Skip to main content
The Full Record
Menu

Initiative Measure IP26-645: State and Local Taxes

Statewide — all of Washington

General election · Tuesday, November 3, 2026

  • Citizen initiative to the people: it goes directly to the ballot rather than to the Legislature. The Secretary of State's office completed signature verification in July 2026 and certified it to the November 3, 2026 ballot on August 21, 2026. It targets the 9.9% tax on individual income over $1,000,000 enacted by the 2026 Legislature in ESSB 6346, which takes effect in calendar year 2028.[1][2]

The question on the ballot

Initiative Measure No. IP26-645 concerns state and local taxes. This measure would repeal a 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1,000,000; prohibit taxes measured by individual income and taxes on individual income or the receipt of individual income; and define “income.” This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare). Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes / No[1]

The Attorney General's explanatory statement says the measure would repeal the annual 9.9% tax on individual income over $1,000,000 that the Legislature enacted in 2026 (ESSB 6346, beginning in calendar year 2028), eliminating the revenue that would have gone to the general fund (which funds K-12 and higher education, health care and other human services) and to childcare and early learning. It would also prohibit state and local governments from imposing taxes on individual income or the receipt of individual income, and taxes measured by individual income, and would define “income” and “individual” for excise-tax purposes. The sales-tax exemptions, business-and-occupation tax reductions and Working Families Tax Credit expansion that accompanied the 2026 tax law would not be repealed. The Office of Financial Management estimates a state revenue loss of $11,432,414,000 over five state fiscal years (including $377,000,000 that would no longer be transferred to the Fair Start for Kids account), partly offset by an estimated net $150,471,700 in state agency savings over the same period.[1]

A YES vote means

Repeals the 9.9% tax on individual income over $1,000,000 enacted in 2026, and prohibits state and local taxes on individual income or on the receipt of individual income, with state revenue reduced by an estimated $11.4 billion over state fiscal years 2027-2031.

A NO vote means

Leaves in place the 2026 law imposing a 9.9% tax on individual income over $1,000,000 beginning in calendar year 2028, and does not add a statutory prohibition on state and local individual income taxes.

The law today

Per the Attorney General's explanatory statement, the 2026 Legislature (ESSB 6346) imposed a 9.9 percent tax on an individual's receipt of income over $1,000,000 beginning in calendar year 2028, with a $1,000,000 per-household standard deduction (indexed to inflation from 2029) and a deduction of up to $100,000 for charitable contributions. Five percent of collections go to an account restricted to childcare and early learning and 95 percent to the state general fund. The same law also eliminated sales tax on diapers, over-the-counter drugs, grooming and hygiene products and certain software and digital services, reduced business and occupation taxes, and expanded the Working Families Tax Credit.[1]

Official fiscal estimate

The Office of Financial Management estimates the initiative would reduce state revenue by $11,432,414,000 over state fiscal years 2027-2031 (general fund, federal general fund and the Fair Start for Kids account; SFY 2029 $3.108 billion, SFY 2030 $4.432 billion, SFY 2031 $3.892 billion), including $377,000,000 that would no longer be transferred to the Fair Start for Kids account. It estimates net state agency savings of $150,471,700 over the same five years (mostly the Department of Revenue, $149,844,700) and no impact on local revenue.[1]

Read the full text of the measure ↗

Arguments made for

  • Argument for (written by State Sen. Chris Gildon and others): “Over the last 90 years, Washingtonians have rejected an income tax ten times because they knew it would threaten economic growth, discourage investment, and reach beyond the people originally targeted. This year, the Legislature enacted a new income tax anyway. I-645 restores your right to decide.”[1]
  • Argument for: “Supporters insist the tax is narrow, applying only to income above $1 million. But lawmakers rejected opportunities to permanently limit its reach, giving Olympia the ability to expand the income tax to everyone.”[1]
  • Rebuttal of the argument against (same authors): “I-645 repeals the income tax. Without I-645, Olympia can expand the income tax to reach into your paycheck with the simple stroke of a pen. No public vote and no permission required, any time they want.”[1]

Arguments made against

  • Argument against (written by Washington Education Association president Janie White and others): “I-645 is fiscally irresponsible, slashing billions in funding for education and healthcare, increasing taxes on 460,000 hard-working families, and jeopardizing tax cuts for thousands of small businesses.”[1]
  • Argument against: “This measure cuts funding for K-12 public schools, healthcare, childcare, and other important public services by $13 billion over four years. That means larger class sizes, higher costs for healthcare and childcare, and the elimination of free school lunches for many children.”[1]
  • Rebuttal of the argument for (same authors): “The Millionaires Tax only applies to those making above one million dollars per year. Any attempt to expand it to those of us making under a million would be decided on the ballot - voters always have the final say.”[1]

On record in support

  • Let's Go Washington and its founder Brian Heywood, who backs I-645 (KOMO News: the group said the Secretary of State verified enough signatures; Heywood: "Someone has to fight.")[3]
  • Vote Yes Repeal the Income Tax, the political committee registered with the Public Disclosure Commission in support of IP26-645[4]
  • State Sen. Chris Gildon (R-Puyallup), lead author of the official voters' pamphlet statement in favor, with small business owner Viet Nguyen, Jesse Proudman, Patti Mann and others[1]

On record in opposition

  • Gov. Bob Ferguson, who launched the No on 645 campaign with organized labor and said he would veto any legislative action lowering the threshold below $1 million[3][5]
  • No on 645, the coalition campaign committee (listing ACLU of Washington, AFT-Washington, League of Women Voters, SEIU locals and many other community organizations and elected officials)[5][4]
  • Washington Education Association (president Janie White wrote the pamphlet statement against)[1]
  • Washington State Labor Council (president April Sims, an author of the pamphlet statement against)[1]
  • Planned Parenthood Advocates of Greater Washington, listed among the authors of the pamphlet statement against[1]

Campaign money

Contributions reported to the Public Disclosure Commission for 2026 (open-data extract of October 19, 2026): Vote Yes Repeal the Income Tax (for) $2,040,595 through October 16; No on 645 (against) $12,269,815 through October 12; Millionaire's Tax Washington (against, an earlier committee) $243,799 through June 30. Largest listed donors: for, Madrona Venture Group, Lawrence Hughes and Steve Gordon at $250,000 each; against, Washington Education Association ($3.02 million) and Washington Federation of State Employees ($2.50 million). Totals are contributions as reported and exclude other committees that mention the measure among several ballot measures.[4]

Research notes & limits

The official voters' pamphlet does not publish a 'a yes vote means / a no vote means' statement for this measure; the yesMeans/noMeans text is derived strictly from the Attorney General's explanatory statement. The pamphlet's for/against statements are written by committees appointed under state law; the Secretary of State states it 'is not responsible for the content of statements or arguments' (WAC 434-381-180). Arguments are quoted from the Whatcom County edition of the voters' pamphlet; the statewide-measure pages (9-22) were compared with the Spokane County edition and are identical, and the Secretary of State publishes no separate English statewide edition. The campaign sponsor and signature count for IP26-645 were not confirmed from a source loaded for this entry, so they are not stated. The Attorney General's summary and the pamphlet text list the revenue figures as OFM's estimate; the argument-against figure of $13 billion over four years is the opponents' own figure and differs from OFM's five-year $11.4 billion estimate. Added October 19, 2026: current law and fiscal impact are from the official voters' pamphlet. Campaign finance is computed from the PDC open-data contributions dataset (cash and in-kind) and will have changed since. The sponsor of IP26-645 is reported by KOMO News as Let's Go Washington (founder Brian Heywood); the supporters list is not exhaustive, and opposing endorsers are as listed by the No on 645 campaign itself. Washington's voters' pamphlet already supplies three arguments per side, so none were added.

Sources · 5

Researched 2026-10-19. Green citations are official government records.

  1. 1.Voters' Pamphlet, 2026 General Election (statewide measures; Whatcom County edition) · Washington Secretary of State Official record
  2. 2.Secretary of State Certifies Candidates and Measures for November General Election · Washington Secretary of State · 2026-08-21 Official record
  3. 3.Washington millionaires tax repeal, I-645, will appear on November ballot · KOMO News · 2026-07-16 News report
  4. 4.Contributions to Candidates and Political Committees (open data) · Washington Public Disclosure Commission · 2026-10-19 Official record
  5. 5.Our Coalition — Vote No on Initiative 645 · No on 645 campaign Candidate's own words