Washington Initiative 645 (I-645): Status, Polls, Ballot Information & Tax Repeal Tracker

Washington Initiative 645 (I-645; on the ballot as Initiative Measure No. IP26-645) appeared on the November 3, 2026 general election ballot. Preliminary statewide returns show the measure trailing, 58.12% No to 41.88% Yes, as checked November 4. A YES vote would repeal Washington’s new 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1 million before the tax takes effect January 1, 2028, and would prohibit state and local taxes on, or measured by, individual income. A NO vote leaves the tax in place. This page tracks I-645 results, polling, litigation, official documents, and key dates.

Election results as of the Secretary of State’s November 4, 2026, 9:08 a.m. PST update: The Secretary of State reports 1,152,229 No votes (58.12%) and 830,106 Yes votes (41.88%). These preliminary statewide counts are not a certified result. Counting continues, and the outcome remains unofficial pending certification. Source: Official statewide results

What Is Initiative 645 in Washington State?

Initiative 645 is an initiative to the people that would repeal the income tax the Legislature enacted in 2026 in ESSB 6346 (chapter 238, Laws of 2026). It appeared on the November 3, 2026 general election ballot as Initiative Measure No. IP26-645. A YES vote repeals the 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1,000,000 and adds a statutory ban on state and local taxes on, or measured by, individual income (full text). A NO vote leaves the tax in place, effective January 1, 2028, unless a court strikes it down.

Current Status

Page updated November 4, 2026. Election results were checked against the Secretary of State’s official tally. Court-source verification dates are stated below; full court dockets were not rechecked for this update. Updated as events occur.

• Election: Preliminary statewide returns show I-645 trailing, 58.12% No to 41.88% Yes (checked November 4, 2026). Counting continues; these figures are unofficial and do not establish a certified outcome. See the official results linked above.
• Tax: The 9.9% income tax remains law; effective January 1, 2028.
• Revenue forecast: The Economic and Revenue Forecast Council’s September 25, 2026 review adopted higher collection assumptions for the ESSB 6346 income tax than the June forecast. Chief Economist Dave Reich now projects about $3.5 billion for the next biennial budget cycle and about $9.4 billion for 2029–31, up from the June figures of $2.7 billion and $6.9 billion. Those September figures are also above the Department of Revenue revision voters saw in the Initiative 645 fiscal impact statement (~$3.1 billion / ~$8.3 billion). The next official forecast is mid-November 2026. Ballot materials are not rewritten to match a later forecast.
• What I-645 would do: If approved, repeal the 9.9% tax before January 1, 2028; repeal the 2026 exception to the Initiative 2111 income-tax ban in RCW 1.90.100 and add a new statutory ban on state and local taxes on, or measured by, individual income; and — per the Attorney General explanatory statement — leave ESSB 6346’s accompanying non-income-tax credits, exemptions, and deductions in place. Broader statutory effects on other income-measured taxes (including capital gains) remain a separate open question.
• Tax litigation: Petter remains pending. Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment, and the hearing now appears on the Klickitat County Superior Court docket: plaintiffs filed a note for motion docket on October 7, 2026 (posted on X the same day), and summary judgment is set for February 5, 2027, after the election, before Judge Randall C. Krog. The docket entry lists conflicting hearing times. Hearing dates can move.
• Latest court development: September 3 — the West motion to modify was denied on a 4–4 vote (official order re-checked September 21, 2026). No later Supreme Court order in that matter was identified. The ballot disclosure remains as drafted; the constitutional merits were not decided.
• Polling: The latest statewide public poll, GBAO (Oct. 19–22; 800 likely voters; released by No on 645), found 54% no / 40% yes using the official ballot language, including the Attorney General’s funding disclosure. The campaign release provides the question and basic methods but omits weighting details and the full questionnaire. Like the other campaign-released statewide surveys on this page, treat it as a snapshot, not a prediction of the election outcome. Campaign-sponsored October polls of two congressional districts are not statewide surveys. All polls and wording differences: Initiative 645 Polls.

Campaign advertising, October 24: Supporters are circulating “Yes to 645 Gregoire”, an ad using former Governor Christine Gregoire’s remarks about state spending to argue for repeal. This is campaign advertising, not a new poll or an endorsement by Gregoire.

Planning posture: Plan as though the tax arrives on schedule; treat repeal or a court win as a potential benefit.

Pre-election history

Litigation Analysis

Ballot disclosure: August 20 ruling

On August 20, 2026, Washington Supreme Court Commissioner Michael Johnston denied Arthur West's emergency motion for a preliminary injunction in his appeal of the August 7 Lanese ruling upholding the Attorney General's public investment impact disclosure (PIID). West v. Hobbs, No. 105644-3. The order concludes: “Having reviewed the arguments presented and the circumstances of this case, and mindful of the public’s interest in finality with respect to the ballot, there is no compelling basis for interfering with that process in relation to the November 2026 election. The emergency motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.”

The order denied emergency relief only — it is not a ruling on the merits of West's constitutional claims. It did decide one thing squarely. The commissioner held that the superior court's order affirming the PIID is final under RCW 29A.72.028 and therefore not subject to further appellate review, reading that statute's finality clause the way Kreidler v. Eikenberry, 111 Wn.2d 828, 834, 766 P.2d 438 (1989), read the identical language in the ballot title statute. Walsh v. Hobbs, 3 Wn.3d 914, 557 P.3d 701 (2024), was distinguished as a case that did not involve RCW 29A.72.028. West's challenge to the dismissal of his declaratory judgment action survives, and the ruling expressly leaves two threshold questions open: whether that dismissal order is appealable of right under RAP 2.2 or a matter for discretionary review under RAP 2.3, and whether the case is retained in the Supreme Court or transferred to the Court of Appeals under RAP 4.2. What was settled was what voters would see. The disclosure appeared on the November ballot as drafted: “This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare).”

September 3: motion to modify denied

West moved under RAP 17.7 to modify Commissioner Johnston's August 20 ruling. On the afternoon of September 3, 2026, the clerk issued an order denying that motion. The Court was equally divided four to four, so the commissioner's ruling stands unmodified and the disclosure remains on the November 3 ballot as drafted. The publicly posted September 3 order confirms that Justices Charles Johnson, Sheryl Gordon McCloud, G. Helen Whitener, and Theo Angelis voted to grant the motion to modify and issue an injunction; Chief Justice Debra Stephens and Justices Steven González, Sal Mungia, and Colleen Melody voted to deny; Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis did not participate (a Supreme Court spokesperson said she was ill and the Court proceeded because of the time-sensitive nature of the request). Because the Court was equally divided, the Commissioner's ruling was not modified and the motion was denied.

A denial by an equally divided court decides nothing on the merits and creates no precedent. It leaves the commissioner's ruling in place. West has said the split shows that half the Court believes the disclosure statute is unconstitutional; that is his reading of an unexplained order, and a vote on emergency relief is not a vote on the constitutional question. What the order does settle is the practical point — the motion-to-modify route to the August 20 ruling is exhausted, and the ballot language is fixed for November 3.

Why the challengers have different routes to review

The 2022 PIID statute is unusually restrictive about review, and it explains the outcome here better than any account of the hearing does. Two provisions do the work. RCW 29A.72.027(4) provides that "[t]he language of the disclosure is not subject to appeal, except as provided in chapter 114, Laws of 2022" — that is, except through the one mechanism the same act created. That mechanism is RCW 29A.72.028, which permits any person dissatisfied with a disclosure to petition the Thurston County Superior Court within three days "requesting amendment of the public investment impact disclosure by the court," requires a decision within five days, and then provides: "The decision of the superior court shall be final."

Read together, the statute channels every challenge to the wording of a disclosure into a single expedited superior court proceeding and ends it there. Let's Go Washington brought exactly that kind of petition — it accepted that the state gets its sentence and asked the court to rewrite it. On the face of the statute, the sponsors have no appeal as of right, and no discretionary review either.

Limits of statutory finality

Until August 20, 2026, no Washington decision had construed RCW 29A.72.028. Commissioner Johnston's ruling in West is the first, and it reads the clause strictly: the superior court's order affirming a PIID is final and not subject to further appellate review. That reading is not the last word. A commissioner's ruling is not a published appellate opinion, carries no precedential weight, and was itself subject to a motion to modify by the justices under RAP 17.7 — a motion West made and the Court denied on September 3, 2026, by an equally divided vote. The ballot title cases therefore remain the best guide to how far “final” actually goes, and they leave a door open. In Kreidler v. Eikenberry, 111 Wn.2d 828 (1989), the court held both direct appeal and discretionary review foreclosed, but reserved that it may "in unusual circumstances, exercise our inherent power of review to determine if the trial court's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law" — a reservation reaffirmed in End Prison Industrial Complex v. King County, 192 Wn.2d 422 (2018). In In re Ballot Title for Initiative 333, 88 Wn.2d 192 (1977), the court took review by certiorari notwithstanding the clause; Kreidler later distinguished that case on the ground that it, unlike Kreidler, involved a constitutional issue. And in Parker v. Wyman, 176 Wn.2d 212 (2012), the court observed that "the legislature may not abridge the court's constitutional power to review lower court decisions by writ," and took review.

So the accurate statement is narrower than "no appeal": the sponsors have no appeal as of right and no discretionary review, but a narrow inherent-power avenue remains for a decision that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. That is a hard standard — "willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard of facts or circumstances" — and it is not a do-over on the merits. Commissioner Johnston’s August 20 ruling construed the finality clause itself, but no published appellate opinion has applied the ballot-title inherent-power cases to RCW 29A.72.028; the discussion above remains a reading by analogy rather than settled appellate law.

West's action is different in kind. He did not ask for the disclosure to be amended; he asked the court to strike down the 2022 statute as an unconstitutional intrusion on the article II, section 1 initiative power. A facial constitutional challenge to the statute is not a petition for amendment under RCW 29A.72.028, and nothing in the section purports to make the disposition of such a claim final. That is the best argument that West is positioned to seek review while the sponsors are not.

The dichotomy is not as clean as it looks, though. Contemporaneous reporting describes Judge Lanese as denying West's request to amend the disclosure or remove it from the ballot — meaning West sought RCW 29A.72.028-type relief as well, and obtained a merits ruling on the wording. To the extent the finality clause reaches wording determinations, it presumptively reaches that part of West's case too, whatever caption it was made under. His route up therefore depends on the constitutional count being severable from the wording ruling — which is precisely the question no court has answered.

Constitutional claims and wording challenges

Judge Lanese did not confine himself to the constitutional question. After asking West whether he was also challenging the ballot statement itself, he ruled on the neutrality of the language as well. That creates a plausible split on review: the constitutional holding is arguably appealable, while the wording determination — whatever case it was made in — may be a RCW 29A.72.028 determination and therefore final. Which characterization governs was the question on which West's emergency motion appeared to turn. The August 20 order denying the motion rested on the public's interest in finality with respect to the ballot; the ruling did not address the characterization question, which remains unanswered — and would matter again if West pursues review on the ordinary track.

These are PIID challenges, not ballot title challenges. Public investment impact disclosures "are not considered part of the ballot title under this chapter and are not subject to any of the legal requirements for ballot titles" (RCW 29A.72.027(7)). The ballot title and summary are not under challenge, and the window to contest them closed months ago.

The sponsors’ statutory argument

Let's Go Washington's petition was set before Judge John Skinder later the same day, and its attorneys were prepared to argue it. After Judge Lanese ruled from the bench at the earlier hearing, that hearing did not go forward: both campaigns agreed their challenges should not be considered in light of the Lanese ruling, and Judge Skinder did not reach the merits. The sponsors' argument has never been adjudicated — though it is worth being precise that the parties assented to that outcome rather than having it imposed over objection.

That argument was narrower and more technical than the press coverage suggests, and it was grounded in the statute rather than in politics. RCW 29A.72.027(2) does not permit the Attorney General to describe the fiscal effect in general terms. Where the impact is primarily to the state general fund, the description "must list the top three categories of state services funded by the general fund in the current state budget" and may not exceed 15 words. The sponsors' position was that the disclosure misidentifies those top three categories, and that a measure repealing a tax which collects nothing until 2029 cannot be said to decrease funding in a budget running through June 30, 2027 — indeed that repeal would leave more money available, by obviating a Department of Revenue income-tax enforcement apparatus. Whatever its merits, that is a statutory-compliance argument under RCW 29A.72.027(2), and no court has ruled on it.

In fairness to the court: the Attorney General's counsel raised the sequencing problem and suggested the ruling be deferred until both matters were heard; Lanese responded that his obligation ran to the case before him. The statute's compressed decision clock leaves a trial court little room to wait. Still, the shape of the outcome is worth noting plainly. The ballot-language outcome was resolved on a pro se petition, at a hearing the represented parties on both sides were not part of. That is not a criticism of the result, which may well be right. It is an observation about the record: there is no adjudicated ruling on whether the disclosure is accurate, only on whether the statute requiring it is constitutional and whether the language is neutral. Sponsor Brian Heywood has characterized the sequencing as "sort of a trap" and said the campaign is weighing ethics charges against Judge Lanese; those are the sponsor's characterizations, not findings, and the hearing is available on TVW for readers who want to form their own view.

Petter: challenge to the income tax

Petter v. State of Washington, No. 26-2-00073-20 (Klickitat County Superior Court) — the Citizen Action Defense Fund-backed challenge to ESSB 6346 itself — remains pending. Ten plaintiffs (Benjamin and Lauren Petter; Robert and Brenda Mercer; Curt Nuccitelli; Beatrice Gasper; the Ethnic Chamber of Commerce Coalition; the Yakima Klickitat Farm Association; the Building Industry Association of Washington; and the National Federation of Independent Business) sued the State, the Department of Revenue, and John Ryser as acting director. Plaintiffs are represented by Rob McKenna, Daniel Dunne, and Jackson Maynard, with Philip Talmadge appearing for the Ethnic Chamber of Commerce Coalition; the State by Peter Gonick, Noah Purcell, Charles Zalesky, Nicholas Brown, and Dan Jensen of the Attorney General's Office. A first amended complaint was filed April 27, 2026; the State answered May 15, 2026. Plaintiffs have since moved for summary judgment. They filed a note for motion docket on October 7, 2026, and the Klickitat County Superior Court docket now shows summary judgment set for February 5, 2027, before Judge Randall C. Krog; the docket entry lists conflicting hearing times. No ruling has issued and no injunction is in place. The January 1, 2028 effective date stands.

Planning note: No court has enjoined the income tax. Initiative 645 would repeal it if approved November 3, 2026; it does not expressly repeal the capital gains excise tax (chapter 82.87 RCW), though its broader prohibition on taxes measured by individual income raises a separate statutory question. Full planning posture is in Current Status above.

Key Dates / What Happens Next

October 2026 — Printed Voters’ Pamphlet delivery (SOS schedule); online measure materials already posted on the SOS proposed-ballot-measure page. Regional pamphlet PDFs are posted on the SOS voters’ pamphlet page.

October 16, 2026 — Ballots mailed to registered voters by this date.

October 26, 2026 — Last day to register online or by mail (mail must be received by this date). In-person registration runs through 8 p.m. on November 3.

November 3, 2026 — General election. Voting closed at 8 p.m.; preliminary returns showed I-645 trailing. Counting continues, and the results are not certified.

mid-November 2026 — Next Economic and Revenue Forecast Council forecast (last before the Governor’s mid-December budget proposal).

November 24, 2026 — County canvassing boards are scheduled to certify election results.

December 3, 2026 — Deadline for the Secretary of State to certify the general election results. These are future certification milestones, not completed certifications. Source: Official election calendar

February 5, 2027 — Hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in Petter, Klickitat County Superior Court, before Judge Randall C. Krog (on the court docket; the docket entry lists conflicting hearing times; dates can move).

January 1, 2028 — The 9.9% income tax takes effect, absent repeal or judicial invalidation.

Any time — A ruling or injunction in Petter. A decision there may be appealed, and the constitutional question can ultimately reach the Washington Supreme Court if the repeal measure fails.

Open — West's declaratory judgment action attacking the constitutionality of the 2022 disclosure statute is unresolved on the merits. The September 3 order does not dispose of it. Whether it proceeds, and on what track, turns on the RAP 2.2/2.3 and RAP 4.2 questions the August 20 ruling expressly left open.

Initiative 645 Polls

The table below summarizes four pre-election statewide polls of I-645 ballot language. Wording matters: DHM’s Version A (September) and GBAO’s October survey used the Attorney General’s actual funding sentence, which appeared on the ballot. GBAO’s June and July polls used an approximation written before that sentence was filed. All three GBAO surveys were released by the No on 645 campaign; the October release provides the question and basic methods but omits weighting details and the full questionnaire. These surveys provide historical context, not election results. Samples, methods, and disclosure of weighting differ. Separately, the repeal campaign released October polling from two congressional districts; those results are covered below and are not statewide.

Polling note, October 26, 2026: GBAO’s October 19–22 survey (released by No on 645) is the latest publicly released statewide I-645 poll we have identified (original PDF). The October 18–19 NMR Research surveys reported on October 22 covered only two congressional districts and are described separately below. Campaign-sponsored releases and resident panels are imperfect guides this close to Election Day — especially without full weighting details or a published questionnaire — and differences among statewide surveys are not characterized here as a demonstrated trend.

DHM surveyed residents, not likely voters; DHM’s write-up calls the results “a snapshot … not a prediction of the election outcome.” The September 29 Seattle Times report covers the DHM poll.

Additional September survey released October 26

On October 26, the Northwest Progressive Institute published results from an Emerson College Polling survey conducted September 3–8 among 500 likely Washington voters. After hearing arguments for and against I-645, respondents were asked how they would vote: 41% said Yes, 50% No, and 10% were not sure. NPI, which opposes I-645, commissioned the survey. Respondents participated online via text or an online panel; NPI reported a credibility interval of ±4.4 percentage points. These results followed a ballot-language question and the presentation of competing arguments, so they are described separately from the ballot-language results above.

October district polling—not a statewide survey

On October 22, Seattle Red reported that NMR Research polled voters in two congressional districts, Washington’s 8th and 5th, on October 18–19 for the repeal campaign, Vote Yes on 645. The campaign published a results document (dated October 21) and a press release (October 23).

These results, as reported by Seattle Red, used the official ballot language, including the Attorney General’s funding sentence. The campaign’s results document gives the same figures and reproduces the question wording. According to that document, respondents were likely voters drawn from the voter file and surveyed by text; only those who said they were certain or very likely to vote answered. The campaign gives margins of error of ±9 points in WA-8 (±9.5 in the press release and in Seattle Red’s report) and ±7 points in WA-5. Both Yes leads are within those margins.

Each respondent was then asked a second question: “If you knew Washington lawmakers passed a state income tax this year that will begin collecting money in 2028, would you vote to repeal it, or vote to keep it?” On that question, repeal led 67% to 19% (14% not sure) in WA-8 and 62% to 20% (18% not sure) in WA-5. That is not the ballot question. It does not mention the $1 million threshold or the funding sentence, and it was always asked after the ballot language.

These surveys were sponsored by the campaign and used small district samples. They do not establish statewide support or a statewide polling trend, and they are not comparable to the statewide polls above, which used different populations, methods and wording. The campaign’s own document says the two districts combined are not a statewide result.

Timeline

March 30, 2026 — Governor signs ESSB 6346, enacting a 9.9% tax on income above the $1 million standard deduction effective January 1, 2028, alongside a pass-through entity election, sales tax changes, and other provisions.

April 9, 2026 — Petter v. State of Washington, No. 26-2-00073-20, is filed in Klickitat County Superior Court: a complaint for declaratory relief challenging ESSB 6346 under article VII, brought by ten plaintiffs and backed by the Citizen Action Defense Fund, with Rob McKenna and Phil Talmadge on the plaintiffs' side. Cesar Lopez-Morales is admitted pro hac vice on April 20.

April 27, 2026 — Plaintiffs file a first amended complaint for declaratory relief.

May 4, 2026 — In Heywood v. Hobbs, No. 105220-1, the Washington Supreme Court holds, per curiam and without a recorded vote, that ESSB 6346 falls within the art. II, § 1 exception for laws "necessary for the support of the state government" and is not subject to referendum. The order decides referendum eligibility only — not the tax's constitutionality.

May 15, 2026 — The State answers. Nothing further appeared on the Klickitat County docket in the September 9, 2026 check (full docket not re-opened September 18; see Current Status).

July 2, 2026 — Let's Go Washington submits petition sheets for the repeal initiative. The SOS signature-statistics page lists 509,365 petition lines for IP26-645 (validity threshold 308,911).

July 2026 — The Secretary of State completes signature verification and certifies IP26-645 for the November 3, 2026 ballot (3% sample of 15,281; 12,936 accepted on the SOS statistics page — about 85% of the sample). SOS primary materials state verification completed “in July”; contemporaneous news reported a July 15 confirmation, but that day is not stated on the SOS pages rechecked here.

July 23, 2026 — The Attorney General files the public investment impact disclosure on the RCW 29A.72.027 statutory deadline. The same day, the Office of Financial Management posts its fiscal impact statement: an estimated $11.4 billion state revenue reduction over state fiscal years 2027–2031; initiative effective date December 3, 2026, prospective only; no local revenue impact.

July 24–28, 2026 — Three actions challenging the PIID are filed in Thurston County Superior Court: a sponsor action by Let's Go Washington contesting the disclosure as inaccurate and prejudicial (proposing substitute language stating the measure increases available general fund resources for 2026–27), a parallel action by the No on 645 campaign also seeking changes to the wording, and a separate action by Arthur West seeking an injunction barring the PIID from ballots and challenging the constitutionality of the disclosure statute itself. The two campaign cases were consolidated with each other; West's proceeded separately.

August 7, 2026 — Judge Lanese, ruling from the bench, upholds the PIID: the challenger did not carry the burden of showing the disclosure statute unconstitutional, and the language was found appropriately neutral. Preliminary injunction denied. The sponsors' separate statutory appeal, set for hearing before Judge John Skinder the same day, does not go forward; the campaigns agree their challenges should not be considered in light of the Lanese ruling, and no merits decision is entered. In a related proceeding, Judge Anne Egeler approves edits to the initiative's explanatory statement for the online voters' guide and pamphlet.

August 10, 2026 — West appeals the Lanese ruling directly to the Washington Supreme Court, filing a notice and statement of grounds for direct review together with an emergency motion.

August 12, 2026 — Reporting reveals that the Department of Revenue quietly revised its estimates inside the OFM fiscal impact statement: first-year collections of $3.1 billion rather than $2.7 billion, roughly $8.3 billion for the 2029–31 biennium rather than $6.9 billion, and roughly 25,000 paying households rather than 21,000. The household figure does not appear in the fiscal impact statement itself. The Department attributed roughly 4,000 additional households to projected income growth carrying filers above the initial $1 million deduction by 2028. That deduction is unadjusted for tax year 2028; section 316 provides a first inflation adjustment in October 2029, effective for taxes due in 2030. Its odd-year adjustment schedule and section 314’s annual-adjustment language create an indexing ambiguity discussed in the linked analysis. At that time, the June 2026 ERFC forecast still used the older assumptions; the September forecast was the first that could adopt the new ones. See Washington Now Expects 25,000 Households to Pay the Income Tax, Not 21,000 for the statutory analysis of the adjustment schedule and potential threshold drift.

August 13, 2026 — The Center Square reports, based on public records, that Pacifica Law Group — counsel to initiative opponents — wrote to the Attorney General's Office in March and April urging that the ballot title and summary emphasize the fiscal impact of repeal, and that SEIU 775's treasurer later forwarded a Pacifica letter directly to the AG's chief of staff, who passed it to the Solicitor General. The AGO says its longstanding policy is to accept ballot title input from anyone; former Attorney General Rob McKenna calls the contacts "obviously highly irregular." Context: there is no formal comment process on ballot titles (RCW 29A.72.060), input letters from interested parties on both sides are common, and the five-day window to challenge the title or summary (RCW 29A.72.080) closed months ago. No litigation has resulted; the ballot title and summary remain unchallenged.

August 20, 2026 — Supreme Court Commissioner Michael Johnston denies West's emergency motion for a preliminary injunction in West v. Hobbs, No. 105644-3. Short version: the PIID affirmance is treated as final under RCW 29A.72.028; emergency relief is denied; RAP 2.2/2.3 and RAP 4.2 questions on the remaining declaratory claim are left open. Full analysis below under Litigation Analysis.

September 3, 2026 — Washington Supreme Court denies West's RAP 17.7 motion to modify, 4–4; Commissioner's ruling stands and the PIID remains on the ballot as drafted. An equally divided order decides no constitutional merits. Vote breakdown and full analysis below. West v. Hobbs, No. 105644-3 (Thurston County Superior Court No. 26-2-04498-34).

September 14, 2026 — Status check: no new ruling identified.

September 18, 2026 — Status recheck. SOS / VoteWA still show Initiative 645 certified for November 3, 2026. September 3 West v. Hobbs order remains the latest identified emergency/modify action. Klickitat County’s public Petter page shows no newer hearing or dispositive order; full Odyssey detail was not re-accessed (see Current Status).

mid-September 2026 — Official voters’ pamphlet materials for IP26-645 are available on the SOS Proposed Ballot Measure Information page, including the Attorney General explanatory statement (which states that the accompanying non-income-tax credits, exemptions, and deductions are not repealed), the OFM fiscal impact statement (~$11.4 billion state revenue reduction over SFY 2027–2031), the PIID, and campaign arguments/rebuttals. Campaign arguments are advocacy, not statute.

September 21, 2026 — Status recheck through this date. Certification unchanged; no new West emergency/modify order identified; Klickitat public Petter page unchanged in substance (case + media-coverage order only); Odyssey still not re-opened.

September 25–26, 2026 — ERFC’s September revenue review raised projected income-tax collections; see Current Status for the figures and comparison with the ballot fiscal statement.

October 7, 2026 — Plaintiffs file a note for motion docket in Petter, setting their motion for summary judgment for hearing on February 5, 2027, before Judge Randall C. Krog. The hearing appears on the Klickitat County Superior Court docket.

October 8, 2026 — KING 5 and The Seattle Times host a televised debate on Initiative 645, with Jaime Herrera Beutler arguing for repeal and April Sims arguing against it. The recording is available through TVW’s debate replay.

October 9, 2026 — KNKX/KUOW reports renewed debate over broadening the tax, including lower-threshold proposals and Governor Ferguson’s veto pledge. These policy positions do not change the enacted law; see “Could the Legislature lower the $1 million deduction?” above.

October 26, 2026 — No on 645 released a GBAO statewide survey conducted October 19–22 among 800 likely voters, finding 54% No and 40% Yes using the official ballot language, including the funding disclosure (PDF).

What a YES Vote Does / What a NO Vote Does

YES: If approved, Initiative 645 takes effect December 3, 2026 and repeals the 9.9% income tax before its January 1, 2028 start. It also repeals the 2026 amendment that exempted the tax from the Initiative 2111 income-tax ban in RCW 1.90.100, and adds its own ban on state and local taxes on, or measured by, individual income. The Attorney General’s explanatory statement says the non-income-tax credits, exemptions, and deductions enacted with the tax, including the sales tax exemptions, the larger small-business B&O tax credit, and the Working Families Tax Credit expansion, would remain in place.

NO: ESSB 6346 stays law. The 9.9% tax applies beginning January 1, 2028, with first payments due in 2029, unless a court invalidates it. Court invalidation would not have the same effects as a ballot repeal; see What Repeal Would — and Would Not — Do.

If approved, Initiative 645 would expressly repeal the new income tax. It does not expressly repeal chapter 82.87 RCW, but its broader prohibition on taxes on individual income and amounts measured by income raises a separate question about the capital-gains tax. The constitutional excise classification does not by itself resolve the initiative’s statutory scope. See IP26-645 and the Capital Gains Tax.

Could the Legislature lower the $1 million deduction?

The $1 million deduction is set by statute. Lowering it would require further legislation, including addressing the existing restriction in RCW 1.90.100. The law’s inflation-adjustment provisions are a separate issue; see the analysis of sections 314 and 316.

In October 9 reporting, KNKX/KUOW described Rep. Cindy Ryu’s support for a graduated tax reaching household net incomes around $250,000, and Sen. Jesse Salomon’s willingness to consider a $750,000 threshold in exchange for property-tax relief. Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen said he personally supports a broader income tax but that the legislative votes are not there. Governor Bob Ferguson reiterated that he would veto legislation lowering the threshold below $1 million. These statements describe policy positions and do not change the enacted law.

Why is I-645 an initiative rather than a referendum?

When Washington enacted its new income tax (ESSB 6346, signed March 30, 2026), the Legislature included section 1208, which declares that the tax “is necessary for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions.” That wording tracks one of the constitution’s exceptions to the referendum power and was intended to prevent a referendum on the law. The act has no emergency clause; it took effect June 11, 2026, with some sections taking effect later. On May 4, 2026, the Washington Supreme Court held the act not subject to referendum (Heywood v. Hobbs).

Washington’s Constitution distinguishes between referendums, which allow voters to approve or reject legislation the Legislature has passed, and initiatives, which allow voters to propose laws themselves (Article II, Section 1).

The referendum exception limits only the referendum power. It does not restrict the people’s separate constitutional initiative power, which can be used to amend or repeal existing statutes. I-645 is an initiative to the people that uses that process to seek repeal of the income tax.

Official Documents

Ballot measure (Secretary of State):

• Full text of Initiative Measure No. IP26-645 (filed April 21, 2026)
• Ballot title and ballot measure summary (Attorney General, May 4, 2026)
• Public investment impact disclosure (Attorney General, July 23, 2026)
• Explanatory statement (Attorney General, July 23, 2026; the printed voters’ pamphlet text reflects court-approved edits; see Timeline, August 7)
• Fiscal impact statement (Office of Financial Management; see also ofm.wa.gov/ballot)
• Arguments for and against, with rebuttals (written by the campaigns)
• 2026 Certification of Measures to General Election
• 2026 voters’ pamphlet PDFs, proposed ballot measure information, signature statistics, and VoteWA initiative listing

The law:

• ESSB 6346, chapter 238, Laws of 2026 (session law)
• RCW 1.90.100 (Initiative 2111 personal income tax prohibition, as amended in 2026)
• Wash. Const. art. II, § 1 (initiative power; effective date of approved measures)

Courts:

• West v. Hobbs, No. 105644-3: August 20, 2026 commissioner’s ruling; September 3, 2026 order
• Petter v. State of Washington, No. 26-2-00073-20: Klickitat County case-information page

What Repeal Would — and Would Not — Do

One asymmetry deserves attention, and it turns on the exact wording of ESSB 6346's null-and-void clause. Section 1202 of the act (chapter 238, Laws of 2026) reads in full:

NULL AND VOID. If a court of final jurisdiction invalidates section 201 of this act, sections 1 through 1003 and 1201 through 1209 of this act are null and void in its entirety.

Two features matter. First, the trigger is judicial: the clause fires only if a court of final jurisdiction invalidates section 201 — the section imposing the tax. Repeal by initiative is not a court invalidating section 201, and Initiative 645's repeal list does not include section 1202. Ballot repeal therefore does not trigger the clause at all.

Second, the reach is broader than the tax and the Part X sales-tax provisions. The void list runs to sections 1 through 1003 and sections 1201 through 1209 — a range that includes section 1203, which creates the new Title 82A RCW the act builds the tax into. So a successful constitutional challenge does not simply delete the tax; it unwinds a substantial block of collateral provisions that a ballot repeal would leave standing.

Provisions affected by court invalidation

The void list is worth reading against the act's structure, because the collateral damage is substantial and almost entirely consists of tax relief:

• Part IX (sections 901 through 911) — the relief package. The working families' tax credit expansion; the retail sales and use tax exemptions for grooming and hygiene products, diapers, and over-the-counter drugs; the increase in the small business B&O credit from $55 to $125 per month (and from $160 to $375 for service-rate taxpayers); and the increase in the no-return-required threshold from $125,000 to $250,000. All of it takes effect January 1, 2029. All of it is inside the void list.
• Part X (sections 1001 through 1003) — the 2029 rollback of the service taxes. These sections amend RCW 82.04.050 and 82.04.192, effective January 1, 2029, to pull information technology services, custom website development, investigation and security services, temporary staffing, live presentations, and custom software and customization back out of the retail sales tax base — undoing much of what ESSB 5814 did in 2025. Inside the void list.
• Section 1201 — the Initiative 2111 carve-out. Section 1201 amends RCW 1.90.100, the I-2111 statutory ban on personal income taxes, to except the new tax "so long as the standard deduction is at least $1,000,000 for a household" — the operative sections use the individual: §314 gives $1,000,000 per individual, shared by spouses and registered domestic partners, and the word otherwise appears only in the §1 intent findings. Inside the void list, so the ban would be restored without the exception.
• Section 1208 — the necessity declaration on which the Supreme Court relied in Heywood v. Hobbs to hold the act exempt from referendum. Also inside the void list.

Service taxes that survive court invalidation

Part XI (sections 1101 through 1106) sits outside the void list, and section 1107 puts the point beyond doubt: "If any provisions of sections 1 through 911 of this act or their application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, sections 1101 through 1106 of this act or the application of their provisions to other persons or circumstances is not affected."

It would be natural to assume Part XI is a second copy of the relief. It is not. Part XI is captioned "clarifying applicability of recent changes to sales and use taxes," took effect July 1, 2026, and amends the same statutes as Part X in the opposite direction — it retains information technology services, custom website development, investigation and security, temporary staffing, advertising, and live presentations in the retail sales tax base, adding only narrow exemptions for public libraries and K-12 schools and a handful of live-presentation carve-outs. The result is that a court invalidation leaves the service taxes standing under Part XI while erasing the Part X provisions that would have repealed them in 2029.

So the asymmetry is sharper than a first reading suggests. Repeal at the ballot does not trigger section 1202 at all, and Parts IX, X, and XI all survive — the relief arrives on schedule and the service taxes come back out of the base in 2029. Invalidation in court takes the tax and the relief together, leaves the expanded sales tax on services in place, and restores the I-2111 ban without its carve-out. Two routes to the same headline; materially different law behind them.

For what the tax means if it survives, start with the Washington income tax guide, the capital gains tax guide, and the domicile change checklist.

Update Log

August 12, 2026 — Page launched. Current through the West appeal to the Washington Supreme Court.

August 13, 2026 — Added The Center Square's report on ballot title input letters to the Attorney General's Office, with statutory context on the ballot title process.

August 14, 2026 — Added filing details for the West appeal: notice and statement of grounds for direct review plus an emergency motion, filed August 10. No Supreme Court action as of this update.

August 18, 2026 — Clarified that the sponsors' statutory challenge to the disclosure was never decided on the merits, and that the August 7 ruling addressed the constitutionality of the disclosure statute and the neutrality of the language, not the sponsors' accuracy argument. No Supreme Court order as of this update.

August 18, 2026 (second update) — Added the statutory analysis of why the sponsors have no appeal from the August 7 ruling while West does, based on the text of RCW 29A.72.027(4) and RCW 29A.72.028, and identified the sponsors' unheard argument as a compliance question under RCW 29A.72.027(2).

August 18, 2026 (correction) — An earlier version of the second update stated flatly that the sponsors have no appeal. That overstated the law. Kreidler v. Eikenberry, 111 Wn.2d 828 (1989), construing the identical finality language in the ballot title statute, reserves a narrow inherent-power review for decisions that are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and the Supreme Court has taken review notwithstanding the clause in other cases. No Washington decision construes RCW 29A.72.028 at all. Corrected, and the authority level is now stated. Also corrected: three PIID actions were filed rather than two; the Skinder hearing did not go forward by agreement of the campaigns rather than by unilateral cancellation; the unsourced August 21 ballot deadline has been removed; and "unanimously" has been dropped from the May 4 entry, the order being per curiam without a recorded vote.

August 18, 2026 (third update) — Corrected the null-and-void discussion. Earlier versions stated that court invalidation voids "sections 1–1003." The actual text of section 1202 voids "sections 1 through 1003 and 1201 through 1209." Section 1202 is now quoted in full, verified against the enrolled session law. Also flagged an open question about whether sections 1101 through 1106, which sit outside the void list, independently preserve some sales-tax relief.

August 19, 2026 — Part XI question resolved against the hypothesis that prompted it. Sections 1101 through 1106 do not duplicate the Part X relief; they are the provisions that keep services in the sales tax base, effective July 1, 2026, and section 1107 expressly preserves them from invalidation of sections 1 through 911. Court invalidation therefore destroys the 2029 relief while leaving the service taxes standing. The null-and-void discussion has been expanded to itemize what falls, verified against the enrolled session law.

August 21, 2026 — Added the Supreme Court’s August 20 order denying West’s emergency motion for a preliminary injunction. Status, What’s Next, timeline, and analysis sections updated; the open question of review on the ordinary track is noted.

August 23, 2026 — Obtained the text of the August 20 ruling, West v. Hobbs, No. 105644-3 (Comm'r Johnston). Status, timeline, and finality analysis updated to reflect the actual holding — that the superior court's PIID affirmance is final under RCW 29A.72.028 — and to correct the earlier statement that the order's treatment of the direct review request was unknown. It leaves the RAP 2.2/2.3 and RAP 4.2 questions open. Underlying trial court case: Thurston County Superior Court No. 26-2-04498-34.

September 4, 2026 — Added the Washington Supreme Court's September 3, 2026 order denying West's RAP 17.7 motion to modify Commissioner Johnston's August 20 ruling. The Court was equally divided four to four; the ruling stands unmodified and the disclosure remains on the ballot as drafted. Status, timeline, and What's Next updated. Corrected the statement that the August 20 ruling remained subject to a motion to modify — that motion was made and denied, and that path is now exhausted. The vote breakdown is confirmed by the Court's publicly posted September 3 order. West's declaratory judgment action on the statute's constitutionality remains open.

September 9, 2026 — Checked the constitutional-litigation entries against the Klickitat County docket. The case is captioned Petter v. State of Washington, No. 26-2-00073-20; the Citizen Action Defense Fund is not a named party. Added the parties, counsel of record, the April 27 first amended complaint, and the May 15 answer. No dispositive motion, case schedule order, or hearing appears on the docket.

September 14, 2026 — Presentation cleanup (status summary, analysis order, timeline order). Replaced news-reporting qualifications for the September 3 vote breakdown with the Court’s publicly posted order. Status through the September 9 Petter docket check.

September 18, 2026 — Status recheck. Advanced the Status checked date for sources actually re-read: SOS / VoteWA certification pages and the September 3 West order. Disclosed the Petter Odyssey access gap. Shortened August 20 and September 3 timeline entries so the full appellate analysis appears once in Litigation Analysis. Trimmed repeated status language in the update log.

September 21, 2026 — Freshness pass through September 21. Advanced Status checked; confirmed certification on SOS/VoteWA; noted official voters’ pamphlet materials now posted; sharpened What’s Next (ERFC September 25; printed pamphlet early October). Softened the July 15 signature-certification day to “July 2026” where SOS primary text supports only the month, and aligned submitted-signature figures to the SOS statistics page (509,365 lines). Rechecked Klickitat public Petter page and the September 3 West order; Odyssey gap unchanged.

September 27, 2026 — Recorded the September 25 ERFC revenue review: higher assumed ESSB 6346 collections ($3.5B / $9.4B vs June $2.7B / $6.9B; FIS still shows DOR ~$3.1B / ~$8.3B). Added mid-November forecast to What’s Next. Status checked through September 27. No new Petter or West order identified in this pass.

October 5, 2026 — Added the September 29 Seattle Times / DHM Research poll on I-645 with and without the fiscal-impact ballot language (57–35 against with the language; 44–40 against without). Status checked through October 5.

October 6, 2026 — Restructured for readers: added a short summary, an at-a-glance table, a polls section (adding the June and July GBAO polls released by the No on 645 campaign), a YES/NO section, an official-documents list, and verified election dates. Existing analysis was moved, not removed. Clarified that I-645 enacts its own statutory ban and repeals the 2026 exception to RCW 1.90.100, and that the small-business relief is a B&O tax credit.

October 7, 2026 — Added the February 5, 2027 summary judgment hearing in Petter, from the plaintiffs’ note for motion docket as posted on X. Not yet confirmed on the court docket.

October 8, 2026 — Confirmed the February 5, 2027 summary judgment hearing in Petter on the Klickitat County Superior Court docket: plaintiffs filed the note for motion docket October 7, and the hearing is set before Judge Randall C. Krog. Removed the 1:30 p.m. time because the docket entry lists conflicting hearing times.

October 14, 2026 — Added a prominent voting-deadline reminder, the October 8 KING 5 / Seattle Times debate replay, and an FAQ on proposals to lower the income-tax deduction, with October 9 KNKX/KUOW reporting and the Governor’s veto pledge. Clarified the August 12 timeline entry: the initial $1 million deduction is unadjusted for tax year 2028, but section 316 provides a first inflation adjustment in October 2029 for taxes due in 2030; the linked analysis discusses the indexing ambiguity. Existing court-verification dates are retained; full Odyssey and appellate dockets were not rechecked for this update.

October 19, 2026 — Added the Supreme Court's 4–4 split on the ballot-wording motion; the 'decrease funding' sentence stays on the ballot.

October 20, 2026 — Added a polling-check note below the polling table; removed a duplicate Current Status bullet about the September 3 ballot-wording ruling.

October 20, 2026 — Added FAQ explaining why I-645 is an initiative rather than a referendum.

October 23, 2026 — Added a subsection on campaign-sponsored NMR Research polling of two congressional districts (WA-8 and WA-5, October 18–19), with the official-ballot-language results, the campaign’s alternative-question results, and links to Seattle Red’s report and the campaign’s release and results document. Labeled DHM as the latest statewide public poll and replaced the October 20 polling-check note. Court dockets were not rechecked for this update.

October 26, 2026 — Added the Oct. 19–22 GBAO statewide survey released by No on 645 (40% Yes / 54% No on official ballot language); updated latest-poll references; noted omitted weighting/questionnaire details and that survey differences are not treated as a trend. Court dockets were not rechecked for this update.

October 28, 2026 — Added a separate Emerson College / NPI September survey note (released October 26; 41% Yes / 50% No / 10% not sure after arguments); kept those results outside the statewide ballot-language comparison table; revised the statewide-table opening sentence. Full West and Petter court dockets were not accessible for this update; existing court-verification dates and qualifications are retained.

Correction retained — ballot finalization date. Earlier versions stated that county election offices faced an August 21, 2026 deadline to finalize November ballots. That date is not sourced; the Secretary of State’s 2026 election calendar lists August 21 as the deadline to certify the August primary results. Reporting indicates the operative deadline for finalizing the I-645 disclosure was August 7. With the August 20 denial of emergency relief and the September 3 denial of the motion to modify, the disclosure appears as drafted. The motion-to-modify path is exhausted; the next event that changes what voters see is the election itself.

This page is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Reporters and practitioners: this tracker is maintained by Joe Wallin, a corporate and tax attorney at Carney Badley Spellman in Seattle. For comment or background on Initiative 645, ESSB 6346, or Washington tax policy, see the press page.