Washington 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate 3 D cosponsors

SB 5116 — Establishing guidelines for government procurement and use of automated decision systems in order to protect consumers, improve transparency, and create more market predictability.

Last action — Executive session scheduled, but no action was taken in the Senate Committee on Ways & Means at 10:00 AM.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed House
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

294 added · 343 removed

Plain-language change summary

The updated version of SB 5116 removes a section that highlighted concerns about how management tools can perpetuate institutional racism and stereotypes. Instead, it now focuses on ensuring the use of automated decision systems is fair, transparent, and accountable without directly addressing the potential social biases these systems might reinforce. This change is significant because it shifts the emphasis away from specifically acknowledging the risks of discrimination and towards a broader aim of promoting innovation while still holding agencies accountable for their technology use.

→
Previous
Latest
S-0744.2 SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5116 State of Washington 67th Legislature 2021 Regular Session By Senate State Government & Elections (originally sponsored by Senators Hasegawa, Hunt, Kuderer, and Wilson, C.) READ FIRST TIME 02/08/21.
S-0330.1 SENATE BILL 5116 State of Washington 67th Legislature 2021 Regular Session By Senators Hasegawa, Hunt, Kuderer, and Wilson, C.
Prefiled 01/08/21.
Read first time 01/11/21.
Referred to Committee on State Government & Elections.
1 SSB 5116 (4) The average Washington resident is unlikely to understand processes used by these automated decision systems, yet these systems are increasingly used to make core government and business decisions impacting the civil rights and liberties of Washingtonians, raising significant concerns around due process, fairness, accountability, and transparency.
1 SB 5116 (4) The average Washington resident is unlikely to understand processes used by these automated decision systems, yet these systems are increasingly used to make core government and business decisions impacting the civil rights and liberties of Washingtonians, raising significant concerns around due process, fairness, accountability, and transparency.
(6) Research has shown that even the most innocent looking management tools often incorporate and compound the assumptions of institutional racism and other unfounded stereotypes.
(6) In order to enhance innovation and ensure the use of these systems in ways that benefit Washington residents, the legislature intends to ensure the fair, transparent, and accountable use of automated decision systems.
It is a matter of good governance to ensure that agencies consider whether the technologies they use improperly advantage or disadvantage Washington residents.
(7) In order to enhance innovation and ensure the use of these systems in ways that benefit Washington residents, the legislature intends to ensure the fair, transparent, and accountable use of automated decision systems.
(2) "Algorithm" means a computerized procedure consisting of a set of steps to accomplish a determined task.
(2) "Algorithmic accountability report" means the report with content enumerated in section 5(6) of this act.
(3) "Algorithmic accountability report" means the report with content enumerated in section 5(6) of this act.
(3) "Artificial intelligence-enabled profiling" means the automated or semiautomated process by which the external or internal characteristics of an individual are analyzed to determine, infer, or characterize an individual's state of mind, character, propensities, protected class status, political affiliation, religious beliefs or religious affiliation, immigration status, or employability.
(4) "Algorithmic accountability review office" means:
(4) "Automated decision system" means any electronic software, system, or process designed to automate, aid, or replace a decision- making process that impacts the welfare or rights of any Washington resident, and that would otherwise be performed by humans.
(a) For a state agency, the office of the chief information officer;
Automated decision systems include, without limitation, tools that analyze data sets to generate scores, predictions, classifications, or recommended actions that are used by agencies to automate, aid, or replace decision-making processes that impact the welfare or rights of any Washington resident.
and (b) For local municipal entities including, but not limited to, cities and counties, the chief information officer for the county in which the agency is located or such other department head as may be designated by the executive of that county.
Automated decision systems do not include tools that do not automate, aid, or replace such decision-making processes, including without limitation junk email filters, firewalls, antivirus p.
(5) "Artificial intelligence-enabled profiling" means the automated or semiautomated process by which the external or internal p.
2 SB 5116 software, calculators, spreadsheets, databases, data sets, or other compilations of data.
2 SSB 5116 characteristics of an individual are analyzed to determine, infer, or characterize an individual's state of mind, character, propensities, protected class status, political affiliation, religious beliefs or religious affiliation, immigration status, or employability.
(5) "Automated final decision system" means an automated decision system that makes final decisions, judgments, or conclusions without human intervention.
(6)(a) "Automated decision system" means any algorithm, including one incorporating machine learning or other artificial intelligence techniques, that uses data-based analysis or calculations to make or support government decisions, judgments, or conclusions that cause a Washington resident to be treated differently than another Washington resident in the nature or amount of governmental interaction with that individual including, without limitation, benefits, protections, required payments, penalties, regulations, timing, application, or process requirements.
(6) "Automated support decision system" means an automated decision system that provides information to inform the final decision, judgment, or conclusion of a human decisionmaker.
(b) "Automated decision system" does not include tools that do not make or support governmental decisions, judgments, or conclusions that cause a Washington resident to be treated differently than another Washington resident in the nature or amount of government interaction with that individual including, without limitation, internal governmental computer server or electrical usage optimization, antivirus programs, and internal governmental space optimization programs.
(7) "Use" means to operate an automated decision system or to contract with a third party to operate an automated decision system to automate, aid, or replace any decision-making process that would otherwise be made by an agency.
(7) "Automated final decision system" means an automated decision system that makes final decisions, judgments, or conclusions without human intervention.
(8) "Automated support decision system" means an automated decision system that provides information to inform the final decision, judgment, or conclusion of a human decision maker.
(9) "Use" means to operate an automated decision system or to contract with a third party to operate an automated decision system to automate, aid, or replace any decision-making process that would otherwise be made by an agency.
By January 1, 2022, the Washington state chief information officer shall adopt rules pursuant to chapter 34.05 RCW regarding the development, procurement, and use of automated decision systems by a public agency.
By January 1, 2022, the director of the office of the chief information officer shall adopt rules pursuant to chapter 34.05 RCW regarding the development, procurement, and use of automated decision systems by a public agency.
In p.
In adopting the rules, the director of the office of the chief information officer must consult with representatives of communities whose rights are disproportionately impacted by automated decision systems as demonstrated by current studies.
3 SSB 5116 adopting the rules, the Washington state chief information officer must consult with representatives of communities whose rights are disproportionately impacted by automated decision systems as demonstrated by current studies.
(2) A public agency may not operate, install, or commission the operation or installation of equipment incorporating artificial intelligence-enabled profiling in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, as defined in RCW 49.60.040, or use artificial intelligence-enabled profiling to make decisions that produce legal effects or similarly significant effects concerning individuals.
(2) A public agency may not operate, install, or commission the operation or installation of equipment incorporating artificial intelligence-enabled profiling in any place of public resort, p.
3 SB 5116 accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, as defined in RCW 49.60.040, or use artificial intelligence-enabled profiling to make decisions that produce legal effects or similarly significant effects concerning individuals.
(3) A public agency shall develop, procure, or use an automated decision system only after the public agency first completes an algorithmic accountability report, provided that for automated decision systems in use on the effective date of this section, a public agency has until January 1, 2023, to complete an algorithmic accountability report on such a system and to comply with the requirements of subsection (4) of this section.
(3) A public agency shall develop, procure, or use an automated decision system only after the public agency first completes an algorithmic accountability report and after that the director of the office of the chief information officer approves the report, as set forth in section 5 of this act.
p.
(a) Give clear notice in plain language to an individual impacted by the automated decision system of the following:
4 SSB 5116 (a) Give clear notice in plain language to an individual impacted by the automated decision system of the following:
(c) Ensure that any decision made or informed by the automated decision system is subject to appeal, immediate suspension if a legal right, duty, or privilege is impacted by the decision, and potential reversal by a human decision maker through a timely process not to exceed 20 days, and clearly described and accessible to an individual impacted by the decision;
(c) Ensure that any decision made or informed by the automated decision system is subject to appeal, immediate suspension if a legal right, duty, or privilege is impacted by the decision, and potential p.
4 SB 5116 reversal by a human decisionmaker through a timely process not to exceed 20 days, and clearly described and accessible to an individual impacted by the decision;
(5) A procurement contract for an automated decision system entered into by a public agency after the effective date of this section must ensure that the minimum standards set forth in this section are able to be effectuated without impairment, including requiring the vendor to waive any legal claims that may impair these minimum standards.
(5) A procurement contract for an automated decision system entered into by a public agency must ensure that the minimum standards set forth in this section are able to be effectuated without impairment, including requiring the vendor to waive any legal claims that may impair these minimum standards.
(1) Agencies already using an automated decision system as of the effective date of this section must comply with all provisions and procedures set forth in this chapter by January 1, 2023.
(1) A public agency intending to develop, procure, or use an automated decision system must produce an algorithmic accountability report for that system, and that system must be approved by the director of the office of the chief information officer prior to deployment, according to the procedures set forth in this section.
If such an agency is not in compliance by that date, p.
(2) Agencies already using an automated decision system as of the effective date of this section must comply with all provisions and procedures set forth in this chapter by January 1, 2022.
5 SSB 5116 the agency must immediately cease use of the automated decision system until such time as compliance is achieved.
If such an agency is not in compliance by that date, the agency must immediately cease use of the automated decision system until such time as compliance is achieved.
(2) A public agency intending to newly develop, procure, or use an automated decision system between the effective date of this section and January 1, 2024, must, at least one month prior to procurement of, or if internally developed, implementation of, such a system produce and file with the applicable algorithmic accountability review office an algorithmic accountability report for that system.
(3) The agency intending to develop, procure, or use an automated decision system must submit the algorithmic accountability report to the director of the office of the chief information officer prior to any use of the automated decision system.
(3) An agency intending to develop, procure, or use an automated decision system for implementation after January 1, 2024, must submit an algorithmic accountability report to the applicable algorithmic accountability review office and obtain approval or conditional approval prior to any use of the automated decision system.
The director of the office of the chief information officer must post the algorithmic accountability report on the office of the chief information officer's public website and invite public comment on the algorithmic accountability report for a period of no less than 30 days.
The algorithmic accountability review office must post the algorithmic accountability report on the algorithmic accountability review office's public website and invite public comment on the algorithmic accountability report for a period of no less than 30 days.
(4) After receiving public comment, the director of the office of the chief information officer must determine whether the intended use of the automated decision system meets the minimum standards set forth in section 4 of this act.
(4) After receiving public comment, the algorithmic accountability review office must determine whether the intended use of the automated decision system meets the minimum standards set forth in section 4 of this act.
On the basis of that determination, the director of the office of the chief information officer may p.
On the basis of that determination, the algorithmic accountability review office may approve the use of the automated decision system in accordance with rules and procedures set forth in the algorithmic accountability report, deny it, or make changes to rules and procedures set forth in the algorithmic accountability report prior to approval.
5 SB 5116 approve the use of the automated decision system in accordance with rules and procedures set forth in the algorithmic accountability report, deny it, or make changes to rules and procedures set forth in the algorithmic accountability report prior to approval.
(5) Except as provided in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, no agency may develop, procure, or use an automated decision system prior to obtaining the approval required in this section, and after approval, such an agency may use the automated decision system only in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth in the approved algorithmic accountability report.
(5) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, no agency may develop, procure, or use an automated decision system prior to obtaining the approval required in this section, and after approval, such an agency may use the automated decision system only in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth in the approved algorithmic accountability report.
Show all 66 changed rows (26 more)
Previous
Latest
(b) A description of the automated decision system's general capabilities, including reasonably foreseeable capabilities outside the scope of the agency's proposed use and whether the automated p.
(b) A description of the automated decision system's general capabilities, including reasonably foreseeable capabilities outside the scope of the agency's proposed use and whether the automated decision system is used or may be used to deploy or trigger any weapon;
6 SSB 5116 decision system is used or may be used to deploy or trigger any weapon;
(i) Whether any of the decision criteria are mandated by statute and, if so, which criteria and by what statutes;
(i) A clear use and data management policy, including specific protocols for the following:
(j) A clear use and data management policy, including specific protocols for the following:
p.
(i) How and when the automated decision system will be deployed or used and by whom including, but not limited to:
6 SB 5116 (i) How and when the automated decision system will be deployed or used and by whom including, but not limited to:
(iii) How automated decision system data will be securely stored and accessed, and whether an agency intends to share access to the p.
(iii) How automated decision system data will be securely stored and accessed, and whether an agency intends to share access to the automated decision system or the data from that automated decision system with any other entity, and why;
7 SSB 5116 automated decision system or the data from that automated decision system with any other entity, and why;
(1) Beginning December 1, 2021, and updated not less than quarterly, each algorithmic accountability review office shall make publicly available on its website an inventory of all algorithmic accountability reports on automated decision systems that have been proposed for or are being used, developed, or procured by public agencies.
(1) By December 1, 2021, the office of the chief information officer shall make publicly available on its website a comprehensive inventory of all automated decision systems that have been proposed for or are being used, developed, or procured by state agencies, including all algorithmic accountability reports relating to such systems.
Beginning January 1, 2022, each algorithmic accountability review office shall make publicly available on its website metrics on all approvals, conditional approvals, or denials of agency proposals to develop, procure, or use automated decision systems, including written explanations of each decision.
Beginning January 1, 2022, the office of the chief information officer shall make publicly available on its website metrics on all approvals, conditional approvals, or denials p.
(2)(a) For algorithmic accountability reports filed between the effective date of this section and January 1, 2024, each algorithmic accountability review office shall conduct selective audits of automated decision systems for which an algorithmic accountability report has been filed and shall take appropriate action, such as approval, conditional approval, or denial with regard to the systems so audited.
7 SB 5116 of agency proposals to develop, procure, or use automated decision systems, including written explanations of each decision.
The selective audits conducted must contain the elements described in (b) of this subsection.
(2)(a) Beginning January 1, 2022, the office of the chief information officer shall conduct an annual audit that includes the following:
In selecting which systems to audit, the algorithmic accountability review office may take into account:
(i) The number of persons affected by the automated decision system, including systems in use by multiple jurisdictions;
p.
8 SSB 5116 (ii) The apparent likelihood that the system creates unintended, erroneous, or discriminatory results;
(iii) The severity of the effects of an unintended, erroneous, or discriminatory decision on the affected individual;
and (iv) Other criteria as the algorithmic accountability review office deems appropriate to a selective audit.
(b) Beginning January 1, 2024, each algorithmic accountability review office shall conduct an annual audit that includes the following:
(c) By January 1, 2022, the Washington state chief information officer shall establish guidelines for the number or percentage of systems to be audited by each algorithmic accountability review office pursuant to (a) of this subsection.
(b) The first annual audit must be made publicly available on the chief information officer's website by March 1, 2022, and annually thereafter on or before March 1st.
(d) The first annual audit must be made publicly available on the algorithmic accountability review office's website by March 1, 2024, and annually thereafter on or before March 1st.
(3) Beginning January 1, 2022, each agency using an automated decision system must publish on its website annual metrics regarding the number of requests for human review of a decision rendered by the automated decision system it received and the outcome of the human review.
(3) Beginning January 1, 2023, each agency using an automated decision system must publish on its website annual metrics regarding the number of requests for human review of a decision rendered by the automated decision system it received and the outcome of the human review.
p.
Any government benefit, direct or indirect financial harm, physical harm or threats to persons or property, discrimination in goods, services, or economic opportunity, interference with constitutional or statutory rights or privileges, interference with the right to vote or participate in free and fair elections, or other impacts on human welfare;
9 SSB 5116 Any government benefit, direct or indirect financial harm, physical harm or threats to persons or property, discrimination in goods, services, or economic opportunity, interference with constitutional or statutory rights or privileges, interference with the right to vote or participate in free and fair elections, or other impacts on human welfare;
NEW SECTION.
p.
8 SB 5116 NEW SECTION.
10 SSB 5116
9 SB 5116
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. Executive session scheduled, but no action was taken in the Senate Committee on Ways & Means at 10:00 AM.

  2. Scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Committee on Ways & Means at 04:00 PM

  3. Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Ways & Means at 4:00 PM.

  4. By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.

  5. Referred to Ways & Means.

  6. Scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections at 10:30 AM

  7. And refer to Ways & Means.

  8. Minority; without recommendation.

  9. SGE - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass.

  10. Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections at 10:30 AM.

  11. Scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections at 08:00 AM

  12. Public hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections at 8:00 AM.

  13. First reading, referred to State Government & Elections.

  14. Prefiled for introduction.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 3 co-sponsors · 147 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (3)

Not signed on (147)

147 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 147 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights technology
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

Who sponsors SB 5116?
SB 5116 is sponsored by Kuderer, Bob Hasegawa (Democrat), Claire Wilson (Democrat), and Victoria Hunt (Democrat).
What is the current status of SB 5116?
This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 5116?
Track SB 5116 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 5116

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 5116

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →