‘It’s coming for everybody’: Curley urges YES on I-645 after Supreme Court deadlock keeps disputed ballot language

The Washington Supreme Court split 4-4 last week on a petition to remove a contested disclosure statement from ballots for Initiative 645, the measure to repeal the state’s 9.9% income tax on household income above $1 million, according to The Washington State Standard. Because the court failed to reach a majority, the statement — which reads, “This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare)” — will appear on November ballots as written.

John Curley, host of “The John Curley Show” on KIRO Newsradio, had a blunt message for voters: don’t be fooled by what’s on the ballot, and don’t be fooled by the name.

“It’s an income tax. It’s not a millionaires tax. Don’t let them call it a millionaires tax,” Curley said. “That’s only to make you think it’s to get somebody else and not get you. Everybody knows it’s coming for everybody.”

Curley said recent polling shows 66% of Washingtonians believe the tax will eventually expand to hit all earners, a figure echoed by Let’s Go Washington founder Brian Heywood, who previously told “The John Curley Show” the polling flips decisively once voters consider whether the tax could eventually apply to them.

‘You can’t be cutting taxes that you didn’t already get’

Curley zeroed in on the disclosure language the court allowed to stand. He argued the statement is designed to scare voters into keeping the tax by implying repeal would strip funding from schools and healthcare, even though the tax doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 2028, and its first revenue wouldn’t arrive until 2029.

“It hasn’t been collected yet, so you can’t be cutting taxes that you didn’t already get,” Curley said. “You don’t already have the money, so it’s just this future thing. Plus, of course, they put in there K-12 education because people go, ‘Oh, we don’t want to cut that.’ But it’s not dedicated to that. The money was just going to go into the general fund.”

The Washington Policy Center has made a similar argument, noting that I-645 “does not cut an appropriation for a single school, college, hospital or health-care provider” and that only about 5% of the future income tax revenue has a fixed allocation.

Ferguson’s appointees split on the ruling

The 4-4 deadlock caught Curley’s attention for another reason: two of the justices at the center of the split — Colleen Melody and Theo Angelis — were both appointed by Washington Governor Bob Ferguson, who signed the income tax into law in March and has actively campaigned against I-645.

“Both of those justices were appointed by Ferguson. So isn’t it interesting? One goes, ‘Get rid of it.’ The other says, ‘Stay with the thing,'” Curley said.

According to The Washington State Standard, Angelis was appointed in March 2026 to replace retiring Justice Barbara Madsen. Melody was appointed earlier to replace retiring Justice Mary Yu after leading the Attorney General’s Office Civil Rights Division, according to The Center Square, which reported that both appointees’ ties to Ferguson and Democratic campaign donors have drawn scrutiny as the income tax litigation proceeds. Both justices face elections this fall to retain their seats.

Curley’s message: hold the line

Curley reminded listeners that Washington voters have rejected income taxes on 10 separate occasions going back to 1934, according to the Washington Secretary of State.

“Ten times they’ve come to us saying, ‘How about an income tax?’ And 10 times, we, the people of Washington, have said, ‘Nope, no thanks,'” Curley said.

He also flagged what he called the deliberately confusing ballot structure. Voting YES on I-645 repeals the income tax. Voting NO keeps it.

“It’s confusing, and the reason it is confusing is because they want it to be confusing,” Curley said.

KIRO host Ursula Reutin made a similar point in August, telling listeners, “I wouldn’t be surprised if it was intentionally confusing,” when she examined the ballot language.

Curley closed by asking why the ballot disclosure describes the initiative’s effects only from the government’s perspective rather than the taxpayer’s.

“What if they said, ‘If this goes through, the government will be taking more money from you — you’ll have less money in your bank account every single month’?” Curley said. “I think people would vote differently.”

I-645 will appear on the Nov. 3, 2026 general election ballot. If approved, it would take effect Dec. 3, 2026, according to Ballotpedia.

Watch the full discussion in the video above.

Follow @https://twitter.com/jcurleyshow