by Jerry Cornfield, Washington State Standard
July 27, 2026
Legal wrangling on the income tax initiative could reach the state’s high court before Washington voters consider it this November.
Sponsors of Initiative 645 on Monday formally contested a statement drafted by state attorneys that says the initiative would decrease funding for Washington’s budget, saying it “is inaccurate and would create prejudice against the measure if it were allowed to be placed on the ballot.”
Lawyers for Let’s Go Washington argued in a petition filed in Thurston County Superior Court that passing the initiative would in fact lead to increased funding for the budget.
The statement “must be corrected” because that is the only effect that the initiative would have on the current state budget, wrote Callie Castillo, attorney for the conservative political committee led by Brian Heywood.
In its court filing, Let’s Go Washington proposed completely new language for what is known as the public investment impact disclosure.
The state Attorney General’s Office had not seen the petition as of 5 p.m. Monday.
“We’ll review it and respond in the appropriate venue,” said Mike Faulk, deputy communications director for the state Attorney General’s Office.
Let’s Go Washington’s action comes days after an open government activist filed his own lawsuit contending the requirement for the public investment statement is an unconstitutional infringement on the citizen initiative process.
Arthur West, who filed the suit in Thurston County Superior Court, is seeking an injunction that, if granted, would bar the “public investment impact disclosure” for Initiative 645 from appearing on ballots.
A hearing is set for Aug. 7, after which a decision could be appealed directly to the state Supreme Court.
Secretary of State Steve Hobbs and Attorney General Nick Brown are named as defendants. A Hobbs spokesperson referred questions to the attorney general’s office.
Controversy centers on 15 words
A 2022 law requires disclosure statements of 15 words or less be placed on ballots if a measure repeals, levies or modifies a tax or fee, and if it would cause a net change in state revenue. State attorneys write the one-sentence that gets tacked on after the ballot title.
Initiative 645 would repeal the 9.9% tax on individual and household wage income above $1 million a year that Gov. Bob Ferguson signed into law in late March. The tax is slated to take effect Jan. 1, 2028, with payments due the following year. The state Department of Revenue estimates it would bring in roughly $2.7 billion for the fiscal year that ends June 30, 2029.
The public investment statement for I-645 drafted by Brown’s office reads: “This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare).”
Anyone objecting to the language had until 5 p.m. Monday to appeal.
Let’s Go Washington argues that if the measure passes, it will result in savings for the state, which translates to an increase in available funding for the budget that runs through June 30, 2027. It criticizes the state-drafted language for projecting potential fallout for future budgets, which is not the purpose of the statement, Castillo argued.
The statement is intended to let voters know the immediate impact of a measure, not to “describe future hypothetical impact on a future hypothetical budget that will never take place if the measure goes into effect,” she wrote.
Let’s Go Washington proposed this rewrite: “This measure would increase funding for the 2026-2027 state general fund, which primary investments are medical assistance-programs, public instruction, and higher education.”
‘Government edit’
Similarly, West argues in his suit that the language proposed by the state is not neutral, as required by the law. Rather, it is prejudicial and likely to push voters toward opposing the measure. He cited a 2023 poll that found early signs of opposition to the three measures on the 2024 ballot when voters were told about fiscal effects. Service Employees International Union 775 and Washington Conservation Action paid for the poll.
He also said the content is not factual because only the Legislature can decrease funding for any of the areas the statement mentions.
The public investment statements, he said, essentially give the state the last word in the initiative process, well after people like himself, who signed a petition, and the sponsors, Let’s Go Washington, who gathered more than 500,000 signatures, get the measure on the ballot.
This ability “to alter the official ballot presentation of a completed initiative petition after petition circulation has concluded exceeds the Legislature’s authority,” he wrote.
It is, West wrote, “a government edit to a document the government had no further authority to touch.”
In an interview Monday, West said the law violates the state’s separation of powers doctrine that protects the legislative, executive and judicial branches from each other’s overreach. If the legislative deliberative process is protected from the people, he said, “why is the people’s power of the initiative not protected from incursions” of the legislative and executive branches?
In his filing, West said if the court is not inclined to grant an injunction, it should consider ordering the statement removed from ballots and put in the voter’s pamphlet.
Andrew Villeneuve, founder of the Northwest Progressive Institute, helped develop and then lobbied hard to pass the 2022 law as a means to ensure voters understand the fiscal consequences of initiatives and referendums. He described West’s effort as “a deeply misguided attack on a vital transparency law.”
“The creation of these essential materials and their dissemination to voters does not infringe on anyone’s right to petition, short circuit the people’s right to pass laws at the ballot, or violate the separation of powers doctrine,” Villeneuve wrote in an email.
“He is asking the courts to invent a new restriction on official representations of ballot measures, one that doesn’t exist in the Washington State Constitution,” he wrote. “West’s case is wholly without merit.”
This isn’t the first time this issue has been before a judge.
Two years ago, state Republican Party Chair Jim Walsh sued to block statements, which he described as warning labels. These appeared with initiatives to scrap Washington’s cap-and-trade system, end its capital gains tax, and make the WA Cares long-term care program optional. Voters defeated all three measures, which were also sponsored by Let’s Go Washington.
The state Supreme Court rejected Walsh’s lawsuit primarily because he sought “ancient, rare and extraordinary” remedies rather than follow the usual course of action in trying to block a state law.
West said he’s doing just that by focusing on the legality of the statute.
“The constitutional question the state would now like this court to believe was settled in 2024 was, in fact, the one question the 2024 court went out of its way not to touch,” he wrote.
Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Bill Lucia for questions: [email protected].