(GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON) — Washington lawmakers approved Senate Bill 6346, a new 9.9% income tax on annual income over $1 million for individuals and households, drawing public opposition from two Democrats from Gig Harbor even as the measure heads to Governor Bob Ferguson for his signature.

Rep. Adison Richards (D-Gig Harbor) and Sen. Deb Krishnadasan (D-Gig Harbor) have emerged as the Democrats publicly challenging the tax, breaking with members of their party who backed the proposal as a way to raise billions for the state’s General Fund.

The measure is projected to affect about 30,000 households and generate $4 billion annually starting in 2028 or 2029. Lawmakers designated the money for healthcare, schools, and behavioral health.

The Washington House approved the bill 52-46 after more than 24 hours of debate. On key votes, the margin was 58-38. The Senate later approved it, sending it to Ferguson, who plans to sign it.

Richards and Krishnadasan’s opposition has placed the Gig Harbor Democrats at the center of a debate that has spread beyond party lines. Their concerns focus on the structure of the tax and on whether lawmakers could later expand it beyond the highest earners.

That argument has also defined much of the Republican criticism. Opponents have framed the bill not only as a tax increase on top earners, but as a legal and political turning point in a state long known for not imposing a broad income tax.

Rep. Travis Couture (R-Allyn), the House Appropriations lead, called the proposal a “generational seismic change” and said lawmakers rushed it at the end of the session. Republicans argued that once the state establishes an income tax aimed at millionaires, future legislatures could widen its reach.

Sen. John Braun said the measure violates the state constitution. He also pointed to the rejection of amendments that would have capped the tax at millionaires, saying those votes left room for future expansion.

Rep. Jim Walsh (R-Aberdeen) argued the bill disrupts state law. Across the Capitol, Republicans cast the proposal as both a constitutional test and a break with the state’s tax structure.

Democrats defended the bill as a response to what they described as a regressive system. They said the top 1% pay about 4% as an effective tax rate, compared with 14% for the poorest residents.

That gap became the central argument for supporters who said the state relies too heavily on taxes that fall harder on lower-income households. For them, Senate Bill 6346 is a way to shift part of that burden onto people with the highest incomes while financing services that lawmakers say need more stable support.

Majority Leader Fitzg (D-Seattle) urged the Washington Supreme Court to overturn its 1933 ruling that classified income as property and required uniform taxation. Supporters of the bill have cast that precedent as the legal barrier that has blocked earlier efforts to impose a graduated income tax in the state.

The 1933 decision remains one of the most important pieces of background to the current fight. It voided a prior tax on high earners and has shaped Washington tax policy for decades.

Voters also rejected similar efforts in the past, including Initiative 1098 in 2010. That history has made the current bill stand out, because it tests whether today’s political and legal environment is different enough to sustain a tax that previous campaigns could not.

For Richards and Krishnadasan, the question is not only whether the tax can survive, but whether its structure invites later changes. Their dissent gives opponents a bipartisan point of reference as legal and political challenges take shape.

Business groups have lined up against the measure as well. The Washington Roundtable, Association of Washington Business, Seattle Metropolitan Chamber, Bellevue Chamber, and Greater Spokane Inc. have all opposed the tax.

Those groups said the proposal could hurt small businesses, startups, farmers, and charities. They also warned it could weaken Washington’s appeal as one of nine states with no income tax.

Opponents in the business community have tied Senate Bill 6346 to other recent tax changes, saying it comes on top of the 2021 capital gains tax and higher estate taxes. In their view, the combination raises questions about whether the state is moving away from the tax identity that has long been part of its economic pitch.

Backers of the bill have answered that the tax is narrowly targeted. The 9.9% rate applies only to annual income above $1 million for individuals and households, and supporters have presented that threshold as evidence that the change is aimed at the highest end of the income scale.

Still, critics have kept returning to the same point: once the state creates the framework for an income tax, later legislatures might not keep it limited to the same group. That concern links the objections raised by Republicans, business groups, and the Democratic dissenters from Gig Harbor.

Public opposition has also been broad. More than 60,000 people opposed SB 6346 in hearings, a tally that reflects the bill’s reach beyond lawmakers and lobby groups.

That level of response has given opponents another measure of momentum as the bill approaches Ferguson’s desk. The governor plans to sign it, but the political fight is not expected to end there.

Legal challenges are anticipated after the signature. Ballot repeal efforts are also expected, setting up a second phase of the conflict outside the Legislature.

Those parallel tracks — court action and a possible repeal campaign — fit the bill’s unusual place in Washington politics. Supporters see it as a way to make the tax code less regressive and raise money for public services. Opponents see it as a direct challenge to constitutional limits and to the state’s long-standing status as a place without an income tax.

The House vote showed that resistance extended beyond the Republican caucus. All Republicans voted no, joined by eight Democrats, underscoring the unease inside the majority party even as Democratic leaders pushed the measure through.

That split matters because Democrats control the Legislature, and the public objections from Adison Richards and Deb Krishnadasan show that skepticism cannot be dismissed as a purely partisan response. In a debate shaped by legal history and tax policy, the dissent from two Democrats in Gig Harbor has given the opposition a broader face.

At the same time, the bill’s supporters have tied it tightly to state spending priorities. They have said the projected $4 billion a year would help pay for healthcare, schools, and behavioral health, placing the tax inside a larger argument about what the state needs to fund and who should bear that cost.

For critics, that policy case does not resolve the constitutional dispute. Braun’s warning that the bill conflicts with the state constitution goes to the legal question likely to define the next stage of the fight, while Couture’s description of a “generational seismic change” captures the larger political stakes for those who view the measure as a watershed.

Washington now stands at that dividing line. Senate Bill 6346 has cleared the Legislature, Governor Bob Ferguson plans to sign it, and the state is moving toward a tax projected to raise $4 billion annually from about 30,000 households starting in 2028 or 2029.

What comes next will test more than a budget choice. It will test whether Washington can keep a tax aimed at millionaires in place, whether courts revisit a 1933 ruling that shaped state law for decades, and whether dissent from figures such as Richards and Krishnadasan can fuel the repeal and legal campaigns that opponents are already preparing.