WA BAR EQUITY
Amend Order No. 25700-B-753

Equal relief
for all.

One Bar Exam. One Room. One Justice.

On July 28, 2026, a technology failure derailed the Washington Bar Exam in Yakima. Washington Supreme Court Order No. 25700-B-753 created relief for some first-time examinees. Repeat test-takers and candidates with accommodations remain outside the same pathway.

Sign the Petition Why September Is Not an Equal Remedy
SEPTEMBER IS NOT A RESET
  1. 01 · EXTENDED PREPARATION

    Candidates must maintain intense study, memorization, and test readiness beyond the date they originally prepared for.

  2. 02 · ADDITIONAL COSTS

    The cancellation created new expenses, lost wages, delayed employment, and renewed travel, housing, and childcare arrangements.

  3. 03 · DIFFERENT CONDITIONS

    Candidates return under increased stress and uncertainty after the testing system already failed them once.

  4. A make-up date may solve the scheduling problem. It does not automatically provide an equal remedy.
WA Bar Equity poster calling for minimum distance, row and table spacing, capacity limits, personal workspace, and equal standards for every future bar examination
New concern after the September makeup exam

The need for uniform testing standards.

The bar examination is a high-stakes professional licensing examination that requires sustained concentration for many hours. Reasonable personal space and a testing environment that minimizes avoidable distractions are important to an examinee’s ability to concentrate and perform.

The September 1–2, 2026 makeup examination demonstrates why uniform minimum standards are necessary—not just for makeup administrations, but for every Washington bar examination, regardless of type. Examinees were seated very close together, with rows arranged closely back-to-back—a materially different setup than previous administrations. Movement, sounds, chairs moving, and examinees entering and leaving their seats created additional and avoidable distractions.

These conditions were materially different from previous Washington bar examination administrations, where two examinees were seated at a table and substantially more space was provided between examinees and between rows. That arrangement provided greater personal workspace and reduced unnecessary distractions.

A different examination label should never translate into a different physical testing standard.

This significant difference made us feel that we were treated differently from examinees at previous administrations simply because ours was labeled a “makeup” exam rather than a “regular” one. This was particularly difficult after everything the makeup examinees had already experienced following what happened in Yakima. We did not choose to be tested under a different label, and we should not have been tested under different conditions because of it.

We recognize that examination venues differ in size, layout, and configuration, and we are not asking that every venue have an identical physical setup. However, differences between venues—and between makeup and regular administrations—should not result in materially different testing conditions for examinees taking the same professional licensing examination. The venue may be different, and the administration may be labeled differently, but the minimum standard should be the same for all.

We respectfully call on WSBA to establish, publish, and consistently enforce uniform minimum testing standards for all future Washington bar examinations, including:

  1. A defined minimum distance between examinees and between rows.
  2. A defined maximum number of examinees permitted at each table.
  3. A minimum amount of personal workspace for each examinee.
  4. Testing-room capacity limits based on the size and configuration of the room.
  5. Consistent application to every future Washington bar examination, regardless of date, location, or whether it is a regular or makeup administration.

These standards should be established in advance and made publicly available so every Washington bar applicant can expect reasonably comparable testing conditions and a fair opportunity to concentrate and demonstrate their knowledge and skills.

One examOne standardFair conditions for all
ONE SHARED EXPERIENCE
  1. 01 · ONE SYSTEM

    All 700+ applicants prepared for months under the same Washington state licensing standards.

  2. 02 · ONE FAILURE

    Everyone suffered the exact same technology breakdown and lost opportunity.

  3. 03 · TWO OUTCOMES — WHY?

    The Court’s remedy chose to heal some wounds while ignoring the exact same pain felt by the person sitting right next to them.

The breakdown

One disruption.
Two outcomes.

The campaign asks the Court to replace a category-based line with a remedy centered on who was materially affected.

× Outside the pathway

Repeat test-takers & accommodated examinees

Do not receive the same waiver pathway under the campaign’s reading of the current eligibility criteria.

OUTCOME No equivalent relief

WA Bar Equity is an independent advocacy campaign. Review the official order and WSBA notices for controlling terms and eligibility details.

The human cost

Behind every category is a person.

The effects are financial, professional, and deeply personal. These campaign testimonies show why equal relief matters.

“

Software crashed continuously. Excluding retakers and accommodated candidates creates an unfair double standard after a failure none of us caused.

01 Examinee with accommodations
“

We spent hours waiting with no clear information. To grant waivers to some while denying others affected by the same administration is unjust.

02 Repeat test-taker
“

I paid for travel, lodging, preparation, and lost work. The damage does not disappear because this was not my first attempt.

03 Yakima examinee
“

I want to share my story of what happened during the July 2026 Bar Exam. As an accommodated examinee, I followed all technical instructions but experienced repeated software failures and lost connection at least twice during each session. I lost significant exam time troubleshooting the software and ultimately had to switch to a backup device. These delays shortened my break between sessions, preventing me from properly resting my right eye as required. The Bar Exam is already an extremely stressful process, and the technical failures and exam conditions have caused significant additional stress and health concerns, particularly for applicants with disabilities who were taking the exam under approved accommodation. These applicants should not be required to endure another full examination under circumstances that have already created substantial hardship.

05 Marwa · Accommodated examinee
“

The September examination does not simply return me to where I was on July 28.

On July 28, I was prepared, focused, and ready. Since the cancellation, I have experienced significant emotional distress and financial uncertainty, and I am actively seeking support from a mental health professional. I continue to make student loan payments while facing deep uncertainty about my employment and my legal career.

We were at the peak of our preparation on July 28. Now, I have to find additional money just to travel back to Yakima. I am completely lost after all of this.

06 Retaker
“ Featured testimony

Jorge

Retaker Brazilian Orlando, FL
04 July 2026 examinee

I spent months preparing for the July 2026 Washington Bar Exam, balancing work, family, and the many sacrifices required to be ready for that day. I traveled to Washington, arrived on time, followed every instruction, and was prepared to take the exam.

Instead, technical failures left us waiting for hours, uncertain whether we would test at all. The exam was ultimately cancelled, and candidates were left to absorb the emotional, financial, professional, and personal consequences of circumstances entirely outside our control.

To me, equity does not mean lowering standards or asking for special treatment. It means recognizing that extraordinary circumstances sometimes require an extraordinary and fair remedy. A remedy is not truly equitable if the candidates who experienced the failure are asked to bear all of its consequences.

We did our part. We prepared. We showed up. We were ready. I hope the response reflects not only what happened to the exam, but what happened to the people who were there.

The timeline

Five dates that define the response.

THE EXAM COLLAPSE

Technology failure in Yakima

Hundreds of candidates gathered in Yakima for Washington’s first NextGen Bar Exam.

After significant technology problems and delays, the affected administration was canceled.

RELIEF OPTIONS CREATED

Washington Supreme Court creates relief options

The Washington Supreme Court issued an order establishing different options for applicants affected by the July cancellation, including a conditional examination waiver for qualifying applicants and the September 1–2 make-up examination.

EQUAL TREATMENT REQUESTED

WSBA Board of Governors seeks equal treatment

Following an emergency meeting on August 13, the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors formally asked the Washington Supreme Court to reconsider the relief framework and provide equal treatment and waiver eligibility across affected categories.

WSBA — July Bar Exam: Options & Updates

ORDER UNCHANGED

Supreme Court declines to modify order

On August 14, the Washington Supreme Court declined to modify its August 6 resolution.

The Court explained that its original resolution balanced competing interests and was not individually tailored to every applicant.

WSBA — August 14 Response to Board of Governors Request

THE MAKE-UP EXAM AT UW TACOMA

Make-Up Exam Is Not a “Fix”

The upcoming September examination is not simply July postponed.

Candidates are being forced back into a testing process under materially worse conditions:

Extended Strain: Months of forced, continuous studying beyond the original timeline.

Financial Toll: Additional expenses and lost wages from an extended preparation window.

Psychological Burden: The severe stress of returning to a system that already failed them once.

These factors create a foreseeable negative impact on candidate performance. A delayed date does not erase the systemic failure of the July administration.

Public analysis

September Is a Make-Up Date, Not an Equal Remedy

The cancellation created consequences that cannot be measured only by the weeks between July and September. Explore the research, official sources, and fairness questions surrounding the make-up examination.

Read the Full Analysis

The cancellation of the July 2026 Washington Bar Examination created a problem that cannot be measured only by the number of weeks between July and September.

For candidates, the examination was not simply a date on a calendar.

It was the endpoint of months of intensive preparation. Candidates organized their lives around a specific testing date. They prepared physically and mentally to perform during a particular period. They made decisions about employment, housing, travel, childcare, finances, and other responsibilities based on that schedule.

When the examination was canceled, those preparations did not simply disappear.

The September examination creates another opportunity to take the test.

But an important question remains:

Does moving the examination to September restore the same conditions of preparation, readiness, and fairness that candidates had before the July cancellation? This question deserves to be examined through research—not assumptions.

1. Preparation for a High-Stakes Examination Is Not Unlimited

Bar preparation is an unusually demanding period.

Candidates spend months learning, memorizing, practicing, and preparing to perform under intense time pressure.

The examination date provides a defined endpoint for that preparation.

Candidates do not prepare indefinitely. They build toward a particular performance date.

When that date disappears, the candidate is placed in a different situation: the preparation period is extended, but the candidate must continue maintaining a very high level of concentration, memorization, practice, and emotional readiness.

Research supports the idea that prolonged examination preparation can itself become a significant source of stress.

A 2024 peer-reviewed study published in PLOS ONE followed 56 advanced law students over seven months while they were preparing for their final state examinations. The researchers examined study-related stress, well-being, recovery experiences, and physical activity during the preparation period.

[1] PLOS ONE — Prolonged Examination Preparation and Well-Being

The researchers found negative trends in recovery-related variables and well-being as examination preparation progressed.

The study is particularly relevant because the participants were law students preparing for a major state examination.

This does not prove that every Washington candidate experienced the same effect.

But it establishes an important point:

More preparation time is not automatically more beneficial preparation time.

2. Physical Readiness Matters

A candidate's ability to perform on a high-stakes examination depends on more than knowledge.

Preparation also requires sleep, recovery, physical health, concentration, and the ability to sustain attention for long periods.

The 2024 PLOS ONE study specifically examined recovery during prolonged examination preparation. The researchers found a negative trend in recovery-related variables as preparation progressed and emphasized the importance of recovery during long-lasting and stressful study periods.

[2] PLOS ONE — Recovery and Prolonged Examination Preparation

That raises an important question for the September administration:

When a candidate has already spent months preparing for a July examination, is requiring that candidate to maintain intensive preparation for additional weeks necessarily neutral? For some candidates, the answer may be no.

The September date may mean additional weeks of memorization, practice, stress, reduced recovery time, and uncertainty.

That burden may not be equally distributed among candidates.

3. Emotional Readiness Matters Too

The July cancellation was not simply a change on a calendar.

It was the cancellation of a major achievement event for which candidates had prepared extensively.

A 2023 peer-reviewed study published in Learning and Individual Differences examined the emotional consequences of canceled high-stakes examinations.

The researchers studied 474 students whose high-stakes examinations had been canceled. They examined emotional responses including relief, gratitude, disappointment, anger, and test anxiety.

[3] PubMed Central — Emotional Reactions to Canceled High-Stakes Examinations

The study found that emotional responses to cancellation were related to factors including how important students considered the examination, their expectations of success, and the perceived costs associated with preparation.

The researchers also emphasized the significant investment of time and effort involved in preparing for high-stakes examinations.

This study was not conducted on Washington bar applicants.

But it provides evidence for an important principle:

Cancellation itself can have psychological consequences. Notably, the Washington Supreme Court itself has already acknowledged this reality. In a letter to affected examinees dated July 30, 2026, the Court wrote directly to those preparing to retake the exam.

“We know that taking the bar exam is extremely stressful in the best of circumstances.”

The Court's letter went further, acknowledging that the failed July administration caused examinees “extraordinary stress,” and recognizing that affected candidates were operating under significant pressure and strain with many unanswered questions.

[C1] Washington Supreme Court — Message to Examinees Regarding the July 2026 NextGen Bar Exam (July 30, 2026)

This matters because it removes any need to speculate about whether the exam experience is inherently stressful, or whether the July failure added to that baseline stress. The Court has confirmed both directly, in its own words, to the examinees themselves.

The open question is not whether the process was stressful. The Court has already said it was. The open question is whether the September remedy adequately accounts for that acknowledged stress — layered on top of the ordinary stress of the exam itself.

4. A Canceled Exam Is Not the Same as Receiving Extra Study Time

It is tempting to describe the September examination as giving candidates “additional preparation time.”

But that description may be incomplete.

For a candidate who was prepared to sit for the July examination, the additional weeks may instead represent:

  • maintaining an intense study schedule for longer than expected
  • continuing memorization and review
  • repeating practice examinations
  • maintaining concentration and motivation
  • postponing employment or other professional plans
  • rearranging childcare or family responsibilities
  • paying additional housing, travel, or other expenses
  • dealing with uncertainty about the examination process; and
  • managing the emotional impact of preparing for an examination that unexpectedly did not occur.

The Washington State Bar Association has also recognized the practical consequences of the July cancellation and established a process concerning certain expenses incurred by affected applicants.

[4] Washington State Bar Association — July Bar Exam Cancellation Information

But reimbursement of certain expenses is not necessarily the same thing as restoring the time, preparation conditions, professional plans, and psychological readiness that existed before the cancellation.

The candidate did not necessarily receive a benefit. The candidate may have received an additional burden.

5. September Is Not a Reset Button

A new examination date does not automatically return a candidate to the exact condition they were in before the cancellation.

The July candidate and the September candidate are not necessarily beginning from the same point.

The July candidate had already organized months of preparation around a particular date.

The July candidate had a particular study schedule.

The July candidate had a particular level of memorization and practice.

The July candidate had a particular psychological expectation:

“I am taking the examination now.”

Then the examination disappeared.

The candidate must now reach another performance point weeks later.

That is a different preparation environment.

The September make-up examination is scheduled for September 1–2, 2026.

[5] WSBA — July 2026 Bar Examination Information

The question is therefore not simply whether September is a reasonable calendar date.

The question is whether:

September provides an equivalent opportunity to perform.

6. Quality of Preparation Is Different From Quantity of Preparation

This distinction is critical.

More days do not necessarily mean better preparation.

At some point, candidates are no longer simply acquiring new knowledge. They are trying to maintain an enormous amount of information, preserve test-taking skills, manage stress, and remain physically and mentally capable of performing.

The law-student research provides an important reason to examine this issue carefully: prolonged examination preparation was associated with negative trends in recovery-related variables and well-being over time.

[6] PLOS ONE — Prolonged Examination Preparation

Therefore, an equitable remedy should consider not merely:

“How many additional weeks were provided?”

but also:

“What is the effect of requiring candidates to remain in intensive examination preparation for those additional weeks?”

7. The Burden May Not Be Equal

Another important issue is equity.

Two candidates can receive exactly the same September examination date while experiencing completely different consequences.

One candidate may be able to continue studying full-time, extend housing, postpone employment, arrange childcare, and absorb additional costs.

Another candidate may need to return to work, begin a new job, care for children or family members, pay additional expenses, or otherwise resume responsibilities that had been temporarily arranged around the July examination.

The same calendar date can therefore produce different burdens.

The candidate who can simply “keep studying” is not necessarily situated the same as the candidate who must return to work or resume other responsibilities.

This is why fairness should not be measured only by whether everyone received the same replacement date.

Fairness should also consider whether the consequences of the cancellation were distributed equally.

8. Washington Has Previously Recognized That Extraordinary Circumstances Can Affect the Bar Examination

There is an important precedent in Washington's own history.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Washington Supreme Court recognized that applicants faced “extraordinary barriers” and that administering a traditional in-person examination presented significant challenges.

In Supreme Court Order No. 25700-B-651, issued December 3, 2020, the Court specifically addressed those circumstances.

[7] Washington Supreme Court — Order No. 25700-B-651

The Court authorized remote testing for the February 2021 licensing examinations and allowed applicants, under specified circumstances, to transfer their applications to a later administration without paying an additional application fee.

The Court also provided for reasonable accommodations and location assistance for applicants who lacked reliable internet or a suitable testing location.

Most significantly, the Court temporarily modified the Washington rules to permit a UBE minimum passing score of 266 for the February 2021 Washington examination.

The order does not establish that the COVID-19 pandemic and the July 2026 cancellation are identical circumstances.

They clearly are not.

But the order demonstrates an important principle:

The Washington Supreme Court has previously recognized that extraordinary circumstances surrounding a bar examination can affect the conditions under which applicants are expected to perform and can justify changes to the ordinary examination framework. That history raises a legitimate question for the September 2026 examination:

What analysis was conducted to determine whether the physical, emotional, financial, and preparation consequences of the July cancellation affect candidates' ability to perform under the September examination conditions? The point is not that the passing score should automatically be changed again.

The point is that:

The conditions surrounding an examination can matter to fairness.

9. The Question of Emotional Fitness

There is another question that deserves attention:

Was the September schedule designed with candidates' emotional and psychological readiness in mind? A candidate who spends months preparing for a high-stakes examination reaches a particular psychological endpoint.

The candidate expects the preparation period to end.

The examination occurs.

The uncertainty ends.

After cancellation, that psychological endpoint disappears.

The candidate must return to preparation.

Research on canceled high-stakes examinations demonstrates emotional responses including disappointment, anger, relief, gratitude, and test anxiety.

[8] PMC — Research on Emotional Reactions to Canceled High-Stakes Examinations

Research on prolonged preparation among law students also demonstrates changes in recovery and well-being during extended examination preparation.

[9] PLOS ONE — Law Students and Prolonged Examination Preparation

Together, these findings justify asking an important question:

Did the September remedy account for the emotional and physical burden created by extending the examination process?

10. We Should Not Assume the Answer — We Should Ask for Evidence

This is not an argument that the September examination is automatically unfair.

It is an argument that the fairness of the September remedy should be evaluated using evidence.

The relevant organizations should be able to explain:

  • What analysis was conducted concerning the psychological effects of the July cancellation?
  • Was the impact of prolonged preparation considered when selecting the September examination date?
  • Was research concerning stress and recovery during prolonged examination preparation considered?
  • Was the potential impact on physical and emotional readiness evaluated?
  • Were candidates' employment, childcare, housing, travel, and financial circumstances considered?
  • Was the difference between additional preparation time and prolonged examination stress considered?
  • What evidence supports the conclusion that September provides an equitable testing opportunity?
  • Were candidates with different financial, professional, family, or accommodation circumstances evaluated separately?
  • What safeguards exist to ensure that the September remedy does not create unequal burdens among candidates?
  • What additional remedies are available if evidence demonstrates that the September administration does not fully address the consequences of the July cancellation?

11. This Is About Fairness — Not Lowering Standards

Nothing in this argument requires lowering the standards for admission to the practice of law.

Candidates should still be required to demonstrate competence.

The issue is different:

Should candidates be required to absorb the consequences of a canceled high-stakes examination when the cancellation was outside their control? Maintaining professional standards and ensuring procedural fairness are not contradictory.

In fact, both should be pursued together.

The goal is not a lower bar.

The goal is a fair opportunity to meet the bar.

September May Solve the Scheduling Problem. The Question Is Whether It Solves the Fairness Problem.

The July Washington Bar Examination represented months of preparation, sacrifice, and planning.

When the examination was canceled, candidates lost more than a date on a calendar.

They lost the opportunity to complete a carefully planned preparation cycle.

Research shows that canceled high-stakes examinations can produce significant emotional responses.

Research involving law students also shows that prolonged examination preparation can be associated with changes in stress, recovery, and well-being over time.

Washington's own history also demonstrates that the Supreme Court has previously recognized that extraordinary circumstances can require changes to the normal bar-examination framework.

These sources do not prove that every Washington candidate experienced the same consequences.

They do not prove that the September examination is inherently unfair.

But they establish why the consequences deserve to be considered.

September may solve the scheduling problem.

It does not automatically prove that candidates have been restored to the same physical, emotional, and preparation conditions they had before the July cancellation.

That is the question that deserves an evidence-based answer.

Sources

Academic Research

Washington Legal / Official Sources

Washington Supreme Court Communications

Open letter

Equal circumstances deserve equal relief.

“The remedy should follow the disruption and its effects, rather than a candidate category unrelated to responsibility for the outage.”

Direct action hub

Your message can move the Court.

Edit the letter if you wish, then send it directly to the Washington Supreme Court and WSBA Admissions.

Join the movement

#WaBarEquity · Today for us, tomorrow for you! Stand for Equity and Fairness

Join the movement: stay informed.

Join the movement: WaBarEquity

Order No. 25700-B-753 doesn’t define our future, and it certainly doesn’t end our mission. True equity requires justice for all candidates, not just a select few. Join our permanent coalition for transparency and reform as our mission continues. We are keeping the mission alive—demanding accountability, pushing for systemic reform, and ensuring no future examinee stands alone. Drop your email to stay at the front lines of our advocacy.

ONE EXAM. ONE STANDARD OF FAIRNESS.

Stand with every impacted examinee.

Sign the Petition