Fact check: Did Washington State just pass HB 1696 that give preferential treatment to people with colored skin

1. Summary of the results

Yes, Washington State passed HB 1696, which was enacted on April 22, 2025, with an effective date of July 27, 2025 ^[1]. The bill modifies the Covenant Homeownership Program, which provides down payment and closing cost assistance through zero-interest loans to help first-time homebuyers ^[2].

The program specifically targets minorities who have faced housing discrimination in the past and is open to those who meet specific government-defined racial identities ^[3]. Sources confirm this provides home buying assistance to minorities who have faced housing discrimination ^[4] and aims to address the disparity in homeownership among lower-income people and people of color ^[2].

However, the characterization of "preferential treatment to people with colored skin" is not explicitly confirmed by the legislative sources. Instead, the program is framed as addressing historical racial real estate covenants and past housing discrimination ^{[1] [3]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial historical context about why this program exists. The Covenant Homeownership Program was created to remedy past housing discrimination that prevented certain racial groups from accessing homeownership opportunities ^[3]. This context reframes the program from "preferential treatment" to remedial action addressing documented historical injustices.

Alternative viewpoints include:

• Supporters would argue this program corrects historical wrongs and addresses documented homeownership disparities that persist due to past discriminatory practices
• Critics might view this as preferential treatment based on race, potentially raising constitutional concerns about equal protection
• Real estate industry professionals and housing advocacy organizations would likely benefit from increased homebuying activity and expanded access to homeownership programs

The sources also reveal concerns over costs associated with the program ^[2], suggesting there are fiscal considerations and potential taxpayer impacts that weren't mentioned in the original question.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement contains loaded language that may mischaracterize the bill's intent and legal framework. The phrase "preferential treatment to people with colored skin" uses outdated terminology and frames the legislation in a way that suggests unfair advantage rather than remedial action.

Key issues with the framing:

• The term "colored skin" is considered outdated and potentially offensive language
• The characterization as "preferential treatment" ignores the remedial nature of the program designed to address documented historical housing discrimination ^[3]
• The question implies this is arbitrary favoritism rather than a targeted response to specific historical injustices in real estate practices ^[1]

The sources consistently describe this as a program to address housing discrimination and historical racial real estate covenants ^{[1] [3]}, not as general preferential treatment. This suggests the original statement may reflect a biased interpretation that strips away the historical and legal context that justifies the program's existence.