is intent on invading the state of Washington, a Washington state law is not going to stop them.”
HB 1321 has not yet been assigned a Senate committee. If signed into law, an emergency clause in the bill causes it to take effect immediately.
