In Washington, signatures were submitted to the secretary of state on July 2, 2026, for a ballot initiative that would repeal legislation establishing an income tax for certain households and ban income taxes altogether.
More specifically, the measure would repeal Senate Bill 6346 (SB 6346), which imposes a 9.9% tax on household income exceeding $1 million, effective in 2028.
At least 308,911 signatures must be verified for the initiative to be eligible for the ballot on Nov. 3, 2026. Let's Go Washington, the political action committee (PAC) supporting the initiative, announced that it had gathered over 511,408 signatures for submission.
Let's Go Washington, which sponsors the initiative, stated, "The income tax is not just a tax on 'the rich'; it is a legal test case designed to open the door to a broader statewide income tax. Senator Jamie Pedersen communicated openly with the Attorney General’s Office about how to get the Washington Supreme Court to reconsider longstanding income-tax precedent, and sidestep voters to pass his unconstitutional tax."
Speaking in opposition to the initiative, Larry Delaney, president of the Washington Education Association, said, "[the initiative] would take money from our schools and send housing and healthcare costs skyrocketing. It would take away funding from child care, raise taxes on small businesses and working families, and eliminate universal school lunches."
Senate Bill 6346
On March 30, 2026, Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) signed SB 6346, following decades of ballot measures regarding personal income taxes in Washington. Voters have decided on eight ballot measures related to a personal income tax, approving one and rejecting seven.
In 2024, the legislature approved an indirect initiated state statute, Initiative 2111, which prohibited the state and local governments from enacting a personal income tax. SB 6346 provided an exception for the tax on household income above $1 million. Let's Go Washington sponsored that initiative as well.
Opponents of SB 6346 were unable to file a veto referendum against the bill. Brian Heywood, founder of Let's Go Washington and hedge fund manager, initially attempted to file a referendum petition, but was rejected by both Secretary of State Steve Hobbs and the Washington State Supreme Court, which stated that the Washington Constitution allows laws to be protected from referendum campaigns if those laws support state government. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Debra Stephens said, "Consistent with the words of the constitution and our unbroken line of precedent, we hold that ESSB 6346 falls within the exception for laws that are 'necessary for the . . . support of the state government' and not subject to referendum under article II, section 1."
History of income tax ballot measures in Washington
The one income tax ballot measure approved was Initiative 69 of 1932, an initiated state statute establishing a graduated income tax ranging from 1.0% to 7.0%. Initiative 69 received 70% of the vote. On September 8, 1933, the Washington Supreme Court, in Culliton v. Chase, ruled that Initiative 69 violated the state constitution's clause that "all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property..." The court held that income is property under the state constitution, and because the constitution requires taxes on the same class of property to be uniform, an income tax could not have graduated rates.
The legislature proposed several constitutional amendments to address the court's ruling. In 1936, voters rejected SJR 7, which would have amended the uniform taxation clause to allow for a graduated income tax. In 1938, voters rejected SJR 5, which would also have allowed a graduated income tax. In 1942, voters rejected HJR 4. After HJR 4, the legislature did not propose amending the constitution to allow for an income tax until 1970, when voters rejected HJR 42. HJR 42 would have reduced the maximum property tax rate to 1% and allowed for a single-rate income tax, also known as a flat income tax. The legislature last proposed a change in 1973, when voters rejected HJR 37, which would have placed limits on school district taxes and authorized a graduated income tax.
Voters have also rejected two initiated state statutes after Initiative 69 of 1932. In 1944, 70% of voters rejected an initiative to establish a flat 3% income tax to fund monthly payments to the elderly, blind, disabled, and widowed. In 2010, 64% of voters rejected Initiative 1098, which would have established a tax on adjusted gross income above $200,000 for individuals and $400,000 for married couples.
Opponents of SB 6346 have cited the court's ruling against Initiative 69. Former Attorney General Rob McKenna (R) said, "Washington’s constitution is clear, and the courts have been equally clear for nearly a century — income is property, and progressive income taxes are unconstitutional under existing law."
Supporting SB 6346, state House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon (D-34), stated that "[Culliton] was a single Supreme Court case from before anybody in this room was alive, on a five-to-four decision that said income was property," and that "no other state in the union, nor the federal government" has shared that opinion.
Recent ballot measures to tax income of $1 million or more
Voters have decided on three ballot measures to enact a tax on income above $1 million since 2000.
- In 2004, voters in California approved Proposition 63, with 54% of the vote. Proposition 63 enacted a 1% tax on income above $1 million and dedicated the tax revenue to mental health services and programs.
- In 2022, voters in California rejected Proposition 30, with 58% voting against the initiative. Proposition 30 would have enacted a 1.75% tax on income above $2 million and dedicated tax revenue to zero-emission vehicle subsidies, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, such as electric vehicle charging stations, and wildfire suppression and prevention programs.
- In 2022, voters in Massachusetts approved Question 1, with 52% of the vote. Question 1 levied a 4% tax on income above $1 million and dedicated revenue to education and transportation purposes.
Additional reading: