An important legal fight over the millionaire’s tax was blown up last Friday by a public records advocate and some odd judging. Instead of head-to-head courtroom arguments between the yes and no campaigns on Initiative 645, lawyers for both sides were left scratching their heads in the hall.
At issue was the one-sentence “public investment impact disclosure” statement that acts as a fiscal warning label on initiatives that mess around with revenue. The 2022 law, passed by overwhelming Democratic majorities in the Legislature, was intended to be a cautionary check on populist Eyman-era tax-cutting measures, which of course thoroughly ticks off the GOP.
In this case, the initiative to repeal the millionaire’s tax, Initiative 645, carried a clunkily worded caveat which will appear on the November ballot:
This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education,
higher education (including universities and community colleges),
and human services (primarily healthcare).
Those are 21 very important words, on the most politically consequential initiative in decades. So it sparked three separate lawsuits in Thurston County — by initiative sponsor Let’s Go Washington, a counter-challenge from the No campaign, and a constitutional challenge by public records advocate Arthur West. The campaigns consolidated their cases, but West, as he’s wont to do, represented himself pro se.
The first odd turn in the Friday saga was Thurston County Superior Court’s decision to let West’s case go on its own. The second was to schedule a hearing on West’s case at 9 am, and the campaigns’ hearing two hours later.
West, wearing a black jacket and polka-dot tie, was aggressively questioned by Thurston County judge Chris Lanese about the premise of his lawsuit, which would’ve tossed out PIIDs altogether (and the one for I-645 specifically) as an unconstitutional infringement on the right to propose ballot initiatives. “No one wants to pay taxes, right? But if we all just pretend we don’t have to reduce any services as a result of those cut taxes… isn’t that not neutral? Isn’t that only showing half the picture to voters?“ asked an animated Lanese.
Lanese also did some Socratic questioning of the Attorney General’s lawyer, although less aggressively. That led to a social media dustup by conservative commentator Brandi Kruse, among others, accusing Lanese of liberal bias.
Important to note: Friday was the deadline to finalize the PIID on I-645, per the Secretary of State. And the state law doesn’t allow appeals of Superior Court rulings on PIIDs. This was a one-shot deal.
To be fair, the AG’s lawyer noted the later hearing and suggested that Lanese delay his ruling. But Lanese said it was his job to rule on the case before him. He summarily tossed out West’s case, and ruled the I-645 statement was fine. That left the 11 a.m. hearing and its high-priced lawyers scratching their heads. Let’s Go Washington wanted to argue that I-645 doesn’t in fact cut revenue in the current budget, because most of the fiscal impacts are in the future. Rather, passing I-645 would save the state money because it would eliminate the need to stand up a massive income tax enforcement division in the state Department of Revenue.
But a court can’t issue two separate rulings on the same issue, on the same day. So the hearing was cancelled. Case closed. When you — love them or hate them — see those 21 words on the November ballot, thank Arthur West and some odd judging in Olympia.
A version of this story first appeared on the Washington Observer website.
Subscribe – it’s a must-follow for Washington State politics.
Discover more from Post Alley
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
