The Temple of Justice, in Olympia, Wash., where the state Supreme Court convenes. (Washington State Standard photo)
A citizen activist lost his bid Thursday to keep a one-sentence statement off ballots that summarizes how an initiative to repeal Washington’s new income tax on high earners would affect the state budget.
State Supreme Court Commissioner Michael Johnston denied Arthur West’s request for a preliminary injunction to block a state law requiring inclusion of the “public investment impact disclosure” for Initiative 645, which voters will consider in the Nov. 3 election.
Johnston said he was “not persuaded” that West “makes such a strong argument for unconstitutionality as to overcome the public interest” in voters seeing the statement.
In his seven-page ruling, Johnston said he was “mindful of the public’s interest in finality with respect to the ballot” for the 2026 election and found “no compelling basis” for disrupting the process.
The legal fight isn’t over.
In addition to seeking an injunction, West has asked the state Supreme Court to directly review his appeal of the Aug. 7 ruling by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Lanese that upheld the statute.
Justices will decide later this year whether to take up the case or transfer it to an appeals court.
“I am disappointed but look forward to contesting the constitutionality of the law directly as this appeal proceeds,” West said Thursday.
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 in its first year.
Under the 2022 law, when a proposed measure would repeal, levy or modify any tax or fee in a way that affects public investments, the ballot must include a “neutral, nonprejudicial disclosure” of how funding would increase or decrease.
The statement for I-645 drafted by Attorney General Nick 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).”
The attorney general’s office filed a brief opposing West’s request for an injunction, saying it would “deprive the people of information that they are entitled to receive on their ballots.”
West had argued that the 2022 law requiring public investment impact disclosures is unconstitutional. He asserts that it violates the state’s separation of powers doctrine that protects the legislative, executive and judicial branches from each other’s overreach.
The law, he wrote in legal briefs, allows the legislative and executive branches to intrude unfairly on the people’s power to make laws via initiatives. It does so with Initiative 645 by requiring information written by government officials to be put on the ballot. He believes the statement is not written with neutral language and will cause voters to reject the measure.
West also said it is not needed because a separate four-page fiscal impact statement for Initiative 645 will be posted online and put in voter pamphlets.
The Washington State Budget and Policy Center and the Economic Opportunity Institute jointly filed a brief opposing West’s request for an injunction. The two groups, which are against the initiative, point out several states require similar information on ballots.
The Washington State Republican Party, initiative promoter Tim Eyman and the Citizens in Charge Foundation filed separate briefs in support of the West’s request.
In its brief, the GOP did not argue on the constitutionality of the statute. Rather, it contended that the disclosure statement is not required because the income tax is not in force and I-645 only withdraws the state’s authority to collect the tax.
Source: Washington State Standard
This article was originally published by Washington State Standard.
