Information about how much money three GOP-backed initiatives would cost the state of Washington must appear on the November ballot, where voters can see it, a judge on Friday ruled.
The measures to repeal the state’s landmark Climate Commitment Act and the tax on the sale of stocks and bonds as well as one that could threaten a long-term care insurance program require financial disclosures, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Allyson Zipp said in a ruling from the bench. The decision is based on a recent law that requires the state attorney general to spell out how funding would be affected by initiatives that repeal, impose or change any tax or fee.
Opponents of the measures, who said they would have massive impacts on the state’s ability to provide critical services, praised the judge’s decision.
“Their lawsuit had one inexcusable purpose: to hide the truth about the impacts of these initiatives from voters,” Aaron Ostrom, executive director of the progressive advocacy organization FUSE Washington, said in a statement. “They know they will lose if voters understand what these destructive, deceptive initiatives actually do.”
Emails left for initiative authors Jim Walsh and Deanna Martinez, who sued to keep the fiscal impact off the ballot, were not immediately returned. Walsh is the chair of the state Republican Party and a state representative from Aberdeen. Martinez is the chair of Mainstream Republicans of Washington and on the Moses Lake City Council.
The initiatives are just a few of the ones certified after the group Let’s Go Washington, which is primarily bankrolled by hedge fund executive Brian Heywood, submitted hundreds of thousands of signatures in support of them. Initiatives that would give police greater ability to pursue people in vehicles, declare a series of rights for parents of public-school students and bar an income tax were approved by lawmakers. Heywood did not immediately respond to a voicemail seeking comment.
Tim O’Neal, an analyst with the Washington Community Alliance, said in response to the decision that when voters don’t have all the facts, they’re less likely to vote and have their voice heard.
“The Public Investment Impact Disclosure law is important to building the transparency we need to increase voter trust and participation in our constitutional democracy,” he said in a statement.
Initiative 2117 would repeal the state’s Climate Commitment Act, which works to cap and reduce pollution while creating revenue for investments that address climate change. It raised $1.8 billion in 2023 through quarterly auctions in which emission allowances are sold to businesses covered under the act.
Initiative 2109 would repeal the tax imposed on the sale or exchange of stocks, bonds and other high-end assets, with exemptions for the first $262,000. Initiative 2124 will decide whether state residents must pay into Washington Cares, the state’s public long-term care insurance program.
Washington legislators passed a law in 2022 that requires descriptions of how much money initiatives would cost Washington to be printed on the ballot.
Walsh and Martinez claimed the law doesn’t apply to the three measures and asked the court to bar Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson from preparing statements on their fiscal impact and bar the secretary of state from certifying those statements.
But lawyers for the state said under the law, the public has a right to know an initiative’s financial impact.
Dr. Stephan Blanford, executive director of the Children’s Alliance, a nonpartisan child advocacy organization, said initiatives would give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires while cutting funding for education. He also said the initiative to repeal the capital gains tax would push the state’s education system further into the red.
“By jeopardizing $8.1 billion in long-term care funding, I-2124 will put more tax pressure on Millennials and Gen Z to pay for a tidal wave of state Medicaid costs for aging Washingtonians, and increase the cost of care for millions of middle income families,” he said.
The initiative to repeal the state’s carbon market, “would allow more pollution across Washington, devastate funding air, water, and land protection, and cut funding to prevent wildfires and investments in transportation,” he said.
