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.
The wording by Attorney General Nick Brown on the income tax repeal ballot item was deliberately deceptive, not “clumsy.”
It will not go into effect until 2028.
At best we can accurately say that it MIGHT in the future reduce spending in the areas claimed, but it is far from certain. In fact, a recent financial analysis suggests that if just 1 in 6 households that are currently targeted by this tax redomicile, it will be net negative to WA revenues overall.
Redomicile? Probably not a deliberately deceptive term, but definitely clumsy.
The problem is, all taxes target some group in one way or another. The question is, does that targeting impose an unfair or excessive hardship on one group over another. Most of the time, it does.
For example, sales taxes impose an unfair hardship on poor people, and wealth taxes impose an unfair hardship on rich people. Life is unfair. But the people at the top have an easier time surviving unfairness than the rest of us do. For one thing, they have the cash required to “redomicile” should they object to being taxed in a way they find objectionable. It may be their right, they can certainly threaten to do it, and they can claim this causes them some kind of hardship. But it’s not a good look. And it’s not likely to earn them much sympathy from anyone except their peers.
Redomicile (v) — the legal process by which a company or individual moves its legal home base from one state or country to another.
As opposed to just “move,” which is a less accurate term in this context.
The voters will reject I-645 and the millionaires tax will stand. GOP will continue to lose until they correctly read the room and see the populist moment in history for what it is. GOP could have thrown their efforts behind reducing everyone’s sales tax burden, but instead they rallied behind “saving” the burden for people who literally make a million dollars every year (these people pay income tax in nearly every other US state). Tells you all you need to know about the intent of WA GOP.