WA Supreme Court will consider dispute over printing budget effects of initiatives on ballots
Temple of Justice the Washington Supreme Court building in Olympia, Washington. (Getty Images)
Washington’s Supreme Court will decide whether information about how three initiatives could affect the state budget will appear alongside the measures on the November ballot.
The court on Thursday agreed to take up the case against “public investment impact disclosures” – 15-word-or-less statements that are required by law to be printed next to ballot measures that are expected to change state revenue.
Republican Party Chair Jim Walsh and Mainstream Republicans of Washington Chair Deanna Martinez – both supporters of the three initiatives – sued the state last month over the statements, which they refer to as “warning labels.”
They argue the initiatives, which would significantly change programs that generate billions of dollars for the state, don’t fit the criteria to require the disclosure statements. If approved, the initiatives would end the state’s cap-and-trade program, repeal its capital gains tax, and make participation in a state-run long-term care program optional.
Last month, a Thurston County Superior Court judge ruled against Walsh and Martinez. They appealed, and now the state Supreme Court will consider the case on an accelerated timeline to have a decision before November ballots are finalized.
The court plans to deliberate over the case in a special, closed-door meeting with all of the justices on Aug. 9, using legal briefs filed by the parties.
The secretary of state says it needs all materials to be printed in the November ballot by Aug. 13.
A 2022 law requires the disclosures if a ballot measure repeals, levies or modifies a tax or fee, and if it would cause a net change in state revenue.
In their opening brief to the state Supreme Court, attorneys for Walsh and Martinez argue none of the three initiatives fit this criteria.
For example, they say, cap-and-trade lets businesses purchase allowances to offset pollution if needed, but it does not impose a tax. The long-term care program administers an insurance premium, not a tax, according to the lawsuit. And, attorneys for Walsh argue the capital gains tax should be considered repealed given a separate initiative that the Legislature approved earlier this year banning any tax on personal income. The state is still collecting the tax.
The state has until July 22 to file its response with the Supreme Court. In their argument during the trial court proceedings, attorneys representing Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Secretary of State Steve Hobbs and Office of Financial Management Director David Schumacher called the lawsuit “meritless” and urged the court to reject the “cynical attempt to keep voters in the dark.”
If the Office of Financial Management finds that a ballot measure fits the necessary criteria to require a disclosure statement, the attorney general’s office writes a short statement explaining their effect and sends it to the secretary of state for final approval by July 23.
The attorney general’s office has already submitted a statement for the long-term care initiative. It reads: “This measure would decrease funding for Washington’s public insurance program for persons requiring long term care.”
This article has been updated to clarify that the state Supreme Court will not hold a public hearing on the case.
The post WA Supreme Court will consider dispute over printing budget effects of initiatives on ballots appeared first on Washington State Standard.
