Let’s Go Washington Challenges Income Tax Necessity Clause in State Supreme Court

(WASHINGTON) — Let’s Go Washington filed a referendum against Washington’s new state income tax on households with combined income above $1 million and plans to ask the Washington State Supreme Court to strike down the law’s “necessity clause” if Secretary of State Steve Hobbs rejects the measure.

The referendum fight opens one front in a broader campaign against the tax, which Gov. Bob Ferguson signed into law and which opponents argue violates the state constitution. A separate lawsuit from the Citizen Action Defense Fund, or CADF, is also planned in superior court.

Brian Heywood, founder of Let’s Go Washington, is leading the repeal effort through the referendum process. If that path is blocked, the group intends to move directly to the state Supreme Court and argue that lawmakers used the necessity clause to shield the tax from voters rather than because of any true necessity.

Washington enacted the new tax on households with combined income above $1 million, setting up an immediate political and legal clash over whether the measure can be referred to voters and whether the tax itself can survive constitutional review.

Opponents center much of their argument on the necessity clause in the bill. They say lawmakers added it strategically to prevent repeal through referendum, and they contend that move may violate voter rights.

That dispute carries added weight because the bill does not include an emergency clause. Critics of the law say the necessity clause serves the same practical purpose in this case by trying to block a referendum challenge.

The constitutional fight over the tax itself reaches back nearly a century. Opponents cite Culliton v. Chase, a 1933 Washington Supreme Court ruling, as precedent for their argument that income is treated like property under the state constitution and therefore must be taxed uniformly under Article VII.

That reading lies at the center of both tracks of the opposition strategy. Let’s Go Washington is focusing first on the referendum and the necessity clause, while CADF plans a broader suit arguing the tax is unconstitutional as a non-uniform property tax.

Rob McKenna, the former attorney general, and Jackson Maynard, executive director of CADF, are leading the superior court challenge. State Rep. Jim Walsh, a Republican from Aberdeen and state GOP chairman, and Rep. Hunter Abell, a Republican from Inchelium, back that case.

Together, the two efforts amount to a two-pronged strategy against the law. One prong tries to let voters decide whether to repeal the tax, and the other asks courts to invalidate either the barrier to a referendum or the tax itself.

The first question now is whether Hobbs allows the referendum to proceed. If he does, voters would decide whether to repeal the tax.

If Hobbs rejects it, Let’s Go Washington says it will sue in the state Supreme Court over the necessity clause. That challenge would not directly resolve the broader constitutional status of the income tax, but it could decide whether lawmakers lawfully insulated the measure from a public vote.

CADF’s planned superior court lawsuit goes further. That case argues the tax is unconstitutional because it is a non-uniform property tax, an argument tied directly to Culliton v. Chase.

The clash over the necessity clause could become a test of how far the legislature can go in limiting referendum power. Opponents say the clause was used as a tactic to block repeal rather than to address any immediate state need.

They also frame the case as part of a larger struggle over direct democracy in Washington. Critics of the tax say Democratic lawmakers have overused such clauses for decades, turning a procedural device into a way to keep voters from challenging laws at the ballot box.

At the same time, the constitutional case against the tax draws force from repeated failures of earlier income tax efforts with voters. Opponents point to those prior voter rejections as support for their argument that Washington residents have consistently resisted state income taxes and that courts should view the new law with that history in mind.

Those past defeats do not themselves settle the legal issues. But they form part of the political and constitutional narrative that opponents want judges to consider as they challenge the new law.

Heywood’s referendum effort and CADF’s lawsuit overlap in their goal of stopping the tax, but they are aimed at different decision-makers and could move on different timetables. The referendum path depends first on Hobbs, then potentially on voters, while the constitutional suit would move through superior court as a direct legal attack.

That makes the necessity clause fight especially important. If the referendum never reaches the ballot, opponents would lose the fastest route to a voter verdict and would need to rely more heavily on the courts.

A favorable ruling for Let’s Go Washington in the Supreme Court could revive the referendum route even if Hobbs initially rejects it. A ruling against the group would leave the constitutional challenge as the main vehicle for trying to block the tax.

CADF’s suit could also produce a much broader ruling. If a court accepts the group’s argument that the tax violates the constitution because it is a non-uniform property tax, the decision could go beyond this single law and reaffirm or reshape how Washington treats income under Article VII.

That is why Culliton v. Chase has become such an important part of the dispute. The 1933 case remains the precedent opponents rely on to argue that income taxation in Washington must be uniform and cannot escape the constitutional rules that apply to property.

The legal theory is straightforward in form, even if the court fight may not be. If income counts as property, then a tax that applies only to households with combined income above $1 million can be attacked as non-uniform.

Support from Republican lawmakers adds another political dimension to the case. Walsh and Abell have lined up behind the CADF challenge, giving the court fight backing from both movement activists and elected GOP figures.

Still, the legal and political tracks are not identical. Let’s Go Washington is trying to preserve a referendum and place the tax before voters, while CADF is preparing a constitutional challenge designed to persuade judges that the law cannot stand even if voters never weigh in.

That split approach could widen the conflict rather than narrow it. The state may face one battle over whether the necessity clause can block a referendum and another over whether the tax violates the constitution as interpreted in Culliton v. Chase.

For now, the immediate turning point remains Hobbs’s decision on the referendum filing. His ruling could determine whether the fight first moves to the ballot, to the Supreme Court, or both.

If voters get the case, they would decide whether to repeal the new tax. If the referendum is rejected, the necessity clause challenge could halt implementation or trigger further court rulings.

If CADF’s superior court challenge advances, judges would confront the deeper constitutional question that opponents have put at the center of the case: whether Washington can impose this kind of income tax at all under its existing constitution.

The result could shape more than one law. A ruling on the necessity clause would test the reach of legislative power over referendums, while a ruling on the tax itself could mark one of the most closely watched state constitutional decisions in years.

For opponents, that is the point of the two-track fight. They are trying to keep the tax in front of voters if possible, and in front of judges if necessary.

With Let’s Go Washington pressing the referendum and preparing a necessity clause appeal, and CADF assembling a broader constitutional case led by McKenna and Maynard, Washington now faces a legal battle that runs through direct democracy, legislative procedure and the long shadow of Culliton v. Chase.