By Jim Brunner
The Seattle Times
(TNS)
In Washington’s biggest tax fight in decades, voters were backing the state’s new high-earners income tax in Tuesday’s vote count, rejecting an initiative that would repeal it.
Initiative 645, the tax-repeal proposal, was trailing with 58% of voters opposed. The no” vote was bolstered by a huge margin in Democrat-dominated King County, where 66.5% of voters were against I-645. It also trailed in Snohomish and Pierce counties.
If Tuesday’s result stands, it would mark a tectonic shift in Washington’s tax code, ending the state’s holdout status as one of a handful without an income tax—keeping in place what backers called the “millionaires tax” passed by the Legislature this year.
Courts will likely still have the last word on the tax as a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality is pending.
Hundreds of thousands of ballots remain to be counted in the coming days.
The mood at the No on 645 campaign, at Seattle’s Reverie Ballroom, was upbeat as national results confirmed a good night for Democrats and liberal causes.
Speaking to the crowd, state Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, the prime architect of the tax, framed the historic vote as a long-sought win.
“For 93 years, we have been saddled with an anchor around our neck, with a tax system that is bad for working people, that’s bad for small businesses, that’s bad for just about everybody except for the 1%,” he said.
Steve Gordon, the trucking business owner who chaired the Yes on I-645 campaign, said supporters had expected unfavorable early results, but would “wait to see more ballot drops over the next few days.”
Echoing previous criticism of Gov. Bob Ferguson, who backed the new tax, Gordon added in a text message: ” Gov. Ferguson may have gotten the tax he wanted, now he’ll also get the economic results.”
For the repeal to pass, the pro- I-645 campaign would need to make up a lot of ground. Assuming the 64% voter turnout estimated by the secretary of state, the ‘Yes’ side would need to capture 62% of ballots still to be counted.
The outcome has major implications for the state’s finances as majority Democrats hope the new tax will bail out the state budget, while critics warn it won’t be enough and will inevitably be expanded to include people with lower incomes.
Ferguson, facing an enormous budget hole, signed the tax into law on March 30, enacting the 9.9% levy on annual household income above $1 million.
The tax applies only to the portion of income above that threshold, so someone making $1.5 million, for example, would owe the tax on $500,000, for an expected tax bill of $49,500.
It’s projected to raise $3 billion to $4 billion a year, with most of the proceeds dedicated to the state operating budget, though lawmakers also directed hundreds of millions to limited tax relief for residents and businesses. Collections are slated to begin in 2029, based on 2028 income.
Approximately 25,000 state residents are expected to owe the tax.
The political fight over I-645 broke down largely along partisan and ideological lines, with Democrats and labor allies opposing it, and Republicans and many business owners supporting it.
The pro- I-645 campaign, bankrolled by Redmond hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, submitted more than 500,000 signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.
The Yes on I-645 campaign was outgunned financially, raising about $3.9 million mainly from several individual business owners, compared with $13 million for the ‘No’ campaign, which was fueled by big checks from public-sector unions that depend on state tax dollars for their salaries and jobs.
I-645 supporters argued the new tax will erode Washington’s historical advantage for business recruiting as one of nine states without an income tax. They trumpeted stories of business owners and wealthy retirees who say the tax is already prompting them to leave or consider leaving.
Initiative backers also warned the $1 million tax threshold will inevitably get lowered to pull in many more people. Some Democratic lawmakers have already discussed doing that, though Ferguson has vowed to veto any expansion.
Opponents of I-645 argued the tax is a major step toward fixing a regressive tax code that relies on sales and other taxes that disproportionately burden lower-income families.
The push for an income tax has struggled for decades against legal obstacles—and public opinion.
Voters approved a progressive state income tax in 1932 amid the Great Depression. But the state Supreme Court struck it down, ruling that income is property that must be taxed at a flat rate.
Since then, various governors and legislatures have proposed state income tax plans. They were slapped down 10 separate times by voters, most recently in 2010.
Backers of the latest tax gambled that the state’s increasingly liberal electorate would be more open to taxing the rich amid concerns over income inequality that has left billionaires with a record share of the nation’s wealth.
If the tax is upheld by voters, a last-ditch legal challenge could still block it.
A lawsuit challenging the tax as unconstitutional was filed in April, but it’s been essentially on hold until after the election. A new state Supreme Court, including the winners of five contested races, will likely eventually decide the new tax’s fate.
Hugh Spitzer, a retired law professor at the University of Washington, cautioned against easy assumptions about what the court may decide, saying the legal issues are quite technical.
“It is very hard to predict how any particular justice is going to rule, and anyone who thinks they know how various justices will rule is probably wrong, he said.
— Seattle Times staff reporter Paul Roberts and data journalist Manuel Valdes contributed to this report.
Photo credit: Funknendai/Wikimedia Commons
________
© 2026 The Seattle Times. Visit www.seattletimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency LLC.
Sign in to get access to this free resource, and all of our whitepapers and reports.
Download this content today!
Register Now Already registered? Click here to Log In
