Public records show Washington’s millionaires’ tax crafted to overturn 1933 income tax ruling
Apr 20, 2026, 4:20 PM | Updated: 6:54 pm
A photo of the top of a form 1040 individual income tax return. (Photo: Tim Boyle, Getty Images)
(Photo: Tim Boyle, Getty Images)
Nearly 1,000 pages of public records obtained by The Center Square show Washington’s attorney general (AG) and Democratic lawmakers worked together to design the state’s new millionaires’ tax as a test case to overturn a 1933 Supreme Court ban on income taxes.
Among those records is an August 27 email written by Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, D‑Seattle, who sponsored SB 6346, which Washington Governor Bob Ferguson signed into law last month.
“I would like to force the Washington Supreme Court to reconsider its caselaw that considers income to be property,” Pedersen wrote.
Pedersen defends strategy, pointing to decades of laws challenging Roe v. Wade
When asked why he wouldn’t instead seek a constitutional amendment from voters, Pedersen told KIRO Newsradio that passing laws designed to challenge legal precedents is common practice.
“Between 1973 and June 2022, red state legislatures passed 1,381 laws designed to challenge Roe v. Wade. The practice of legislatures passing test case laws to challenge legal precedents they believe to be wrongly decided is very common,” Pedersen stated via email.
The Center Square has 988 pages of records, which include communications between the Washington State AG’s Office and state lawmakers. They discuss efforts to overturn a 1933 Washington State Supreme Court ruling that states a person’s income is their property. That ruling is known as the Culliton decision.
Pedersen said he made it clear to the public that the bill was designed as a legal test case to overturn Culliton, rather than simply a revenue measure.
“See almost every media availability that I did during the legislative session,” he stated.
When asked how he reconciles promoting the tax as funding for relief programs while internal emails suggest the primary goal was changing constitutional tax law, Pedersen responded that lawmakers wanted to do both.
He pushed back on the idea that nearly 100 years of rulings should prevent the Supreme Court from reversing itself.
“The 1933 decision was 5-4. We are now the only jurisdiction in the country to find that income taxes are property taxes,” he stated. “It’s always the right time to undo bad decisions by the Supreme Court that keep us mired in a broken, upside-down tax system.”
Washington AG spokesperson says office provided legal advice to lawmakers but took no policy position
A spokesperson for Washington State AG Nick Brown explained to KIRO Newsradio that the AG’s office is required by law to serve as counsel to the Legislature.
“In that role, we provide advice and answer lawmakers’ questions, as we did in this case,” Mike Faulk, deputy communications director, Washington state attorney general’s office, stated via email. “Lawyers routinely help clients who want to advocate for overturning precedent, which is something AG offices around the country get asked to do. Lawmakers request legal advice, and we are required to provide it.”
According to The Center Square, some attorneys in the state AG’s office, including Senior Assistant Attorney General Dan Jensen, recommended removing a marriage penalty provision in the bill so the legal challenge could focus squarely on Culliton.
However, Faulk said the AG’s office played no advocacy role in the discussions.
“There are some bills that the AGO supports by asking the legislature to pass them, such as AG-request legislation. That was not our role here,” Faulk stated. “We did not take any policy position in these discussions. Our role was to answer questions from the Legislature, which we did honestly and accurately. There is nothing wrong or even questionable about that.”
When asked why the Solicitor General recommended an emergency clause that could block voters from challenging the law, Faulk responded that he did not recommend an emergency clause.
“The Solicitor General stated the bill is not subject to referendum regardless of whether there is an emergency clause,” he stated. “It’s still not subject to a referendum without such a clause. But in the absence of such a clause, it would require court action to enforce the preexisting precedent that says bills raising revenue aren’t subject to referendum.”
Brown’s office said the state Supreme Court would ultimately decide whether the tax is constitutional.
RELATED STORIES
The millionaires’ tax is being challenged in court
The Citizen Action Defense Fund filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the new Washington income tax on high earners. The group has retained former Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna to lead the case.
“The Constitution is really clear and has been clear as interpreted by case law for the last 100 years,” Jackson Maynard, the executive director of the Citizen Action Defense Fund, told KIRO Newsradio. “You can have an income tax in Washington state, but it has to meet certain requirements. It has to be uniform, and it has to be capped at 1%, and the problem with the income tax that was passed by the legislature is it does neither of those things.”
Ferguson signed the bill into law last month during a public ceremony inside the State Capitol. The new law imposes a 9.9% tax on Washington households with more than $1 million in annual income.
“Thank you, thank you, thank you. We did it, everybody,” Ferguson said during the bill’s signing. “It’s been a long journey to get here, but, because of the hard work of so many folks, it’s a historic day for Washingtonians.”
McKenna has been quick to speak out against the governor‑supported tax.
“This legislature has systematically dismantled Washington state’s competitive advantages that have brought great companies here or inspired people to start their companies here, and all of that is going away now,” McKenna told KIRO Newsradio.
But supporters of the tax said it’s about fairness, not punishment.
“This is not about penalizing wealthy people, wealthy Washingtonians. It is simply asking for proportionality in our tax structure at a time when the gap between rich and poor has never been greater,” Democratic Senator Lisa Wellman said in February.
Republican Senator Chris Gildon argued during the legislative session that the bill would open the door for a tax down the road on the middle class.
“If this bill passes today, future legislatures can easily come back and change the threshold from $1 million down to $500,000 to $250,000; they can apply it to anyone that they want to,” Gildon said.
