(The Center Square) – The former law firm of State Attorney General Nick Brown, which is representing the campaign against an initiative that would repeal the new state income tax, sought to influence the attorney general’s office drafting of the ballot title and summary of similar initiatives earlier this year.
The law firm says it’s a common practice done regularly on behalf of clients, but Citizens Action Defense Fund Executive Director Jackson Maynard, whose group is a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the tax, told The Center Square “the concern here is cronyism. In what capacity was this law firm is acting?”
Under Washington state law, ballot titles and summaries are written by the AGO. Numerous initiatives approved by voters have later been struck down in court after the titles were found to be invalid, including Initiative 976 in 2019 and Initiative 2066 in 2024.
In the letters obtained by The Center Square sent March 20 and April 6, Pacifica partners Paul Lawrence and Kai Smith wrote “to provide input on the ballot titles and ballot measure summaries…for initiatives that would repeal the recently passed income tax on high income earners.”
“Washington is one of just nine states that do not tax income, and economists have consistently ranked the state’s tax system, which relies on sales and business taxes, as among the most regressive in the country,” the March 20 letter, obtained under state open records laws, says.
Senate Bill 6346, which was sponsored by Sen. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, imposes a 9.9% income tax with an exemption clause for anyone making less than $1 million annually. The state will start receiving revenue from tax in 2029 if it isn’t repealed.
After an effort to allow a referendum on the bill was rejected by the state Supreme Court, Let’s Go Washington successfully garnered enough signatures for I-645.
The Center Square reported in April that Pedersen collaborated with the AGO to design the bill so it would trigger a lawsuit that would “force” the state Supreme Court to reconsider the 1933 Culliton decision, which declared income to be property and therefore subject to a uniform taxation requirement under the state Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
The Pacifica letters urged the AGO to emphasize the purported fiscal impact to the state if the tax is repealed by voters.
“The fiscal analysis of the final bill may identify additional categories of fiscal impact that warrant inclusion depending on their relative magnitude,” the March 20 letter states. “As a result, your office may wish to consider whether other major programmatic or fiscal effects reflected in the final fiscal assessment should also be included in the title. We would be happy to provide additional input as those materials are finalized.”
On April 9, SEIU 775 Treasurer Adam Glickman emailed AGO Chief of Staff David Postman a follow up letter from Pacifica which states “thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the ballot titles and ballot measure summaries for Initiative Measures IL27-396 and IL27-939, both of which would eliminate, through repeal or amendment, the recently passed income tax on high income earners (“Millionaire’s Tax”), as well as prohibit income taxes more generally.”
The email subject line was titled “FW: legal + research connect on latest Millionaires Tax poll.”
“Hey David – as I had noted, attached are the specific letters we have sent in with specific thoughts and suggestions around the recent initiatives related to SB 6346,” Glickman wrote.
SEIU is one of the three main donors for the No on 645 campaign, which so far is funded entirely by public sector unions.
Postman forwarded Glickman’s letter to Solicitor General Noah Purcell, writing “FYI, in case you haven’t seen these.”
When The Center Square reached out to Pacifica for comment, Smith wrote in an email that this wasn’t the first time the firm weighed in on ballot language.
“Pacifica has provided input to the Attorney General’s Office on ballot measure language for many years and on behalf of a variety of clients,” Smith wrote. “Doing so is a standard part of our ballot measure practice.”
Deputy Communications Director Mike Faulk issued a statement saying the office will review input from all interested parties.
“The AGO’s longstanding policy has been to accept input on ballot titles from anyone who wishes to submit it,” he said. “Over the years we have received input from many individuals and law firms that engage with the initiative process. While we do and will continue to accept input from anyone, we make the final decision about how best to write ballot title language and meet our statutory obligations.”
However, former state attorney general Rob McKenna, who is involved the CADF lawsuit against the income tax, told The Center Square the letters were “obviously highly irregular.”
“I don’t think it’s appropriate,” he added.
McKenna said that when individuals tried to influence his office while crafting ballot titles, “my team would politely listen to him and do what we felt was the right thing to do.”
He added that the “thank you for the opportunity” remark in the April 9 “suggest they were solicited,” adding that the letters came from a law firm “who might very well up being the lawyer challenging the constitutionality of the initiative if it passes.”
Maynard said the AGO seems to favor one side.
“The AG office apparently reached out to this law firm to have them provide their opinion and yet didn’t afford the proponents of these initiatives the same opportunity to provide feedback,” he said. “The Attorney General’s role in crafting ballot titles is not to engage in a campaign either for or against the ballot measure. It’s to accurately describe the content of the initiatives so that voter have the ability to know what the measure actually does. And if what they’re doing is trying to skew it based on their political preferences and the viewpoint of the attorney general as to whether he wants the measure to pass or fail – that is an abuse of power.”
In a statement to The Center Square, LGW Director of Communications Hallie Herzberg wrote that “we have never sent a letter to influence the AG or ask they draft summaries a certain way. The only time we have is during the appeal process.”
During the lawsuit against the capital gains tax enacted by the state Legislature, Lawrence legally represented the Edmond School District in its intervention into the case in favor of the tax.
Although the court ultimately upheld the capital gains tax as an “excise tax,” Pacifica’s analysis of I-645 argues it would not just repeal the new income tax, but “likely repeal” the capital gains tax as well.
Pacifica’s filing in the capital gains tax lawsuit was referenced by AGO attorneys while crafting their 2025 legal memo to Gov. Bob Ferguson’s Office on the constitutionality of a high-earner income tax, according to emails obtained by The Center Square earlier this year. Purcell worked both on the legal memo as well the bill language on SB 6346.