Bill barring law enforcement from wearing masks inches closer to becoming Washington law

A bill banning law enforcement officers working in Washington state from wearing face coverings looks poised to become law.

Senate Bill 5855 passed the House Tuesday evening after a passionate debate and will head to the governor’s desk if the Senate approves final changes.

This ban would apply to federal, state, and local law enforcement officers interacting with the public or making arrests, and would allow a person detained by any masked law enforcement officer in Washington state to sue.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Javier Valdez (D- Seattle), is a response to federal immigration enforcement officials wearing masks, but would apply to any and all law enforcement working in the state.

RELATED: Washington state Senate passes mask ban to curb federal immigration enforcement tactics

“We have people picked up in unmarked cars, masked faces in the middle of the night disappearing and we don’t know where they’re at,” Rep. Lillian Ortiz-Self (D-Mukilteo) said. “These are unprecedented times.”

Advocates say a requirement that officers show their faces adds a measure of accountability to their interactions with the public. The bill had two amendments added in the House. These were an exception for law enforcement officers who might wear face coverings for religious reasons, and another to allow for officers to wear helmets while riding motorcycles. Republicans tried to add others — such as exceptions allowing officers to wear face coverings during protests and civil unrest, and another for plain-clothes officers— but these were ultimately voted down.

Opponents have said the bill will put law enforcement officers and their families at greater risk for doxxing and personal attacks. Rep. Jeremie Dufault (R-Selah) added that he didn’t believe the bill would hold up in court, as it looks to regulate the behavior of a federal agency.

“This bill makes a ‘do nothing’ statement at the expense of the safety and privacy of our law enforcement officers,” he said. “‘Do nothing’ because the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits state governments from interfering in the enforcement of federal law.”

California passed a similar law banning federal officers from donning face masks in response to immigration raids happening last year. Earlier this year, however, a court blocked the bill, saying it was unfair for the state to regulate the behavior of federal law enforcement but not state law enforcement.

Some say Washington’s bill may not encounter the same challenges because it includes both state and federal officers in its language. Experts like Jeremiah Chin, an assistant professor of law at the University of Washington, expects it will still hit some snags in court, but they ultimately believe this bill will be enforceable.

Chin said Washington’s bill would look to regulate all law enforcement officers, federal or local, in the same way something like a speed limit regulates drivers on the road.

“What’s going on here is different, they aren’t targeting a federal law, and they aren’t preventing federal officers from carrying out any kind of lawful duty,” he said of the mask ban. “So the state isn’t really controlling the federal government, it’s just providing a means for liability.”