(The Center Square) - A citizen who lost a court challenge last week over the Attorney General’s PIID for I-645 filed an appeal with the State Supreme Court on Monday
“I just got back from filing in the Supreme Court, a notice and statement of grounds for direct review and an emergency motion,” said open-government activist Arthur West in a Monday interview with The Center Square.
West is seeking to remove or amend the Public Investment Impact Disclosure for I-645, or halt the law requiring it.
The PIID is a statement that appears next to a ballot initiative telling voters, in unbiased language, what the financial impact will be if they pass the measure.
Challengers of the PIID for the income tax repeal initiative argue the impact statement, writted by the attorney general's office, is anything but neutral and they contend it’s factually inaccurate.
As reported by The Center Square, the Aug. 7 ruling by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Lanese rejected West’s challenge.
In what West described as an animated exchange from the bench, Lanese suggested that since initiatives on the ballot are not neutral, disclosure statements about the budgetary impacts are necessary.
“Nobody wants to pay taxes. But if we all just pretend that we don’t have to reduce any services as a result of those cut taxes, isn’t that not neutral? Isn’t that only showing half the picture to voters?” asked Lanese, raising his voice and gesticulating as he spoke.
“Isn’t that part of the reason we see deficits time and time again is because budgeting is broken, because no one wants to pay taxes?” added Lanese.
Lanese ultimately affirmed the PIID language from Washington Attorney General Nick Brown's office. The statement warns voters: "This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare)."
The argument from West was that it’s inaccurate to state I-645 will cut funding, when no money from the tax will be collected until 2029, based on 2028 earned income.
West said Monday he was shocked at how Lanese handled the hearing.
“Judges have an extreme amount of power. They don’t need to become upset. They just need to sit there and let people argue and come up with a decision,” said West. “And amongst all this, the constitutional issues were never addressed.”
The judge’s ruling against West pre-empted a separate legal challenge brought by Let’s Go Washington, the main campaign organization sponsoring the repeal initiative. They were set for a hearing Friday before a different judge, but it was canceled following Lanse's unexpected ruling.
“This was a disgraceful way to handle a case involving the information millions of Washington voters will see on their ballots,” said Brian Heywood, LGW founder in a Friday news release. “We came prepared to make our case. We had attorneys ready to argue specifically why the Attorney General’s statement is misleading and fails the neutrality voters are entitled to expect."
Darren Littell with Let’s Go Washington told The Center Square they were extremely frustrated to be denied even getting a chance to make their argument.
“They took something from another case [the West case] that I think was improperly decided and improperly given a choice to somebody who really didn’t have standing in what was going on. Instead of doing the right thing and giving us an opportunity to have our day in court, they just said ‘no thank you’,” said Littell.
LGW’s counsel characterized the Aug. 7 procedure as unprecedented and objected to having an unrelated, non-lawyer litigant effectively address arguments LGW’s own attorneys had prepared to make.
West told The Center Square that the way he filed his appeal is based on learning lessons from a similar failed attempt two years ago by GOP Chair Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen.
“When Republican party chair, Mr. Walsh, made a challenge two years ago, they [State Supreme Court] accelerated review of the hearing and held it on short notice. Then they told him that they couldn't grant him relief because he did not use the plane adequate and speedy remedy that existed of a declaratory and injunctive action. So, learning from that, I did exactly that...I hope the Supreme Court sees that too.”
West’s emergency motion request with the state’s high court includes the unusual tone Lanese took during the Aug. 7 hearing among reasons justices should grant the appeal.
Shasti Conrad, chair of the Washington State Democrats issued a statement to The Center Square via email just ahead of Friday’s hearing in Thurston County.
“Washington Democrats understand why MAGA mega millionaire Brian Heywood and his Republican enablers are terrified of voters learning the truth about their initiative to repeal the Millionaire's Tax. It would rip away universal breakfast and lunch for students, drain our state's coffers, and throw into doubt our entire tax system — all to line the pockets of millionaires and billionaires who treat Washington like the Cayman Islands,” wrote Conrad.
Littell with LGW says even if the PIID remains as written, he’s confident voters will see through the misleading language.
“It is factually inaccurate to say that money is being cut because you can’t cut something that doesn’t exist.”
