Washington State Millionaires Tax Lawsuit: Was the Whole Bill Built to Lose on Purpose?

The emails arrived in Olympia in the same manner as the majority of inconvenient records in Washington state politics: via a public disclosure request that was patiently filed, slowly responded to, and then quietly dumped into the public record. Internal correspondence totaling almost a thousand pages. A few mid-level lawyers, a senator, and the solicitor general. And through it all, there’s one concept that lawmakers don’t seem to be hiding anymore. They desired to file a lawsuit.

In the documents examined by reporter TJ Martinell at The Center Square, that is the section that keeps coming up. In an August 2025 email to legislative counsel, Sen. Jamie Pedersen, a Democrat from Seattle who sponsored the 9.9% tax on income over $1 million, put it simply. He anticipated a challenge to the bill. He desired a challenge. Additionally, he wanted the Washington Supreme Court to finally reexamine the 1933 Culliton ruling, which has maintained for 92 years that income is property and must be subject to uniform taxation under the state’s 14th Amendment.

Theoretically, a simple legislative majority could impose a progressive income tax on all state earners if Culliton were overturned. This lawsuit aims to open that door. Really, it has nothing to do with millionaires. It was never quite right.

Observing a bill being drafted almost backwards—shaped to invite scrutiny rather than to withstand it—is peculiar. The records show that the Attorney General’s Office commented on technical details, such as language that avoided a “marriage penalty,” and the lack of an emergency clause that would have prevented a referendum.

In an email from December, Solicitor General Noah Purcell pointed out the omission, pointing out that someone might attempt to compel a public vote. There is no subtle reading between the lines. Historically, the barrier has been voters. In 2010, Initiative 1098 failed by more than twenty points. For decades, they have consistently refused.

All of this is defended as normal by the AG’s office. According to a representative for Nick Brown, the framing of coordination is exaggerated, lawyers respond to questions from lawmakers, and every attorney general in Washington has done the same. which, in theory, might be accurate. Clients are advised by lawyers. However, it’s difficult to ignore how open the internal acknowledgement is in contrast to the public messaging regarding school meals and small business assistance when reading Senior Counsel Chuck Zalesky’s January email, which states that the “overall legislative goals” seem to be overturning Culliton.

The documents alarmed Jackson Maynard, whose Citizen Action Defense Fund filed the lawsuit. The AG defends the constitution, not legislative solutions to it, according to his limited and antiquated argument. A completely different question is whether the court concurs. Courts review earlier rulings. They don’t all the time.

The part that no one wants to express aloud is the ambient anxiety. Jeff Bezos relocated to Florida. Quietly, other affluent locals have followed. The state’s income tax ban was once referred to by Pedersen himself as a “pie crust promise,” one that could be easily made and broken. That phrase might end up doing a lot of work if the Supreme Court rules in his favor. Because the current threshold is 9.9% at a million dollars. There will be a legislature tomorrow.

It is not until 2028 that the Department of Revenue begins collecting. In other words, time exists. It’s time for the courts, for the politics to change once more, and for a potential referendum battle that is already entangled with the Secretary of State’s office. As this develops, there’s a feeling that the very wealthy won’t be the only ones affected. Seldom does it.