(The Center Square) – Let’s Go Washington has formally challenged the state attorney general’s recently released Public Investment Impact Disclosure for the initiative to repeal the state’s income tax, calling it “government advocacy masked as transparency.”
The PIID statement to appear with the I-645 initiative on the ballot states:
“This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare).
“It’s not accurate, because nothing is being cut from programs by voting yes for initiative 645,” said LGW spokesman Darren Littell in a Tuesday interview with The Center Square.
“All the funding is there. And the only thing that we’re cutting is an income tax, and its speculation as far as potential future impact,” he said.
According to LGW, the PIID misstates the top three categories of state services funded by the general fund in the current state budget and is therefore “inaccurate and misleading”.
Littell said the initiative to repeal the income tax will ultimately save the state money.
“It saves money for folks and, so the statement should actually be saying that this is going to increase funding for the general fund in Washington state,” he said.
In a press release announcing their official appeal, LGW Founder Brian Heywood noted the income tax will not be collected until 2029, so it can’t decrease current funding.
“You can’t cut money that doesn’t exist. The Attorney General’s PIID is not just misleading; it’s factually incorrect,” said Heywood.
Littell agreed with that conclusion.
“How can you possibly cut a budget that doesn’t exist, funding that doesn’t exist? But the PIID and the way that the attorney general wrote it, they were pretending like this tax has already been enacted. It’s been bringing in money for years. It’s just not the case,” said Littell.
As reported by The Center Square, a lawsuit was filed last week challenging the constitutionality of the 2022 state law that places an impact disclosure statement alongside ballot initiatives.
Arthur West filed the lawsuit July 24 in Thurston County Superior Court, challenging the fact the PIID statement appears with the initiative statement on the ballot, amending what voters were asked to sign petitions for to qualify the measure originally.
“The intent of this legislation is not to provide disclosure, as its proponents stated. The intent of this was to make it impossible for citizens to exercise the initiative power to cut government spending,” said West in an interview with The Center Square.
Supporters of the PIID argue voters need to understand the impact an initiative would have on the state budget.
“The law ensures voters receive information about initiatives they are asked to decide. We look forward to defending it,” wrote Mike Faulk, deputy communications director in the Attorney General’s Office, via email to The Center Square.
Littell pushed back, arguing voters are smarter than the attorney general’s office suggests.
“They want to keep the income tax,” he said. “Nick Brown has said this income tax is a good thing. And so, do you think he’s going to write a fair balanced statement? It’s clear that he has done everything he can to make sure that this is as damaging as possible to the initiative effort to repeal the income tax.”
The Center Square emailed Littell’s criticisms to the attorney general’s office on Wednesday and received a brief response.
“The disclosure statement is required by law and accurately explains the financial impact of the measure,” wrote Faulk.
A hearing is expected in Thurston County Superior Court sometime next week, and any decision made by the superior court judge can be appealed directly to the Washington State Supreme Court.
A final determination on what the PIID will state must be made before Aug. 21, when ballots for the November election must be finalized.