Let’s Go Washington (LGW) announced that they will be filing a lawsuit against Secretary of State (SOS) Steve Hobbs challenging the improper use of a “necessity clause” to block a public referendum on the income tax. In their rejection letter, the SOS cited a version of the Washington State Constitution that does not exist.
“We filed the referendum against Bob Ferguson’s unconstitutional income tax because the people of our state have a right to make their voice heard,” said Brian Heywood, Let’s Go Washington’s founder. “The Secretary of State’s rejection misquotes the Constitution; that doesn’t make the rejection right, and it certainly doesn’t make it legal. If Bob Ferguson, Laurie Jinkins, and Jamie Pedersen think rewriting the Constitution will stop this conversation, they’re underestimating how outraged Washingtonians are with Olympia’s cavalier attitude towards both the Constitution and the will of the electorate.”
In its rejection, the Secretary of State’s office misquoted the referenced constitutional provision in a manner that materially alters its legal meaning.
The Constitution the SOS cited:
“…except those laws deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, or safety, or for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions.”
The Constitution as actually written:
“…except such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions.”
The differences are not cosmetic. The SOS letter inserts the phrase “or for” which is language that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution thus converting a single unified standard into two independent exemption grounds.
According to the constitutional text, the law must address something that is immediate as well as preservation of the public peace, health or safety, and support of the state government and its existing public institutions. The legislature cannot invoke one prong in isolation while ignoring the necessary partner clause in the constitution.
Additionally, the SOS letter replaces “may be necessary” with “deemed necessary,” language that converts a constitutional threshold into a legislative rubber stamp.
In short: the legislature invented an exemption, inserted a couple of words into the Constitution that aren’t there, declared its own tax bill exempt from a public vote, and the Secretary of State accepted that self-serving declaration as binding. This case represents a precedent that, if upheld by the Supreme Court, will dangerously shield legislators from the voters.
“If simply declaring something ‘necessary’ is enough to block a referendum, then there are effectively no limits,” Heywood added. “By that logic, any bill could be shielded from voter review with a single line of text.”
LGW will be asking the Washington State Supreme Court to clarify the limits of the necessity clause and protect the public’s constitutional right to referendum.
The issue was further underscored by Governor Ferguson’s own veto message on the same day that he signed his unconstitutional income tax into law. In his veto message on an amendment to the Climate Commitment Act, he stated that the measure did not meet the legal standard required for an emergency designation. This inconsistency highlights the selective and politically convenient use of these clauses.