OLYMPIA—The legal wrangling over the four initiatives that Washington voters will vote on in November came to a conclusion on August 9 in the state’s high court. The Washington Supreme Court determined that information regarding how three of them may affect the state budget will appear alongside the proposals on the ballot.
In a two-page judgment, the justices upheld a lower court’s decision to reject Republican Party leaders’ efforts to eliminate the “public investment impact disclosures.”
Also on Friday, justices rejected a move by a coalition of unions and progressive groups to require the secretary of state to redo the measures’ certification by reconfirming that the hundreds of thousands of people who signed petitions were legitimate voters.
The Washington State Supreme Court denied two related challenges that would have prevented citizen initiatives to repeal the state’s capital gains tax, end its cap-and-trade program, make participation in a state-run long-term care program optional, and prohibit natural gas restrictions in new construction from appearing on the ballot.
Defend Washington and the Washington Conservation Action Education Fund, which filed the lawsuits, oppose all four initiatives.
In each case, the court issued a two-page order, stating that a complete explanation of its reasoning would be given later.
A 2022 legislation requires that disclosure statements of 15 words or less be included on ballots if a proposition repeals, imposes, or alters a tax or fee that would result in a net change in state revenue.
This language was drafted by state attorneys for the three measures that addressed the cap-and-trade statute, the capital gains tax, and the long-term care program.
State Republican Party Chair Jim Walsh and Mainstream Republicans of Washington Chair Deanna Martinez, who refer to the remarks as “warning labels,” filed a lawsuit in June to prevent their publication, alleging that the measures do not meet the law’s requirements.
A Thurston County Superior Court judge dismissed their arguments. Walsh and Martinez asked the state Supreme Court to hear the matter directly since the secretary of state’s office had said it needed to know by Aug. 23 if such remarks would appear on ballots.