A lawsuit filed in Washington state is targeting the ballot language attached to a proposed initiative that would repeal the state's capital gains tax on high earners, raising a constitutional question about whether state-mandated fiscal impact disclosures unfairly influence voter decisions before they reach the ballot box. The case adds legal uncertainty to an already contentious measure that will appear before Washington voters this fall.
What Initiative 26-645 Would Do
Initiative 26-645, sponsored by Let's Go Washington, would repeal Washington's 9.9% capital gains tax on annual income over one million dollars and prohibit future taxes on individual income in the state. The tax, which the state Supreme Court upheld as an excise tax on the sale of financial assets rather than an income tax, has been one of the most politically divisive fiscal measures in recent Washington history. It has generated hundreds of millions of dollars annually in revenue that legislators directed toward early childhood education programs and the state's common school construction fund.
Under Washington law, the state Attorney General is authorized to add language to a ballot measure's official description after an initiative has gathered enough signatures to qualify. For IP-26-645, that required language includes a statement informing voters that repealing the tax would decrease funding for education and human services. That disclosure is what plaintiff Arthur West is now challenging in court.
The Legal Challenge and What It Argues
West, who says he signed and circulated the initiative petition, argues that the state law allowing the Attorney General to add fiscal impact language is unconstitutional. His specific objection is to the required statement telling voters that the repeal would cut education and human services funding, which he contends is not a neutral characterization and could influence voter support for or against the measure.
The lawsuit asks a court either to remove the funding-impact disclosure from the ballot or to block enforcement of the law requiring it to appear alongside the initiative. West's argument essentially holds that voters are entitled to reach their own conclusions about a measure's fiscal consequences without a state-authored warning embedded in the official ballot language.
Mike Faulk, Deputy Communications Director with the Washington Attorney General's office, said in a statement that the law exists to ensure voters receive information about initiatives they are asked to decide. "We look forward to defending it," Faulk said. Let's Go Washington, the organization that sponsored the initiative, and Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs had not responded to requests for comment at the time of reporting.
This is not the first time Washington's fiscal impact disclosure law has faced a legal challenge. In 2024, Washington Republican Party chair Jim Walsh and Mainstream Republicans of Washington filed a similar suit over ballot disclosures tied to three other Let's Go Washington measures. That challenge was dismissed on procedural grounds because it was not filed through the proper legal process. It is not yet clear whether West's suit will clear that same procedural bar.
What It Means for Whatcom County Voters
Whatcom County residents will be among the roughly five million Washington voters asked to decide on IP-26-645 if it reaches the November ballot. The county has historically voted Republican in statewide ballot measure contests, and initiative campaigns backed by Let's Go Washington have performed well in Whatcom County in past cycles.
The capital gains tax affects a narrow slice of Washington taxpayers, specifically those who earn more than one million dollars annually from the sale of stocks, bonds, and other financial assets. Long-term gains on real estate are excluded. The practical number of Whatcom County residents directly subject to the tax is small, but the revenue it generates funds programs used by residents across all income levels, including early learning programs that serve families in Bellingham, Ferndale, Lynden, and other communities.
If the lawsuit succeeds in stripping the fiscal impact language from the ballot, the initiative would appear before voters with a simpler description that does not reference funding consequences. Supporters of the measure argue that framing matters and that the current disclosure language tilts the playing field. Opponents counter that voters have a right to know what the fiscal effects of a repeal would be before casting their vote.
The Washington Secretary of State's elections office maintains the official initiative and referendum information portal, where voters can read the full text of IP-26-645, the current ballot language, and any court-ordered changes as they are made. The August 4 primary is the more immediate electoral event for Whatcom County voters, but the fall ballot is taking shape in the background. For related Whatcom County election coverage, see recent reporting on the 2nd District congressional primary and other contested races on the August ballot.
