Senate Joint Resolution 8206 is a setup. It invites litigation. It tries to add this to the state Constitution: “It is the obligation of the state to ensure that every resident of Washington has access to cost-effective, clinically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right.”
To some voters, that may sound like a harmless statement of values. But in constitutional law, verbs matter. “Obligation” and “ensure” aren’t poetic. They’re legal hooks. And once you put a broad promise into the Constitution, it stops being a policy aspiration and starts becoming a potential cause of action.
The key terms in the resolution go undefined. What does “affordable” mean? Affordable to a household making $50,000? $200,000? Affordable relative to premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket costs or taxes? What is “access” — a provider within 10 miles, within 30 days, within a network, with an available appointment? And “cost-effective” for whom? Patients, providers, the state budget or a particular agency’s cost model?
When lawmakers don’t define these standards, courts eventually do, because constitutional language is designed to be enforceable.
After declaring health care a fundamental right, the short resolution adds a “balance” clause. It says this new obligation must be balanced against funding other essential public services. That doesn’t eliminate the risk of litigation. It sets the stage for a new category of lawsuits about what balance is and will bring arguments that the state failed to properly balance its constitutional obligation.
Supporters are not shy about the legal angle in SJR 8206. Whole Washington, the group that brought this proposal to lawmakers, made a video describing SJR 8206 this way: The goal of the resolution is “largely to provide judicial protection to make sure that our lawmakers or health care authority continue to follow through on their promise to provide quality, affordable health care to Washington state residents.” This resolution is asking for lawsuits and courts to become part of the policy battlefield over who should pay for health care.
Even if you support the goal of taxpayer-financed health care or believe health care is a right, rather than a need, the question to ask is if you want to constitutionalize a broad, contestable standard that can be used to pressure state budgets, agencies and future Legislatures. Washington state has already seen how constitutional “duties” can reshape fiscal priorities over time (McCleary anyone?). Once courts are involved, the political and budgetary flexibility lawmakers usually rely on — especially during downturns — shrinks.
Long-shot resolution
Luckily, this amendment is a long shot this year. Constitutional amendments in Washington state can’t advance on simple majorities. They require two-thirds in both chambers before voters ever see them. And 2026 is a short, 60-day session. I’m surprised the bill was granted a hearing when so many other issues are angling for time to be heard.
Last year, lawmakers passed Senate Joint Memorial 8004, a resolution urging federal actions to ease the creation of a state-based, taxpayer-financed, government-run system. It passed the Senate 30–19 and the House 56–39, short of the two-thirds threshold a constitutional amendment needs (33 in the Senate, 66 in the House). If that more symbolic measure couldn’t draw two-thirds support, it’s hard to see how writing an enforceable “right” into Washington state’s Constitution could.
Lawmakers should run from SJR 8206. It isn’t a feel-good statement or hope. It’s a structural change that risks moving hard policy questions and budget tradeoffs out of the Legislature and into court.
The resolution had a hearing in the Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee Jan. 29. My testimony, which was restricted to one inadequate minute to talk about the trouble with 8206, follows:
I’m Elizabeth New with Washington Policy Center.
This resolution is a setup. A constitution is not a suggestion box. It’s the state’s highest law — and it’s a dangerous place to write vague promises. 8206 would add an “obligation of the state to ensure that every resident has access to affordable health care as a fundamental right.”
First, health care is not a right. It’s a need, like housing and food are needs. What’s the next fundamental right the state will be obligated to ensure? Second, the wording of this resolution is legally combustible. None of the key terms is defined. What’s affordable? To whom? What counts as access?” When you constitutionalize vague standards, the argument doesn’t stay here. It goes to court.
Supporters are very candid about that. They say this proposal is to provide judicial protection so lawmakers have to follow through on providing quality, affordable health care. That should concern you. This proposal isn’t symbolic. It’s designed to be enforceable.
The “balance” clause included doesn’t eliminate risk. It just shifts the fight to what “balance” is. We have seen what happens when constitutional duties collide with budgets: McCleary is the warning, and taxpayers don’t need more legal bills.
Please oppose SJR 8206.
