Washington's ballot budget warning survives, setting the template for tax repeal fights

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Lanese ruled that it is constitutional for Washington ballots to carry a statement describing how repealing the state's high-income earners' tax would affect the state budget, clearing the disclosure to appear in November ^[1][2]. The practical consequence runs past this one measure: the ruling preserves a format in which a government-written sentence naming the programs that lose money sits between a citizen initiative's description and the question voters answer ^[3][4].

The disclosure is one sentence. For Initiative 645, it reads: "This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare)." ^[5] Washington law requires the attorney general to prepare such statements for initiatives that would repeal or change taxes and fees in ways that could affect state revenue ^[3].

Arthur West, an open-government advocate, challenged the constitutionality of the disclosures as a category, not just this one, and argued the I-645 statement breaches the neutrality requirement written into the law itself ^[6][7]. Had he won, similar disclosures could have been kept off future ballots ^[8]. West's core objection was procedural: the state adds its own language to a citizen initiative after signatures are collected, verified and the measure is approved by the secretary of state ^[9]. He told the court that under the state constitution "the right to petition shall never be abridged, and this is exactly what's happening here," and said the state "altered what the completed petition says to the very voters it was gathered to reach" ^[10].

Lanese found no constitutional violation and held the language neutral under the statute ^[11]. His reasoning is the part worth filing away: "If we're looking at the issues of what's the biggest expenditures or most likely to be impacted, that's still a neutral way of presenting that." ^[12] Neutrality, on that reading, is satisfied by identifying the largest exposed spending categories, even though the resulting sentence describes only losses.

Deputy Solicitor General Karl Smith argued for the state that "hiding information about the fiscal consequences of an initiative that people are entitled to see on the ballot is not equitable," and said the statement lists the top three general fund categories most affected by a revenue decrease ^[13][14]. He also pointed to an existing state Supreme Court test for laws regulating the initiative process: whether they are "reasonably and substantially related to a legitimate government interest." ^[15] Smith noted the tax does not take effect until 2028 and produces no revenue until 2029 ^[16], meaning voters weigh a described funding cut roughly three years before the first dollar would arrive ^[17].

Two procedural facts matter more than the rhetoric. Lanese's order allowing the statement on the ballot cannot be appealed, though West said he would appeal his constitutional arguments the following Monday ^[18][19]. And a second suit, filed by Let's Go Washington, the conservative group behind I-645, which asked a judge to rewrite the statement as misleading, was set for hearing before Judge John Skinder the same day and was canceled after Lanese ruled ^[20][21]. The group condemned the dismissal, said its argument was separate from West's, and disputed whether the top three general fund categories are accurately identified ^[22]. Brian Heywood called it "a disgraceful way to handle a case involving the information millions of Washington voters will see on their ballots" ^[23].

Watch whether the accuracy question, as opposed to the constitutional one, ever gets litigated on the merits, and whether the attorney general's office applies the same top-three method to the next revenue measure that qualifies.