The “Emergency” That Wasn’t: Court Faces Key Test on Income Tax Referendum
There’s a difference between making a legal argument and putting the real strategy in writing. Some legislative leaders and the Attorney General’s office may have just done the latter, and now the Washington Supreme Court has to decide whether it matters.
This week, the State Supreme Court will hear arguments from Let’s Go Washington over whether voters can challenge the state’s new income tax through a referendum—a constitutionally-protected process that allows citizens to gather signatures and put a recently passed law on the ballot for approval or repeal. The income tax, passed by the Legislature and signed by Bob Ferguson last month, includes an “emergency/necessity clause” that blocks that kind of public vote, leaving only the more difficult option of pursuing an initiative instead.
But newly surfaced emails published by The Center Square Washington cut straight to the heart of the issue: There never was an emergency at all.
Leaked correspondence shows the chief architect of the income tax, Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle) was advised by the state Solicitor General to include the emergency clause not because of any urgent fiscal need, but to prevent a referendum challenge. In other words, the clause wasn’t about an immediate crisis; it was about stopping voters from having a say.
That revelation doesn’t just raise eyebrows—it undermines the entire legal justification for the clause.
Under Washington law, “emergency/necessary to implement the budget” clauses are supposed to be reserved for situations requiring immediate action to preserve public peace, health, or safety. Yet the income tax itself doesn’t even take effect for more than a year. If the revenue were truly urgent, why the delay?
Even more telling is the broader context: Income tax proponents in the legislature claimed an “emergency” to block a referendum, even as the policy they passed won’t generate revenue anytime soon. The contrast is hard to ignore—and it reinforces what the emails make explicit.
The involvement of the Attorney General’s Office adds another layer of concern. Lawmakers have their own legal staff, yet guidance here came from within the AG’s office on how to structure legislation in a way that could avoid voter review.
Former Attorney General Rob McKenna criticized that dynamic, questioning why the office would be involved in advising lawmakers on a strategy that appears designed to sidestep the referendum process altogether.
Current Attorney General Nick Brown responded to the emails this week, but largely brushed off the controversy rather than addressing the substance of what was revealed.
That may be difficult to sustain given Washington voters’ history on this issue. The last ten times an income tax has been on the ballot, voters have rejected it. Blocking a referendum isn’t just procedural—it’s a way to prevent an outcome some lawmakers may not like.
Which brings the issue squarely back to the court.
The State Supreme Court is not being asked to rule on whether an income tax is good policy. It’s being asked whether lawmakers can invoke an “emergency” they apparently didn’t believe in, for the purpose of shutting down a referendum.
The emails make that question unavoidable.
If the court allows the emergency clause to stand under these circumstances, it risks setting a precedent where “emergency” becomes whatever lawmakers say it is, regardless of reality.
And if that happens, the referendum process itself becomes something that can be bypassed whenever it’s politically inconvenient.
If the court rules in favor of allowing the referendum to proceed, there will be only a narrow window to gather the signatures needed to put the measure on the ballot. Thousands of Washingtonians have already signed up to help. You can get ahead of that effort now by pre-ordering your signature sheets here: https://www.letsgowa.com/request_sig_sheets
If there was never an emergency to begin with, voters deserve the chance to decide for themselves.