A last-ditch legal effort nearly succeeded Sept. 3 to knock a statement off ballots that characterizes how repealing Washington’s new income tax on high earners would affect the state budget.

The state Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on Arthur West’s motion for an emergency injunction to prevent the secretary of state’s office from including the “public investment impact disclosure” for Initiative 645. Voters will consider the tax repeal measure in the Nov. 3 election.

Absent a majority, the motion was denied, ensuring voters will see the one-sentence disclosure — that West argues is government-crafted propaganda — on their general election ballots. 

West said he was “disappointed but hopeful” that the law requiring the disclosure statement will eventually be declared unconstitutional.

Justices Charles Johnson, Sheryl Gordon McCloud, G. Helen Whitener, and Theo Angelis voted to grant his motion, with Chief Justice Debra Stephens and Justices Steven González, Sal Mungia, and Colleen Melody voting to deny it. 

Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis was ill, and the court proceeded because of the time-sensitive nature of West’s request, a Supreme Court spokesperson said.

West is fighting to overturn the 2022 law requiring the disclosure statements to appear on ballots. He argues it is unconstitutional because it allows the executive and legislative branches to improperly intrude on citizens’ power to make laws via initiative. 

Statements are required for ballot measures that repeal, levy or modify a tax or fee, and if it would cause a net change in state revenue. State attorneys are required to write the sentence using “neutral, nonprejudicial” language.

West directed his attention to Initiative 645. It seeks to repeal the 9.9% tax on individual and household wage income above $1 million a year that Gov. Bob Ferguson signed into law in late March. The tax takes effect Jan. 1, 2028 and is projected to bring in roughly $3.1 billion in 2029, the first year of collections.

The statement for I-645 crafted by state lawyers reads: “This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare).”

West has argued that language is not neutral and it will cause voters to reject the measure.

The recent decision means the focus will shift back to the broader issue of the law’s legality. West said he is waiting to see if the Supreme Court will retain the case or require it to be considered by a lower appeals court.

West initially sought an injunction in Thurston County Superior Court to block the disclosure statement for I-645. On Aug. 7, Judge Chris Lanese upheld the statute, concluding that the state-authored statement “ensures voters are aware of trade-offs” and that, “There’s nothing unconstitutional about giving voters more information.”

West appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Last month, Court Commissioner Michael Johnston also turned West down, setting the stage for the Sept. 3 decision.

“The fact that four of the justices were in favor of granting a preliminary injunction augurs very well for the ultimate constitutional challenge because that is decided on a lesser standard than an emergency injunction,” West said.

This story is republished from the Washington State Standard, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news outlet that provides original reporting, analysis and commentary on Washington state government and politics.