EDITORIAL: Legislature responsible for state's income tax
May 7-Washington residents who oppose a tax on millionaire earners are understandably dismayed by a ruling this week from the state Supreme Court. But frustration should be directed toward legislators, not the jurists.
The court on Monday rejected a conservative political committee's request regarding an attempt to repeal the tax. Let's Go Washington, led by Redmond hedge-fund manager Brian Heywood, had sought to place a referendum on the ballot this fall to overturn the tax. When that request was rejected by the secretary of state's office, Let's Go Washington sought relief from the Supreme Court.
Now, in the wake of the ruling, opponents of the law still may move forward with an initiative to repeal the millionaires tax. But compared with referendums, initiatives require twice the number of valid signatures in order to land on the ballot or be sent to the Legislature.
All of this turns on one sentence. When the Democratic-led Legislature this year passed a 9.9 percent tax on annual individual income of more than $1 million, lawmakers included a clause saying the tax "is necessary for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions." By inserting that so-called "necessity clause," lawmakers left an initiative as the only ballot option for opponents.
The court decision, signed by Chief Justice Debra Stephens, said the law "undisputedly generates revenue for the state's existing institutions and hence is similarly subject to the 'support of state government' exception to the referendum power." The decision also says the court is being "consistent with the words of the constitution and our unbroken line of precedent" because tax policy typically is not subject to referendum challenges in Washington.
In that regard, the ruling appears to be well founded; this was not the place for the state Supreme Court to overturn precedent or nullify the reasoning of lawmakers. Beyond the legalese, however, the Legislature's reasoning seems implausible.
Lawmakers in recent years have considered seemingly every budget challenge to be a "necessity" for a tax increase. Since 2015 - even after adjusting for population growth and inflation - the state budget has increased more than 30 percent. That unsustainable approach is having an impact; Moody's, one of three major credit rating services, has reclassified the state's financial outlook from "stable" to "negative" because of the government's budgeting practices.
Such practices increasingly confuse wants with needs and do not stand up to scrutiny. Collection of the millionaires tax, for example, does not begin until 2029; that hardly meets the definition of a pressing concern that is "necessary for the support of the state government." It also suggests that lawmakers have a weak case in trying to convince voters that the tax is beneficial and in getting them to support it at the ballot box.
That is the overriding issue behind the tax on millionaires. This week's ruling did not address the constitutionality of an income tax in Washington; that decision is down the road - likely after the November election that includes five of the nine Supreme Court seats. But it did invigorate questions about why legislators declined to send the tax to voters in the first place.
The answers, which lawmakers would prefer to avoid, is that they likely are out of touch with Washington voters and that they will have trouble making the case for instituting the state's first income tax. All of that is cause for dismay among taxpayers.
Unlock all stories. Stay informed.
Starting at just $1.99/week
Become a subscriber and get unlimited access to every story, plus our ePaper and app for seamless reading anywhere. Stay informed, support local journalism, and stay connected to your community.
Subscribe today
Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.
This story was originally published May 7, 2026 at 7:10 AM.