Washington I-645 Enters the Endgame: The Ballot-Language Effect, Two Debates, and the $3.1B–$3.5B Score
Washington's repeal initiative (I-645, which would overturn the 9.9% tax on household income above $1 million enacted as ESSB 6346 in March 2026, effective 2028 with first collections in 2029) goes to the November 3 ballot with polling that has become a small natural experiment in fiscal-impact disclosure.
The ballot-language effect. A statewide DHM Research poll found that support for repeal "fell sharply when voters saw the legally required ballot language warning that passage 'would decrease funding' for public K-12 schools, universities and healthcare: 35% supported repeal, 57% opposed it and 8% were undecided" (Seattle Times). The same fiscal-impact sentence moves voter support by 13 points (MyNorthwest/KATU). In other words, the legally mandated disclosure of what repeal costs — not what the tax costs — is the single biggest mover of opinion. That is an empirically measurable framing effect with direct relevance to how wealth/high-earner tax votes everywhere will be fought: the revenue claim's salience, not just its size, decides outcomes.
The debates (Oct 8). I-645 sponsor Brian Heywood and House Minority Leader Drew Stokesbary argued the tax "is unnecessary, will drive some wealthy innovators to other states and, eventually, will be levied on people earning far less than a million dollars a year" (Washington State Standard). In the Herrera Beutler–Sims debate, Washington State Labor Council president April Sims framed the fiscal stake: "I-645 'would give the wealthiest people in our state a $13 billion tax break and put investments in healthcare and education at risk'" (CPA Practice Advisor). The slippery-slope argument is the repeal campaign's core — "They're not going to keep it just for millionaires" — and is fed by real signals: Seattle Times reports some Democrats are already discussing expanding the tax (Seattle Times), which Gov. Bob Ferguson and other opponents have tried to wave off.
The revenue score, in dueling versions. The pro-tax coalition says "taxing the state's 20,000 highest-earning households could raise approximately $3.5bn in necessary annual revenue" (The Guardian, Oct 7); the prior cycle's finding recorded the DOR score at ~$3.1B/yr — the gap is a reminder to check which base and which year each figure uses. The Guardian also reports "recent polling suggests that the initiative is likely to fail," and quotes state Sen. Jamie Pedersen: "I think it's really significant that you do not see almost any major business that is aligning itself with the initiative 645 folks."
The litigation clock keeps running underneath the vote. Five of nine Washington Supreme Court seats, including Chief Justice Stephens's, are on the same November 3 ballot — the court that will eventually hear the Citizen Action Defense Fund's Culliton v. Chase challenge to the tax.1 Ballots mail October 16.
-
An instance of The wealth-tax vote no longer decides the wealth tax. — A repeal initiative votes in the same election as five of nine seats on the supreme court that will hear its constitutional challenge — exactly the concurrent procedural architecture this theme says now decides wealth-tax outcomes regardless of the measure's own support. ↩︎