Two Lawsuits Challenge Washington State’s Ballot Description of Income Tax Initiative

Two separate lawsuits are challenging Washington state’s official description of a ballot initiative that seeks to repeal the state’s new income tax, setting up a legal dispute that could ultimately reach the Washington Supreme Court before voters decide the measure in November.

On July 27, the sponsors of Initiative 645 formally contested the wording prepared by state attorneys to describe the measure’s fiscal impact. They argued that the language is misleading and unfairly prejudices voters against the proposal.

In a petition filed in Thurston County Superior Court, attorneys representing Let’s Go Washington asserted that the public investment impact disclosure "is inaccurate and would create prejudice against the measure if it were allowed to be placed on the ballot."

Rather than reducing available state funding, the conservative political committee maintained that approval of the initiative would actually increase funding available under the current state budget.

Attorney Callie Castillo, representing Let’s Go Washington and its leader Brian Heywood, argued that the disclosure "must be corrected" because increased funding for the existing state budget is the initiative’s only actual effect.

As part of the court filing, Let’s Go Washington submitted an entirely revised version of the required public investment impact disclosure.

By late afternoon on July 27, the Washington Attorney General’s Office said it had not yet received the petition.

"We’ll review it and respond in the appropriate venue," said Mike Faulk, deputy communications director for the Attorney General’s Office.

The legal challenge from Let’s Go Washington follows another lawsuit filed only days earlier by open-government activist Arthur West, who contends that the requirement to include a public investment impact disclosure on the ballot is itself unconstitutional.

West’s lawsuit, also filed in Thurston County Superior Court, seeks an injunction preventing the public investment impact disclosure for Initiative 645 from appearing on voters’ ballots.

A hearing has been scheduled for Aug. 7. Any ruling issued afterward could be appealed directly to the Washington Supreme Court.

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs and Attorney General Nick Brown have both been named as defendants in the lawsuit. A spokesperson for Hobbs referred all inquiries to the Attorney General’s Office.

Controversy Focuses on a 15-Word Ballot Statement

The dispute centres on a law enacted in 2022 requiring ballot measures that repeal, create or modify taxes or fees—and which result in a net change in state revenue—to include a public investment impact disclosure of no more than 15 words. The disclosure is drafted by attorneys in the Attorney General’s Office and appears immediately after the ballot title.

Initiative 645 proposes repealing Washington’s 9.9% tax on individual and household wage income exceeding £1 million annually. Governor Bob Ferguson signed the tax into law in late March. It is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2028, with the first payments due the following year.

According to the Washington Department of Revenue, the tax is expected to generate approximately £2.7 billion during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2029.

The public investment impact disclosure prepared by Attorney General Nick Brown’s office states:

"This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare)."

State law allowed anyone wishing to challenge the wording until 5 p.m. on July 27.

Let’s Go Washington argues that the initiative’s actual impact should be evaluated based on the current state budget, which runs through June 30, 2027. Because the proposed income tax would not take effect until 2028, the organisation contends that repealing it would produce savings under the existing budget, thereby increasing available funding.

Castillo criticised the Attorney General’s Office for focusing on hypothetical future budgets rather than the current one.

She argued that the statement is intended to inform voters about the initiative’s immediate consequences rather than "describe future hypothetical impact on a future hypothetical budget that will never take place if the measure goes into effect."

Accordingly, Let’s Go Washington proposed replacing the state's language with the following statement:

"This measure would increase funding for the 2026-2027 state general fund, which primary investments are medical assistance-programs, public instruction, and higher education."

West Calls Disclosure a "Government Edit"

Arthur West’s lawsuit similarly argues that the Attorney General’s wording fails to meet the law’s requirement of neutrality. Instead, he says the statement is prejudicial and likely to encourage voters to oppose the initiative.

To support his claim, West cited a 2023 poll showing early indications that voters were less likely to support three 2024 ballot measures after learning about their projected fiscal impacts. The survey was funded by Service Employees International Union 775 and Washington Conservation Action.

West also argued that the disclosure is factually inaccurate because only the Legislature—not the initiative itself—has the authority to reduce funding for education or human services.

According to West, the public investment impact disclosures effectively allow the government to have the final word in the initiative process, even after citizens have exercised their constitutional right to gather signatures and place a measure before voters.

He noted that Let’s Go Washington collected more than 500,000 signatures to qualify Initiative 645 for the ballot.

In his filing, West argued that the state's authority "to alter the official ballot presentation of a completed initiative petition after petition circulation has concluded exceeds the Legislature’s authority."

He further described the disclosure as "a government edit to a document the government had no further authority to touch."

Speaking in an interview on July 27, West also questioned whether the law violates Washington’s constitutional separation of powers doctrine.

"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?

Should the court decline to issue an injunction, West asked that the disclosure instead be removed from the ballot and placed only in the state voters’ pamphlet.

Supporters Defend the Transparency Law

Andrew Villeneuve, founder of the Northwest Progressive Institute, played a leading role in developing and advocating for the 2022 law. He said the statute was intended to ensure voters understand the fiscal implications of initiatives and referendums before casting their ballots.

Villeneuve sharply criticised West’s lawsuit, describing it as "a deeply misguided attack on a vital transparency law."

He argued:

"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 further stated:

"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 concluded:

"West’s case is wholly without merit."

Similar Dispute Emerged Two Years Ago

The issue has previously been the subject of litigation.

Two years earlier, Washington Republican Party Chair Jim Walsh filed a lawsuit seeking to block similar public investment impact statements, which he characterised as warning labels.

Those disclosures accompanied ballot initiatives that sought to eliminate Washington’s cap-and-trade programme, repeal the state’s capital gains tax, and make participation in the WA Cares long-term care programme optional. All three measures were sponsored by Let’s Go Washington.

Washington voters ultimately rejected each of those initiatives.

The Washington Supreme Court dismissed Walsh’s challenge, concluding primarily that he had pursued "ancient, rare and extraordinary" legal remedies instead of following the ordinary legal procedures available for challenging a state law.

West maintains that his lawsuit differs because it directly challenges the constitutionality of the statute itself.

"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.

By fLEXI tEAM