Washington lawmakers could expand the millionaires tax without a public vote.

1. Pass Title matches the evidence

   The title says lawmakers could expand the tax without a public vote, and the evidence (ordinary statute, rejected referendum amendments, necessity clause upheld) supports that. The False rating fits the claim that voters always have the final say.

2. Pass No obvious contradictions

   Finding False, the answer that the Legislature can lower the threshold by majority vote, and the conclusion all agree. Dates and amendment outcomes match across summary, key points and evidence.

3. Pass Plausible justification

   The conclusion ties the False rating to the statute, the rejected amendments and the necessity clause, and it explains which facts would change the rating.

4. Pass Sources are relevant

   Each source's name and description match its cited claim: the voters' pamphlet for the quoted statements, the RCW sections for the deduction and exemption, the House and Senate amendments for the votes, the constitution, and news reports for the court ruling and the senator's remarks.

5. Pass Common questions answered

   There are four common questions. Each response addresses its question directly, including the slogan, the current vote, the senator's prediction and the intent point.

Coverage: I audited the article text, evidence items, method, objections, editorial note and source metadata as provided. I did not read source snapshots or the web. Every takeaway in the source payload is marked 'not yet checked', so none is established. I did not rely on any takeaway's accuracy and judged only whether the cited source plausibly fits its claim. The key points are labeled established, but they rest on those unchecked takeaways, so their accuracy is unverified here. I looked at the image and related-node metadata only for presence and did not evaluate them.