A Washington state judge has ruled that election officials can attach a government-written warning to a November ballot initiative that would repeal a 9.9% income tax before it collects any revenue, according to a report published by Americans for Tax Reform. Judge Chris Lanese rejected a legal challenge seeking to block the disclosure, which tells voters that repealing the tax "would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare)." The tax doesn't take effect until 2028, with payments starting in 2029.

Initiative 645 would eliminate Washington's new 9.9% tax on individual and household wage income above $1 million and block state and local governments from imposing taxes on individual income. More than 511,000 Washington residents signed petitions to put the measure before voters. Open-government advocate Arthur West filed suit in Thurston County Superior Court against Secretary of State Steve Hobbs and Attorney General Nick Brown, arguing the state had no authority to attach government messaging to a citizen initiative after voters completed the petition process. West, who signed and circulated I-645, called the disclosure a "government edit to a document the government had no further authority to touch."

According to the report, Judge Lanese defended the disclosure by stating that voters considering tax cuts should see "both sides of the ledger" and warning of a potential "downward regressive spiral" in Washington's tax system. The ruling also preempted a separate legal challenge from Let's Go Washington, the group running the repeal campaign, which was scheduled to appear before the court later that same day to argue the language itself was biased. "We came prepared to make our case," Let's Go Washington founder Brian Heywood said afterward. "Instead, a civilian who does not represent us was invited to argue issues from our challenge, and then the court shut the door."

The report argues that the state-mandated disclosure violates neutrality requirements under a 2022 law that requires the Attorney General to use "neutral language that cannot reasonably be expected to create prejudice for or against the measure." The report compares the situation to Florida, where a judge ordered the state to rewrite the title and summary of a property tax measure originally titled "Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes" because the wording wasn't neutral and sounded like a political slogan. The report warns that once an income-tax infrastructure exists, lawmakers can lower the threshold, raise the rate, and expand the tax to more families, making the November vote a chance to stop Washington's new income tax before it ever collects a dime.