(The Center Square) – A Thurston County Superior Court judge on Friday upheld the government-drafted financial disclosure statement slated to appear on November ballots for Initiative 645, a high-profile measure seeking to repeal Washington state’s newly enacted income tax on high earners.
The ruling by Superior Court Judge Chris Lanese rejected a legal challenge brought by open-government activist Arthur West, who sought to remove or amend the disclosure or halt the law requiring it.
However, the unexpected procedural trajectory of the ruling abruptly pre-empted a separate legal challenge brought by Let’s Go Washington, the main campaign organization sponsoring the repeal initiative.
Lanese affirmed the Public Investment Impact Disclosure language drafted by Attorney General Nick Brown’s office. The statement warns voters: “This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare).”
Lanese pushed back against claims that the text constituted political bias, noting from the bench that disclosure statements ensure “voters are aware of trade-offs” and that providing additional financial context on ballots is constitutional.
“I was pretty surprised,” West told The Center Square. “Usually Judge Lanese is a little bit more laid back and I guess sometimes when you’re in court to argue for neutrality, sometimes you might not get the most neutral arbiter.”
The decision immediately drew sharp condemnation from LGW, whose attorneys were scheduled to present their own standalone challenge to the wording in court later that day.
In a news release issued after the decision, LGW leaders expressed outrage that their hearing was canceled after the court ruled on I-645’s disclosure during West’s separate proceeding.
“We came prepared to make our case,” said Brian Heywood, founder of Let’s Go Washington. “Instead, a civilian who does not represent us was invited to argue issues from our challenge, and then the court shut the door without giving our legal team the opportunity to argue the case for the people.”
“We will not quietly accept their lies and misinformation when they have made their true intentions with this tax plain,” he added.
LGW’s legal challenge centered on the assertion that the Attorney General’s impact statement is factually inaccurate and misleading to voters. The 9.9% income tax on those making $1 million or more was signed into law earlier this year, and is not scheduled to take effect until 2028, with initial collections beginning in 2029.
As reported by The Center Square, LGW representatives argued that because the tax has not yet generated revenue, repealing it cannot reduce current state funding levels.
Campaign spokesperson Darren Littell previously contended that the statement improperly treats prospective revenue as established budget funding and ignores implementation cost savings the state would realize by canceling the tax program before startup.
LGW also disputed whether the Attorney General’s statement accurately reflected the top three General Fund expenditure categories required under state law.
State officials have maintained that the disclosure is both accurate and legally mandatory.
Mike Faulk, deputy communications director for the attorney general’s office, defended the statement, emphasizing that the language strictly adheres to the state’s 2022 law requiring brief financial impact summaries for ballot measures that alter state tax revenues.
The legal mechanism behind PIIDs stems from a 2022 statute mandating a 15-to-21-word description detailing the primary budget categories affected whenever a ballot initiative alters state revenue.
Critics like West argued in court that the law creates “politically charged propaganda” and violates the state’s separation of powers by allowing executive agencies to influence citizen-led initiatives after petition signatures have already been collected.
West announced following the hearing that he plans to appeal Lanese’s ruling directly to the Washington State Supreme Court.
With county election offices facing an Aug. 21 deadline to finalize ballots for the November general election, any further appeals before the state’s highest court must move rapidly.
“They may have denied us our day in court, but they cannot deny Washingtonians their vote,” Heywood said in the release. “We will make sure voters know exactly what I-645 does, exactly what this tax represents, and exactly why Olympia is fighting so hard to keep it.”
Reporter Carleen Johnson contributed to this report.