A proposal to overhaul Washington state’s bail guidelines is drawing sharp debate among business owners, prosecutors, and bail industry representatives, as the changes head toward a decision by the Washington Supreme Court.
The Tacoma Business Council hosted a meeting Wednesday at a local brewery, bringing together stakeholders, board members, and the president of the Washington State Bail Agents Association to discuss proposed changes to Court Rule 3.2, which governs pretrial release and bail. The proposal was drafted by the King County Department of Public Defense, the Washington State Office of Public Defense, the Washington Defender Association, and the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense.
The core changes include a $200 cap on bail for most misdemeanour crimes, excluding DUI and domestic violence cases; a requirement that a defendant fail to appear in court at least once before bail can be imposed; an option for defendants to pay 10% of bail directly to the court clerk rather than through a private bondsman; and a shift in the legal standard from whether someone is a “likely risk of nonappearance” to whether they present a “high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution.”
Matthew Sanders, Director of the King County Department of Public Defense, said the current system disproportionately punishes people for being poor rather than for posing a genuine public safety risk. “Right now, today, in King County, there are many people who are in jail because they’re poor,” Sanders said. “They’re not a risk to the community, they are not a risk of committing new crimes. They simply cannot post the bail.” Sanders said the new willful flight standard is intended to give defendants with prior failures to appear a fresh opportunity to demonstrate they will comply with court obligations. “Give them the opportunity, as an adult or a different point in their life to say, listen, I’m going to come to court on this hearing and give me that chance,” he said. He also noted that the 10% payment option already exists in law but is rarely ordered by judges, and that paying directly to the court rather than a bondsman allows defendants to recover that money once their case concludes.
Opponents of the proposal raised significant concerns. Courtney Wimer, president of the Washington State Bond Agents Association, argued the changes would effectively gut the bail system’s deterrent effect. “If anyone can walk in and pay 10% of a $200 bond and pay $20, that’s not giving a whole lot of incentive to return,” Wimer said. She added that the proposal removes accountability for the remaining 90% of bail that private bond agencies currently guarantee, describing the overall package as a sweeping restriction on judicial discretion that judges are already exercising responsibly under existing rules. “If they’re setting bail, it’s because they have found one of those reasons, not because you’re someone who committed a crime, you don’t have any history, and you’re poor,” Wimer said.
Tacoma attorney and commercial property owner Mark Bardwil said the changes would hurt businesses that are already struggling. His downtown Tacoma building, fully occupied in 2019, is now 80% vacant. “When these repeat offenders are back out on the street, they’re a lot of the same ones that we see come back and violate businesses,” Bardwil said. He argued the proposal undermines trust in the judiciary. “It’s just foolish, it’s counterintuitive, and it doesn’t trust our judicial system to say they’re not capable of understanding how to set bail,” he said.
Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney Mary Robnett also criticised the proposal. “It seems contrary to making the court system work,” Robnett said. “It seems contrary to public safety.” The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office issued a statement calling for a broader, more deliberate process. “Any conversation involving bail reform must include a discussion about effective and meaningful alternatives to detention. Bail reform should not be imposed by the court simply approving changes proposed by a single stakeholder group that represents only one perspective on the issue,” the office said.
Public comment on the proposed changes is open through 30 April. The Washington Supreme Court will make the final decision on whether to adopt the new rule.
