🧵 They pitched it as a “millionaires tax”. Framing it as an “us versus them” populist “eat the rich” war on Billionaires. But they didn’t mean it.. and they didn’t say that when they wrote one another behind the scenes…
1
1
26
914
We can start with what they amended, ESSB 6346, Sec. 1101 amends RCW 1.90.100, the income tax prohibition enacted in 2024. The initiative driven prohibition they just passed.
1
5
139
Even so, we know about their intent because it predates the bill itself. Jamie Pedersen the Senate Majority Leader wrote about this goal in an email unconverted by public records request in 2018. In that email Pedersen discusses strategy for changing the constitution… without a vote.
1
4
125
In August of 2025, Pedersen opened a drafting request to Senate fiscal counsel Jeff Mitchell. As the Center Square published, In his request he puts the goal plainly: "I would like to force the Washington Supreme Court to reconsider its caselaw that considers income to be property"
1
4
101
In Dec, Pedersen sent the draft to the Solicitor General, Noah Purcell. "Here is the draft of the millionaire tax bill. I welcome your thoughts and comments about what will give us the best shot to have Culliton overruled." In my request they redacted it. TCS’s copy was not:
1
1
9
175
The Solicitor General and AGO worked in close coordination on the Culliton overturn strategy. Multiple PRRs (mine and The Center Square) show them openly discussing it. (Sample below).
1
2
73
On January 7, 2026 Zalesky advised against characterizing the tax as an excise, admitting it’s dishonest, and recommended teeing it up as a test case. On Jan 19, he sent a memo citing the goal as overturning Culliton, the 1933 decision that treats income as property.
1
2
69
So the design is on the record, in their own words. Not mine. They planned to: Pass the tax Exempt it from the just passed statute banning income taxes. Send it to Supreme Court to change the constitution (without the required votes).
1
3
49
Which raises the obvious question. If the goal was a court ruling that unlocks income taxation generally, what happens to the $1 million threshold afterward? Nothing in the bill protects it. A threshold is a number in a statute. The Legislature can change a number.
1
2
49
To use Senator Pedersen’s own words “with a simple majority vote.”
1
2
49
It’s worse than all of this though. Even though by this point we know they don’t care about democratic representation on this issue, voters made it clear how we felt when we signed the initiative to the legislature on income taxes in 2024, they went further to deny your voice.
1
2
48
We were never supposed to get a vote. The Solicitor General strategized about how to strip that right from voters with the drafters in the legislature. We made it clear in 2024, they passed it anyway and tried to make sure we didn’t get another chance to be heard.

Sep 19, 2026 · 8:33 PM UTC

1
2
52
Not only did they not want voters to be heard, they also suspended the 5 day rule on debate to make sure that even then they would not be heard.
1
2
53
The 5 day rule is the public's notice window. It’s the reason a hearing isn’t sprung on you. It is how a small business owner, a tax preparer, or anyone outside the building learns a bill exists in time to read it, write testimony, and show up. They made sure that no one could.
1
2
59
It didn’t stop there. Bob Ferguson appointed him and Senator Pedersen’s old work colleague, Theo Angelis, to the Supreme Court along with one of his former staff, Colleen Melody, knowing well the income tax violates WA’s constitution. If there was any hope that the Court would protect us, it died then.
1
2
62
They passed a tax they know violates the constitution that voters didn’t want, denied them a vote, denied them an opportunity to testify, collaborated when they are supposed to be checks and balances, and put Justices on the Court they expect to rule to change the constitution.
1
2
67
There are two things we can do to prevent this in WA still: Vote yes on I-645 And vote against Theo Angelis and Colleen Melody this fall.
3
58
Sort replies: Relevant Recent Liked