- Lawsuits filed in July twenty-twenty-six challenge misleading ballot language for Initiative six-forty-five.
- Opponents argue the fiscal warning is a scare tactic regarding funding for schools and healthcare.
- A court hearing on August seventh, twenty-twenty-six will determine the final ballot wording.
Arthur West and sponsor group Let’s Go Washington filed two July 2026 lawsuits challenging the ballot language attached to Initiative 645, which would repeal the recently enacted 9.9% tax on household income above $1 million. They argue state officials added dishonest and prejudicial wording after signature gathering ended.
The dispute centers on the state’s required Public Investment Impact Disclosure. A 2022 state law requires the 15-word disclosure for measures affecting state revenue.
Free toolSubstantial Presence Test Calculator
The approved wording says:
“This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare).”
West and the sponsor group call the statement inaccurate. They also describe it as a “scare tactic.”
Their central argument concerns when the tax would begin producing revenue. Collections are not scheduled to start until 2029, the lawsuits say, so no current education or healthcare funding exists to be decreased by repealing the levy.
The cases challenge the state’s authority to place that language on a citizen-led initiative after supporters completed the signature-gathering process. They target RCW 29A.72.027, arguing that the provision permits the government to insert “propaganda” into an initiative and violates the people’s reserved legislative power.
A hearing is scheduled for August 7, 2026, in Thurston County Superior Court. The state must settle the final ballot language by August 21, 2026.
The lawsuits put a service-cut warning on trial before November voters
The court fight will determine whether I-645 reaches voters with the current warning or with a more neutral fiscal summary. The existing text links repeal to possible reductions in K-12 education, universities, community colleges and human services, primarily healthcare.
That language could shape how voters understand the measure before the November election. It presents the repeal as a decision about public-service funding, while the challengers frame the dispute as one about timing and government speech.
The disclosure requirement applies to measures that affect state revenue. The lawsuits do not simply contest whether Washington should impose the income tax. They challenge how officials describe the consequences of repealing it.
Supporters and opponents disagree over the tax’s reach
Brian Heywood, who leads opposition to the tax, says the estimated $2.7 billion in revenue represents a “test case” for a broader statewide income tax. That estimate has become a central argument in the repeal campaign.
Governor Bob Ferguson signed the tax in March 2026. He maintains that the measure would make Washington’s tax system fairer and provide funding for essential services.
The competing positions also reflect different views of the tax’s immediate effect. Opponents point to the delayed collection date and reject the description of existing service cuts. Supporters point to the programs identified in the disclosure and the projected revenue those programs could receive.
Households earning more than $1 million would avoid the state income tax if I-645 passes. The measure therefore combines a direct financial consequence for high-income households with a broader fight over Washington’s public budget.
The court schedule leaves little room before election materials are prepared
The August hearing falls two weeks before the August 21 deadline for final ballot language. That timing connects the court’s decision directly to the preparation of November election materials.
The Washington Secretary of State provides I-645 certification and election information through its elections page. The Washington Legislature’s 2026 materials include the text associated with the fiscal-disclosure framework at its bill page.
The court’s ruling will decide whether voters encounter the existing statement or revised language when they consider the repeal in November. The August 21 deadline sets the point by which that choice must be made.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute tax advice. Consult a qualified tax professional or CPA about your specific situation.
