Voters decide fate of WA state millionaire tax

Voters will decide the fate of Washington's new income tax and high earners. Governor Bob Ferguson signed the bill back in March, and now the survival of the so-called millionaire's tax hinges on tonight's election. And there's controversy over how it's being presented on the ballot, and this issue has divided the state Supreme Court. Bill 6346 established a 9.9% tax on household income over $1 million, with revenue set to hit state coffers starting in 2029. Supporters of the so-called millionaire's tax say it is a historic step to fix Washington's regressive tax code, providing some relief for families and small businesses, while funding services like healthcare, childcare, and education. We are facing an affordability crisis. It is time. To change our state's outdated upside down tax system to serve the needs of Washingtonians today. Critics contend the new income tax violates the state constitution, drives away businesses and wealth, and opens the door for an income tax on all Washingtonians. The minute we ask people, do you think this is coming for you? It's overwhelmingly, they go, yeah, it's coming for me. Brian Haywood, founder of the political committee Let's Go Washington, spearheaded the effort to bring this debate before voters. Initiative 645 would repeal the new income tax and prohibit future taxes on income. That's all explained in the November ballot, but it's this next sentence that prompted a legal challenge. The ballot text reads, quote, this measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education, including university. I would like the voters to know that that wording is not correct. Citizen activist Arthur West filed an emergency motion to block that sentence from appearing on ballots. West tells us he doesn't see this as a partisan issue and even supports a progressive income tax. But he claims that fiscal impact sentence is misleading. The legislature is the one that. Critics also argue it's untrue to say the initiative would decrease funding for services when that revenue doesn't even exist yet and won't come in until 2029. That fiscal impact statement, however, is required under a state law passed in 2022, describing the consequences of any initiative or referendum that affects state revenue. This law allows the Attorney General after an initiative has been certified and half a million people sign it to at the last minute insert what is in effect a poison pill. The fiscal impact statement for I-645 was written by Attorney General Nick Brown's office. A spokesperson telling Fox 13, the law requires the AG's office write a neutral and accurate disclosure. That is what we did. The AG's office argued in court, there's nothing misleading about the statement because I-645 would substantially reduce revenue for the general fund, which would necessarily reduce Funding for the services supported by the general fund. West's motion to block the fiscal impact statement on I-645 was taken up by the state Supreme Court. It was a 4-4 split decision with one justice not ruling due to an illness. Four justices were in favor of blocking that sentence from the ballot. But without a majority opinion, the motion was denied. So the ballots are now printed with that contested sentence included. The polling firm DHM Research polled 800 Washingtonians on this initiative. Half of them were shown the fiscal disclosure, half of them were not. Among those who saw the fiscal statement, 57% wanted to keep the income tax, while 35% were in favor of repealing it. It was a much closer outcome among those who did not see the fiscal disclosure. 44% would keep the income tax, while 40% in favor of repealing it. So the absence of that one sentence taking a 22.5 point gap down to four.