(The Center Square) – The Washington State Supreme Court on Thursday denied an appeal to a challenge for the Public Investment Impact Disclosure (PIID) statement to accompany I-645 on the Nov. 3 ballot.
I-645, backed by Let’s Go Washington, seeks to repeal the recently passed income tax on those who make more than a million dollars a year, or combined household income above that threshold.
Activist Arthur West challenged the PIID, arguing the statement crafted by the office of Attorney General Nick Brown was inaccurate and biased.
“Right around 3:30 today, the clerk issued an order denying the motion, but they said due to an equally divided court, the commissioners ruling is not modified,” said West in a Thursday afternoon phone call with The Center Square. “They said Justice Johnson, McCloud, Whitener and Angelis voted to grant the motion and issue an injunction. Chief Justice Stephens, Gonzales, Mungia, and Melody voted to deny the motion to modify.”
West said there was no mention of Justice Montoya-Lewis, leaving the court equally divided four-to-four on the issue.
“Given the court was equally divided on ruling as to whether the statute is unconstitutional to begin with is encouraging,” he added. “It’s disappointing when you don’t win, but half of the Supreme Court appears to believe that the law is unconstitutional, and the injunction should have been issued.”
For now, it means the PIID language will stand for the Nov 3 ballot, which states:
Opponents contend that this measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare).
Challengers argue it is factually inaccurate to say that money is being cut because you can’t cut something that doesn’t exist as yet, given proceeds from the income tax will not be collected until 2029, based on 2028 earnings, and lawmakers can divert proceeds to any priority of their choosing.
“I’m encouraged because this wasn’t a slam dunk,” West said. “Four of them thought that the injunction should have been granted.”