Leaked Emails from Attorney General, Legislators Expose True Plan Behind Washington’s “Millionaires Tax”

A bombshell set of internal emails confirms what many Washingtonians have suspected all along: the so-called “millionaires tax” was never just about the wealthy. Instead, it was designed from the start as the opening move in a much broader push for a statewide income tax—paired with a coordinated legal strategy to make it possible.

According to reporting from The Center Square, emails obtained through public records requests show that the chief architect of the income tax (SB 6346), Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle), was not only focused on passing the tax initially, but on laying the legal groundwork to expand it far beyond its initial scope.

In an August 27th email, Sen. Pedersen made his ambitions unmistakably clear, writing: “I’d like to start with a rate of 9.99%.” That single line cuts through months of political messaging. While lawmakers have avoided committing publicly to future rate hikes or broader application, the intent expressed privately tells a different story: this was always meant to be a starting point—not an endpoint.

That aligns with longstanding concerns that once a state income tax is established, thresholds drop and rates rise over time, eventually impacting far more people across the state than the narrow group initially targeted.

Just before the income tax bill passed the State House in March, Democrat legislators rejected an amendment that would have made it significantly harder to lower the income threshold and expand the tax to more Washingtonians. That decision raised eyebrows at the time—but in light of these newly uncovered emails, it was a clear signal of what was always intended.

The emails also shed new light on how the policy itself was crafted. Sen. Pedersen directly sought legal guidance from the Washington Attorney General’s Office on how to overturn longstanding constitutional precedent blocking a statewide income tax.

“I would like to force the Washington Supreme Court to reconsider its caselaw that considers income to be property,” Sen. Pedersen wrote.

That precedent—rooted in decades of Washington Supreme Court decisions—has consistently held that income is property and therefore subject to constitutional limits. Instead of working within those constraints, the emails show a deliberate effort by legislative leaders to dismantle them.

In another exchange dated Dec. 6th, Sen. Pedersen sent a draft of the bill to Solicitor General Noah Purcell, stating: “I welcome your thoughts and comments about what will give us the best shot to have Culliton overruled.” (‘Culliton’ refers to the Culliton state supreme court decision, a cornerstone ruling that has blocked progressive income taxes in Washington for nearly a century.)

The Solicitor General is not a legislative advisor—he is the state’s top appellate lawyer, responsible for representing Washington in court and defending state law, including the constitution, before judges. His role is to argue cases, not help lawmakers design legislation to overturn constitutional precedent. That’s what makes this coordination so troubling.

Lawmakers have their own legal resources, including nonpartisan staff attorneys tasked with advising on legislation that they rely on during the legislative session to craft bills. The fact that Sen. Pedersen appears to have bypassed those channels and instead worked directly with the Attorney General’s Office raises further questions about the intent behind these conversations.

The implications are significant. Rather than simply proposing a new tax, lawmakers were coordinating with the state’s top legal officials to engineer a test case designed to overturn constitutional protections.

This crosses a fundamental line. As Citizen Action Defense Fund Executive Director Jackson Maynard put it in The Center Square story, “The Attorney General’s role is to defend the constitution, not help the legislature find ways to violate it.”

That critique goes to the heart of the issue. The Attorney General’s Office is tasked with upholding the law as written—not assisting in strategies to sidestep it. Yet these emails suggest a level of coordination that raises serious questions about whether that line was crossed.

The revelations don’t stop there. The emails also show the bill’s “emergency clause—a provision meant only for true, immediate crises—was added at the recommendation of the Solicitor General.

In a Dec. 11th email, Purcell wrote, “I did not see an emergency clause. Without one, someone could try to subject the bill to a referendum. It should not be subject to referendum because it raises revenue, but under the Secretary of State’s longstanding practice, they only reject proposed referenda if the bill has an emergency clause, so someone would have to sue to prevent a referendum on the bill as written. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that.”

There is clearly no actual emergency here. The tax doesn’t even take effect until 2028, underscoring that this was not about urgency; it was about avoiding voter review.

That has major implications for the legal fight involving Let’s Go Washington. At issue is whether the emergency clause can be used to prevent a referendum challenge. If the court finds the clause was improperly applied, it could clear the way for voters to weigh in directly.

Taken together, these emails reveal far more than routine legislative strategy. They expose a coordinated effort to build, defend, and shield a new income tax: start with a narrow group, work with the state attorney general to overturn constitutional barriers, and use procedural tactics to limit voter input.

For months, supporters have framed the measure as a narrow tax on the ultra-wealthy. These emails tell a very different story—one where a 9.9% rate is just the beginning, and where the ultimate goal depends on rewriting the rules so the tax can reach far beyond its initial targets.

Washington voters have rejected income taxes multiple times. What these revelations make clear is that this latest effort was never just about policy; it was about changing the legal playing field and limiting the public’s ability to stop it.

And that may be the biggest bombshell of all.