When Washington voters open their ballots this month, they'll see this under Initiative 645:
"This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare)."
What they won't see in that warning is when the money would arrive.
If it survives, the income tax applies beginning January 1, 2028. The first payments aren't due until April 2029. The state's own fiscal analysis shows no loss of state general-fund revenue from repeal in fiscal years 2027 or 2028. The tax hasn't collected a dollar.
Of course the state can project. Governments budget against projected revenue all the time. Repealing a tax can reduce the money available for future budgets before the state collects the first payment. OFM estimates that I-645 would eliminate approximately $11.4 billion in projected revenue through fiscal year 2031. That is a real consequence voters should consider.
But the baseline matters. Decrease funding compared with what?
Compared with the revenue the state expects to receive if the new income tax stays in place. That comparison does not, by itself, establish that a school will receive less money than it receives today. Nor does it tell voters which appropriations the Legislature would change.
The ballot gives voters the words "decrease funding" and names schools, universities, and healthcare. It leaves out the dates and the comparison that give those words their meaning.
Most of the income-tax revenue—95%—is destined for the general fund. The remaining 5% goes to childcare and early learning. The general fund supports education, healthcare, and many other state responsibilities. Repeal would leave lawmakers with less money than they expect under current law. What that means for particular programs would depend on their budget decisions.
Voters deserve that explanation.
The Attorney General did not invent this disclosure format. RCW 29A.72.027 requires it for ballot measures that repeal, levy, or modify a tax or fee when the fiscal impact statement shows a net change in state revenue. The statute prescribes an increase-or-decrease statement. When the impact is primarily on the general fund, it requires the disclosure to list the top three categories of state services funded by the general fund in the current state budget.
That explains why these services appear on the ballot. Their inclusion follows a statutory formula. It does not identify particular school or healthcare appropriations that I-645 would cut.
The same statute requires neutral language that cannot reasonably be expected to create prejudice for or against the measure. Yet the formula contains no requirement to explain when the revenue would be collected or distinguish existing collections from an anticipated new revenue source. The statute also caps the list of services at 15 words.
For a tax that has not started, that omission matters.
A fuller disclosure would tell voters that repeal eliminates projected revenue from a tax on income beginning in 2028, with the first payments due in 2029, and reduces the money available for future state budgets. Voters could then weigh that consequence against the cost of imposing the tax.
Instead, the official warning puts schools and healthcare next to the voting choice without explaining the timeline. In my view, that puts the state's thumb on the scale. The Attorney General followed the formula. The Legislature wrote it, and the Legislature can fix it.
Yes, the state can project. It can also tell voters what it is projecting, when it expects the money, and what comparison it is making.
That is a reasonable standard for language printed on the ballot.
Mailed ballots must be postmarked by November 3. Ballots returned to an official drop box must be deposited by 8 p.m. on November 3.
