Can Washington lawmakers lower the millionaires tax threshold? Yes, by simple majority

Five-second answer

Claim we investigated

Lawmakers can lower the $1 million threshold by a simple majority without a public vote, and they rejected amendments to require one.

True. The deduction is ordinary statute, and lawmakers rejected amendments requiring a referendum or a constitutional limit. The codified statute, the amendment record from the 2026 session and the constitution's referendum exception all point the same way, and lawmakers' own public statements confirm both the possibility and the current lack of any plan to use it.

Quote or cite this fact-check

FactHub rates the claim “Lawmakers can lower the $1 million threshold by a simple majority without a public vote, and they rejected amendments to require one” True (high confidence): The deduction is ordinary statute, and lawmakers rejected amendments requiring a referendum or a constitutional limit. Reviewed October 21, 2026. https://facthub.org/n/article/i645-threshold-simple-majority/3

One-minute summary

What the evidence establishes

Established. The $1 million standard deduction is in an ordinary statute, RCW 82A.04.360. Changing it takes a majority in each chamber and the governor's signature, or a two-thirds vote to override a veto.
Established. A lower threshold would also require amending the Initiative 2111 exemption, which applies only while the deduction is at least $1 million. That is another statute, changeable the same way.
Established. The House rejected Rep. Jeremie Dufault's amendment to send any reduction to a referendum, and both chambers rejected amendments to lock a 9.9% cap and a $1 million floor into the constitution.
Established. Even without a vote, the threshold loses value: it is adjusted for inflation only every other year, so at 2.5% inflation it would be worth about $821,000 in 2026 dollars by 2040 (our projection).
Context. No bill to lower the threshold has been filed. One Democratic legislator floated about $250,000 at a lower rate; her opponent and the Senate's deputy majority leader rejected the idea, and the governor has pledged a veto.
Not shown. Whether a future Legislature will lower the threshold is not shown.

Important context: Initiative 645 on the November 3, 2026 ballot would repeal ESSB 6346, the 9.9% tax on household income above a $1 million standard deduction that begins in 2028. This article rates what current law would allow a future Legislature to do. It does not predict whether lawmakers will lower the threshold: no bill to do so has been filed, and Gov. Bob Ferguson has pledged to veto any attempt while he is governor.

The evidence

The conclusion rests on the combined record. Expand each item to see its role and limitations.

Independence note: This check uses 5 methods across 7 institutions and 1 country or international grouping.

Evidence map
Method	Institution / country	Year(s)	What it shows	Key limitation	Primary links
Reading of the codified millionaires tax (RCW 82A.04.360) and the amended income-tax ban (RCW 1.90.100), and of the constitution's veto provision.	Washington State Legislature United States	2026	RCW 82A.04.360 sets the standard deduction at $1,000,000, shared by spouses and registered domestic partners. It is not in the constitution and carries no requirement for voter approval to change it. Initiative 2111's ban on income taxes now exempts this tax 'so long as the standard deduction is at least $1,000,000 for a household,' a guardrail added on the House floor; a bill lowering the threshold would also have to amend that sentence, which the Legislature can do by the same majority. Under the constitution a vetoed bill becomes law if two-thirds of the members present in each house vote to pass it.	Statutes say what lawmakers may do, not what they will do. A lower threshold could also face a legal challenge under the 1933 Culliton decision, which a pending case may revisit; this article does not address the tax's constitutionality.	RCW 82A.04.360 RCW 1.90.100 Washington State Constitution
Reading of the act's necessity clause and news reporting of the May 4, 2026 Supreme Court decision, which quotes the order.	Washington State Legislature, Washington State Supreme Court, Washington State Standard United States	2026	ESSB 6346 declares the tax 'necessary for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions,' which the constitution exempts from the referendum. The Supreme Court upheld that clause on May 4, 2026, blocking a referendum on the tax. A later bill lowering the threshold could carry the same kind of clause.	A future bill would need its own necessity clause; without one, voters could refer it by petition. We relied on a news report quoting the order rather than the order itself.	RCW 82A.04.030 Washington State Standard, May 4, 2026
Reading of the floor amendments to SSB/ESSB 6346 as filed, each marked with its outcome and date.	Washington State Legislature United States	2026	On March 9, 2026 the House did not adopt Rep. Jeremie Dufault's amendment 474, which said any reduction to the deduction 'will send this title 82A RCW to a referendum of the people,' or Rep. Chris Corry's amendment 600 making the tax contingent on a voter-approved constitutional amendment. It also rejected Rep. Marshall's amendment 481, which would have stated that 'The legislature intends to never lower this deduction to below $100,000.' On February 16 the Senate rejected Sen. Chris Gildon's amendment voiding the act unless voters approved a constitutional cap of 9.9% and a $1 million minimum deduction.	The records show outcomes, not vote counts. All four amendments came from the Republican minority, and voting them down can reflect objections to their wording or tactics, not a plan to lower the threshold.	ESSB 6346 House floor amendment 474 (Dufault) ESSB 6346 House floor amendment 600 (Corry) ESSB 6346 House floor amendment 481 (Marshall) SSB 6346 Senate floor amendment S5213.1 (Gildon)
Public statements by legislators and the governor as reported by four news outlets, read on each outlet's own page.	KOMO News / KATU, KUOW, OPB, KIRO Newsradio United States	2026	In an October 1, 2026 debate, Rep. Cindy Ryu (D-Shoreline) said 'let's look at about $250,000,' calling it 'an arbitrary number' and adding 'especially if we can bring that rate down from 9.9%.' KUOW reported she would want a lower rate below $1 million. Her opponent, Sen. Jesse Salomon (D), called the idea 'incredibly out of touch.' Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, a sponsor, said he would 'personally like to see a broader-based income tax' but that the votes are not there. Deputy Majority Leader Manka Dhingra said there is 'absolutely no intent' to change the threshold, and Gov. Ferguson wrote that he will veto any attempt to lower it below $1 million.	Quotes are as transcribed by the outlets; we have not heard the debate audio. Statements of intent bind no one, in either direction.	KOMO News / KATU, Oct. 2, 2026 KUOW, Oct. 2, 2026 MyNorthwest (KIRO Newsradio), Oct. 2, 2026 OPB, Oct. 11, 2026
Comparison of the two indexing statutes, and a deterministic projection of the deduction's real value in a FactHub dataset.	Washington State Legislature, FactHub United States	2026, 2040, 2050	The capital gains tax's deduction is adjusted 'each October thereafter.' The millionaires tax's deduction is adjusted only 'each October of an odd-numbered year,' by one 12-month change in the consumer price index, starting in 2029. Our projection puts its value in 2026 dollars at about $952,000 in 2028, $821,000 in 2040 and $725,000 in 2050; annual indexing would hold it near $952,000. So the tax reaches further over time even if lawmakers never vote on the threshold.	A projection at an assumed constant 2.5% inflation, reading RCW 82A.04.367 literally. The Department of Revenue has not issued guidance, and RCW 82A.04.360 calls the adjustment annual, so it could be applied differently.	RCW 82A.04.367 RCW 82.87.150 FactHub dataset: Washington millionaires tax reach (v2)

1. The threshold is an ordinary statute, and so is the I-2111 exemption Reading of the codified millionaires tax (RCW 82A.04.360) and the amended income-tax ban (RCW 1.90.100), and of the constitution's veto provision.

RCW 82A.04.360 sets the standard deduction at $1,000,000, shared by spouses and registered domestic partners. It is not in the constitution and carries no requirement for voter approval to change it. Initiative 2111's ban on income taxes now exempts this tax 'so long as the standard deduction is at least $1,000,000 for a household,' a guardrail added on the House floor; a bill lowering the threshold would also have to amend that sentence, which the Legislature can do by the same majority. Under the constitution a vetoed bill becomes law if two-thirds of the members present in each house vote to pass it.

Limit: Statutes say what lawmakers may do, not what they will do. A lower threshold could also face a legal challenge under the 1933 Culliton decision, which a pending case may revisit; this article does not address the tax's constitutionality.

Verify: RCW 82A.04.360: Taxable income — Standard deduction RCW 1.90.100: Personal income tax prohibition Washington State Constitution (full text)

The $1 million deduction, shared by couples, is set by ordinary statute. RCW 82A.04.360
The I-2111 exemption holds only while the deduction is at least $1 million, so a cut would need a second amendment. RCW 1.90.100 · Qualifies
A vetoed bill becomes law if two-thirds of members present in each house pass it again. Washington State Constitution · Qualifies

2. A necessity clause can keep such a change off the ballot Reading of the act's necessity clause and news reporting of the May 4, 2026 Supreme Court decision, which quotes the order.

ESSB 6346 declares the tax 'necessary for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions,' which the constitution exempts from the referendum. The Supreme Court upheld that clause on May 4, 2026, blocking a referendum on the tax. A later bill lowering the threshold could carry the same kind of clause.

Limit: A future bill would need its own necessity clause; without one, voters could refer it by petition. We relied on a news report quoting the order rather than the order itself.

Verify: RCW 82A.04.030: Tax imposed — Rates WA Supreme Court bats down referendum attempt targeting income tax

The act declares the tax necessary for the support of state government. RCW 82A.04.030
The Supreme Court upheld the necessity clause, so the tax could not be referred to voters. Washington State Standard, May 4, 2026

3. Lawmakers rejected amendments to require a vote or lock in the threshold Reading of the floor amendments to SSB/ESSB 6346 as filed, each marked with its outcome and date.

On March 9, 2026 the House did not adopt Rep. Jeremie Dufault's amendment 474, which said any reduction to the deduction 'will send this title 82A RCW to a referendum of the people,' or Rep. Chris Corry's amendment 600 making the tax contingent on a voter-approved constitutional amendment. It also rejected Rep. Marshall's amendment 481, which would have stated that 'The legislature intends to never lower this deduction to below $100,000.' On February 16 the Senate rejected Sen. Chris Gildon's amendment voiding the act unless voters approved a constitutional cap of 9.9% and a $1 million minimum deduction.

Limit: The records show outcomes, not vote counts. All four amendments came from the Republican minority, and voting them down can reflect objections to their wording or tactics, not a plan to lower the threshold.

Verify: 6346-S.E AMH DUFA HARA 474 6346-S.E AMH CORR TAYT 600 6346-S.E AMH MARS HARA 481 6346-S AMS GILD S5213.1

The House did not adopt an amendment sending any deduction cut to a referendum. ESSB 6346 House floor amendment 474 (Dufault)
The House rejected making the tax contingent on a voter-approved constitutional amendment. ESSB 6346 House floor amendment 600 (Corry)
The House rejected an amendment that included an intent never to lower the deduction below $100,000. ESSB 6346 House floor amendment 481 (Marshall)
The Senate rejected a constitutional lock on the 9.9% rate and $1 million deduction. SSB 6346 Senate floor amendment S5213.1 (Gildon)

4. What lawmakers have said about lowering it Public statements by legislators and the governor as reported by four news outlets, read on each outlet's own page.

In an October 1, 2026 debate, Rep. Cindy Ryu (D-Shoreline) said 'let's look at about $250,000,' calling it 'an arbitrary number' and adding 'especially if we can bring that rate down from 9.9%.' KUOW reported she would want a lower rate below $1 million. Her opponent, Sen. Jesse Salomon (D), called the idea 'incredibly out of touch.' Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, a sponsor, said he would 'personally like to see a broader-based income tax' but that the votes are not there. Deputy Majority Leader Manka Dhingra said there is 'absolutely no intent' to change the threshold, and Gov. Ferguson wrote that he will veto any attempt to lower it below $1 million.

Limit: Quotes are as transcribed by the outlets; we have not heard the debate audio. Statements of intent bind no one, in either direction.

Verify: How worried are you that the income threshold will be lowered for the millionaires tax? Candidates in tight state Senate race diverge on expanding WA's new income tax 'It's incredibly out of touch': Senator rejects expanding WA's millionaires' tax to $250K earners Should millionaires pay the income tax, or should everyone?

Ryu floated about $250,000 as an arbitrary number, conditioned on a rate below 9.9%. KOMO News / KATU, Oct. 2, 2026 · Qualifies
KUOW reported Ryu wanted a lower rate on households under $1 million. KUOW, Oct. 2, 2026 · Qualifies
Ryu's Democratic opponent rejected the $250,000 idea. MyNorthwest (KIRO Newsradio), Oct. 2, 2026 · Qualifies
The sponsor personally favors a broader income tax but says the votes are not there. OPB, Oct. 11, 2026 · Qualifies
The Senate's deputy majority leader said there is no intent to change the threshold. KOMO News / KATU, Oct. 2, 2026 · Qualifies
The governor has pledged to veto any attempt to lower the threshold below $1 million. OPB, Oct. 11, 2026 · Qualifies

5. Without any vote, the threshold keeps up with only about half of inflation Comparison of the two indexing statutes, and a deterministic projection of the deduction's real value in a FactHub dataset.

The capital gains tax's deduction is adjusted 'each October thereafter.' The millionaires tax's deduction is adjusted only 'each October of an odd-numbered year,' by one 12-month change in the consumer price index, starting in 2029. Our projection puts its value in 2026 dollars at about $952,000 in 2028, $821,000 in 2040 and $725,000 in 2050; annual indexing would hold it near $952,000. So the tax reaches further over time even if lawmakers never vote on the threshold.

Limit: A projection at an assumed constant 2.5% inflation, reading RCW 82A.04.367 literally. The Department of Revenue has not issued guidance, and RCW 82A.04.360 calls the adjustment annual, so it could be applied differently.

Verify: RCW 82A.04.367: Taxable income — Standard deduction — Index for inflation RCW 82.87.150: Annual adjustments Real value of the $1 million threshold at 2.5% inflation

The deduction is adjusted only in odd-numbered years, starting in October 2029. RCW 82A.04.367
The capital gains deduction, by contrast, is adjusted every October. RCW 82.87.150
At 2.5% inflation the threshold is worth about $952,000 (2028), $821,000 (2040) and $725,000 (2050) in 2026 dollars; annual indexing would hold it near $952,000. FactHub dataset: Washington millionaires tax reach (v2)

Our projection of the $1 million deduction's value in 2026 dollars at 2.5% inflation, as the law adjusts it (every other year) and as it would be if adjusted every year. No vote is needed for this decline. View source chart

Common questions

“But lawmakers rejected opportunities to permanently limit its reach, giving Olympia the ability to expand the income tax to everyone.”

Our rating: True

Accurate. During the 2026 session the House declined amendments that would have required a referendum on any cut to the deduction or made the tax contingent on a constitutional amendment, and the Senate rejected a constitutional cap of 9.9% with a $1 million floor. Because the deduction and the I-2111 exemption are ordinary statutes, a future Legislature has the legal ability to broaden the tax. 'To everyone' describes that ability, not a plan: no bill exists, the governor has pledged a veto, and a broad tax would also face the 1933 Culliton precedent unless the courts revisit it.

The Yes statement says lawmakers rejected chances to limit the tax's reach. Washington Secretary of State, 2026 voters' pamphlet, I-645 statements
The House did not adopt an amendment sending any deduction cut to a referendum. ESSB 6346 House floor amendment 474 (Dufault)
The Senate rejected a constitutional lock on the 9.9% rate and $1 million deduction. SSB 6346 Senate floor amendment S5213.1 (Gildon)
The $1 million deduction, shared by couples, is set by ordinary statute. RCW 82A.04.360

“Without I-645, Olympia can expand the income tax to reach into your paycheck with the simple stroke of a pen. No public vote and no permission required, any time they want.”

Our rating: Mostly true

The core is accurate. Without I-645, a future Legislature could lower the $1 million deduction by passing a bill, which would bring ordinary wages into the tax, and a necessity clause could keep that bill from a referendum, so no public vote is required. Two phrases overstate. 'The simple stroke of a pen' and 'any time they want' skip the steps a change needs: majorities in both chambers, a second amendment to the I-2111 exemption, and the governor's signature or a two-thirds override; the current governor has pledged a veto. And 'no permission required' leaves out the courts: whether this or any broader income tax survives the pending challenge under the 1933 Culliton precedent is undecided.

The Yes rebuttal says that without I-645 lawmakers can expand the tax to ordinary paychecks with no public vote. Washington Secretary of State, 2026 voters' pamphlet, I-645 statements
The $1 million deduction, shared by couples, is set by ordinary statute. RCW 82A.04.360
The act declares the tax necessary for the support of state government. RCW 82A.04.030
The I-2111 exemption holds only while the deduction is at least $1 million, so a cut would need a second amendment. RCW 1.90.100 · Qualifies
A vetoed bill becomes law if two-thirds of members present in each house pass it again. Washington State Constitution · Qualifies
The governor has pledged to veto any attempt to lower the threshold below $1 million. OPB, Oct. 11, 2026 · Qualifies

“A Democratic legislator wants to tax households earning $250,000.”

Short answer: Floated, at a lower rate

Rep. Cindy Ryu floated about $250,000 as 'an arbitrary number,' conditioned on a rate below 9.9%, in a debate against a fellow Democrat. It is not a bill or a caucus position. Her opponent called it 'incredibly out of touch,' Sen. Dhingra said there is no intent to change the threshold, and the governor has pledged a veto. Quoting her as proposing 9.9% on $250,000 earners drops her own conditions.

Ryu floated about $250,000 as an arbitrary number, conditioned on a rate below 9.9%. KOMO News / KATU, Oct. 2, 2026 · Qualifies
KUOW reported Ryu wanted a lower rate on households under $1 million. KUOW, Oct. 2, 2026 · Qualifies
Ryu's Democratic opponent rejected the $250,000 idea. MyNorthwest (KIRO Newsradio), Oct. 2, 2026 · Qualifies
The Senate's deputy majority leader said there is no intent to change the threshold. KOMO News / KATU, Oct. 2, 2026 · Qualifies

“Gov. Ferguson will veto any attempt to lower the threshold, so the risk is zero.”

Short answer: A real pledge with limits

Ferguson has said repeatedly he will veto any attempt to lower the threshold below $1 million. A pledge is not law: it binds only him, while he is governor, and the constitution lets two-thirds of each chamber override a veto. Democrats did not have two-thirds support for the tax itself, which passed the House 51-46.

The governor has pledged to veto any attempt to lower the threshold below $1 million. OPB, Oct. 11, 2026 · Qualifies
A vetoed bill becomes law if two-thirds of members present in each house pass it again. Washington State Constitution · Qualifies

“Sen. Dhingra: the bill 'has an inflator so that over time that bottom floor of a million dollars rises with inflation.'”

Short answer: With about half of inflation

The threshold does rise, but only every other year by one year's inflation, starting in 2029, so its real value falls. At 2.5% inflation it would be worth about $821,000 in today's dollars by 2040. The state's capital gains deduction, by contrast, is adjusted every year.

Dhingra said the threshold rises with inflation. KOMO News / KATU, Oct. 2, 2026 · Qualifies
The deduction is adjusted only in odd-numbered years, starting in October 2029. RCW 82A.04.367
At 2.5% inflation the threshold is worth about $952,000 (2028), $821,000 (2040) and $725,000 (2050) in 2026 dollars; annual indexing would hold it near $952,000. FactHub dataset: Washington millionaires tax reach (v2)

“The sponsor wants an income tax on everyone.”

Short answer: His preference; no votes for it

Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen has said he would personally like a broader-based income tax, and that 'there are not [enough] votes in the Legislature' and the governor would veto it. That is a stated preference, not a bill.

The sponsor personally favors a broader income tax but says the votes are not there. OPB, Oct. 11, 2026 · Qualifies

Conclusion

The claim rests on the text of the law and the record of the 2026 session, and both support it. The $1 million deduction is an ordinary statute; so is the clause that exempts the tax from Initiative 2111's ban while the deduction stays at $1 million. A future Legislature could lower both in one bill by majority vote, and, as this tax showed, could attach a necessity clause that keeps the change from a referendum. During the session lawmakers voted down a Republican amendment requiring a referendum on any cut and proposals to put a rate cap and a $1 million floor in the constitution. The finding is about legal capacity, not intent, and the evidence on intent cuts the other way for now: there is no bill, the only lawmaker to float a lower threshold did so at a lower rate and was rebuffed by her own party's leaders, and the governor has promised a veto that Democrats lack the votes to override. Two limits matter. A constitutional challenge to the tax is pending, and the 1933 Culliton precedent could constrain a broader or graduated tax. And the threshold already erodes on its own: because it is indexed only every other year, its real value falls by roughly half the rate of inflation, so more households cross it over time without any vote at all. Confidence is high because each element comes from statutes, filed amendments and the constitution; the projection is ours and is labeled as such.

How we checked

Defined the claim as a statement about legal process: whether a future Legislature can lower the $1 million deduction by simple majority without a public vote, and whether lawmakers rejected amendments requiring one.
Read the codified statutes (RCW 82A.04.360, 82A.04.367, 82A.04.030, 1.90.100, 82.87.150) and Articles II and III of the state constitution.
Read the filed floor amendments to SSB/ESSB 6346 on voter approval, constitutional limits and the deduction, with their outcomes.
Collected public statements by legislators and the governor from four news outlets, reading each outlet's own page, and quoted them with their stated conditions.
Projected the deduction's real value under the indexing statute using a FactHub dataset and chart, and labeled the projection as ours.

Editorial note: Scope: what current law allows, not what lawmakers will do or whether the tax is constitutional. A companion article rates the No campaign's statement that 'voters always have the final say.' FactHub does not take a position on I-645.

Expert-review status

No external specialist review has been recorded.

Funding and conflicts

Funding: No external funding for this piece.

Ownership: Published by the FactHub Research Team.

Conflicts: None known.

Sources

Sources are labeled by kind, with what this fact check takes from each, so readers can check the evidence independently.

Government RCW 82A.04.360. RCW 82A.04.360: Taxable income — Standard deduction
The codified $1 million standard deduction (ESSB 6346, section 314).

Reliability: Official codified Washington law published by the Legislature's Code Reviser.
- The $1 million deduction, shared by couples, is set by ordinary statute.
  
  What the source says
  
  their combined standard deduction is $1,000,000, regardless of whether they file joint or separate returns.
  RCW 82A.04.360
Government RCW 82A.04.367. RCW 82A.04.367: Taxable income — Standard deduction — Index for inflation
The inflation adjustment for the $1 million deduction (ESSB 6346, section 316).

Reliability: Official codified Washington law.
- The deduction is adjusted only in odd-numbered years, starting in October 2029.
  
  What the source says
  
  Beginning October 2029 and each October of an odd-numbered year thereafter, the department must adjust the standard deduction
  RCW 82A.04.367(1)
Government RCW 82.87.150. RCW 82.87.150: Annual adjustments
The capital gains tax's annual inflation adjustment, for comparison.

Reliability: Official codified Washington law.
- The capital gains deduction, by contrast, is adjusted every October.
  
  What the source says
  
  Beginning October 2025 and each October thereafter, the department must adjust the applicable amounts
  RCW 82.87.150(1)
Government RCW 1.90.100. RCW 1.90.100: Personal income tax prohibition
Initiative 2111's ban on personal income taxes, as amended in 2026.

Reliability: Official codified Washington law.
- Qualifies: The I-2111 exemption holds only while the deduction is at least $1 million, so a cut would need a second amendment.
  
  What the source says
  
  Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to the tax authorized in chapter 82A.04 RCW so long as the standard deduction is at least $1,000,000 for a household.
  RCW 1.90.100(2)
Government RCW 82A.04.030. RCW 82A.04.030: Tax imposed — Rates
The codified 9.9% tax, with notes reproducing ESSB 6346 section 1208.

Reliability: Official codified Washington law.
- The act declares the tax necessary for the support of state government.
  
  What the source says
  
  The tax imposed in this act is necessary for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions.
  Notes: Necessity of act — 2026 c 238 s 1208
Government Washington State Constitution. Washington State Constitution (full text)
Article III, section 12 on the governor's veto and override.

Reliability: Official text of the state constitution published by the Legislature.
- Qualifies: A vetoed bill becomes law if two-thirds of members present in each house pass it again.
  
  What the source says
  
  if approved by two-thirds of the members present, it shall become a law
  Article III, Section 12
News report Washington State Standard, May 4, 2026. WA Supreme Court bats down referendum attempt targeting income tax
News report on the Supreme Court's denial of the referendum challenge, quoting the order.

Reliability: Nonprofit statehouse news outlet; it quotes the order signed by Chief Justice Debra Stephens.
- The Supreme Court upheld the necessity clause, so the tax could not be referred to voters.
  
  What the source says
  
  undisputedly generates revenue for the state’s existing institutions and hence is similarly subject to the ‘support of state government’ exception to the referendum power
  Paragraph quoting the decision · Washington Supreme Court order signed by Chief Justice Debra Stephens
Government ESSB 6346 House floor amendment 474 (Dufault). 6346-S.E AMH DUFA HARA 474
Amendment to require a referendum if the standard deduction were ever reduced.

Reliability: Official amendment text filed with the House, marked with its outcome.
- The House did not adopt an amendment sending any deduction cut to a referendum.
  
  What the source says
  
  NOT ADOPTED 03/09/2026 … Any reduction to the deduction amount in this section at any
  Header and lines 6-8
Government ESSB 6346 House floor amendment 600 (Corry). 6346-S.E AMH CORR TAYT 600
Amendment to make the tax contingent on voter approval of a constitutional amendment.

Reliability: Official amendment text filed with the House, marked with its outcome.
- The House rejected making the tax contingent on a voter-approved constitutional amendment.
  
  What the source says
  
  NOT ADOPTED 03/09/2026 … EFFECT: Makes the bill contingent upon the voters approving HJR
  Header and effect statement
Government ESSB 6346 House floor amendment 481 (Marshall). 6346-S.E AMH MARS HARA 481
Amendment to give each spouse a $1 million deduction and state an intent never to lower it below $100,000.

Reliability: Official amendment text filed with the House, marked with its outcome.
- The House rejected an amendment that included an intent never to lower the deduction below $100,000.
  
  What the source says
  
  NOT ADOPTED 03/09/2026 … The legislature intends to never lower this deduction to below
  Header and lines 8-10
Government SSB 6346 Senate floor amendment S5213.1 (Gildon). 6346-S AMS GILD S5213.1
Amendment to void the act unless voters approved a constitutional cap on the rate and a minimum deduction.

Reliability: Official amendment text filed with the Senate, marked with its outcome.
- The Senate rejected a constitutional lock on the 9.9% rate and $1 million deduction.
  
  What the source says
  
  NOT ADOPTED 02/16/2026 … Makes the act null and void unless a constitutional amendment is approved by December 2026
  Header and effect statement
News report KOMO News / KATU, Oct. 2, 2026. How worried are you that the income threshold will be lowered for the millionaires tax?
News report quoting Rep. Cindy Ryu's debate remarks at length and Sen. Manka Dhingra's response.

Reliability: Sinclair-owned TV station; it gives the longest published transcription of Ryu's remarks and reports she did not respond to a request for comment.
- Qualifies: Ryu floated about $250,000 as an arbitrary number, conditioned on a rate below 9.9%.
  
  What the source says
  
  at an arbitrary number $250,000 especially if we can bring that rate down from 9.9% which I know is very offensive.
  Ryu quote, mid-article · Rep. Cindy Ryu (D-Shoreline)
- Qualifies: The Senate's deputy majority leader said there is no intent to change the threshold.
  
  What the source says
  
  There is absolutely no intent in order to change the tax threshold.
  Dhingra quote · Sen. Manka Dhingra, Senate Deputy Majority Leader
- Qualifies: Dhingra said the threshold rises with inflation.
  
  What the source says
  
  In fact, the bill itself has an inflator so that over time that bottom floor of a million dollars rises with inflation.
  Dhingra quote · Sen. Manka Dhingra, Senate Deputy Majority Leader
News report KUOW, Oct. 2, 2026. Candidates in tight state Senate race diverge on expanding WA's new income tax
Write-up of the KUOW Soundside debate between Rep. Cindy Ryu and Sen. Jesse Salomon.

Reliability: Public radio station that hosted the debate; its write-up paraphrases Ryu's position.
- Qualifies: KUOW reported Ryu wanted a lower rate on households under $1 million.
  
  What the source says
  
  Ryu emphasized that she would want to implement a lower rate on households making under a million dollars annually.
  Paragraph after Ryu's quote
News report MyNorthwest (KIRO Newsradio), Oct. 2, 2026. 'It's incredibly out of touch': Senator rejects expanding WA's millionaires' tax to $250K earners
Radio interview with Sen. Jesse Salomon responding to his opponent's remarks.

Reliability: Commercial talk radio station's website; the quote is the senator's own words on air.
- Qualifies: Ryu's Democratic opponent rejected the $250,000 idea.
  
  What the source says
  
  So what my opponent said, $250,000, it’s incredibly out of touch
  Opening paragraphs · Sen. Jesse Salomon (D), 32nd Legislative District
News report OPB, Oct. 11, 2026. Should millionaires pay the income tax, or should everyone?
Public-radio report on whether Washington's income tax could expand, with comments from the sponsor and the governor.

Reliability: Public radio report produced with KNKX and KUOW; it quotes Sen. Pedersen and Gov. Ferguson's social-media post.
- Qualifies: The sponsor personally favors a broader income tax but says the votes are not there.
  
  What the source says
  
  I would personally like to see a broader-based income tax, as I have been very clear about for many years
  Pedersen quote · Sen. Jamie Pedersen, Senate Majority Leader
- Qualifies: The governor has pledged to veto any attempt to lower the threshold below $1 million.
  
  What the source says
  
  I will veto any attempt by the Legislature to lower the threshold below a million dollars
  Ferguson quote · Gov. Bob Ferguson, on X
Party to the dispute Washington Secretary of State, 2026 voters' pamphlet, I-645 statements. Initiative Measure IP26-645: arguments for and against
The official pamphlet page with each campaign's statement, written by the campaigns.

Reliability: Has a stake in this finding. The Secretary of State prints the statements as submitted; each side's text is its own advocacy.
- The Yes statement says lawmakers rejected chances to limit the tax's reach.
  
  What the source says
  
  But lawmakers rejected opportunities to permanently limit its reach, giving Olympia the ability to expand the income tax to everyone.
  Argument for, 'Taxes Always Expand' · Yes on I-645 committee
- The Yes rebuttal says that without I-645 lawmakers can expand the tax to ordinary paychecks with no public vote.
  
  What the source says
  
  No public vote and no permission required, any time they want.
  Rebuttal of argument against · Yes on I-645 committee
FactHub record FactHub dataset: Washington millionaires tax reach (v2). Real value of the $1 million threshold at 2.5% inflation
Our projection of the deduction under RCW 82A.04.367 compared with annual indexing, 2028-2050.
- At 2.5% inflation the threshold is worth about $952,000 (2028), $821,000 (2040) and $725,000 (2050) in 2026 dollars; annual indexing would hold it near $952,000.
FactHub dataset Washington millionaires tax: who files over $1 million, how the threshold holds up, and how volatile the base is
Tables: threshold-real-value

Table threshold-real-value; analysis threshold-real-2-5 (sensitivity at 2% and 3% in threshold-real-2-0 and threshold-real-3-0)
FactHub dataset Initiative 645: the campaigns' claims in their own words
- But lawmakers rejected opportunities to permanently limit its reach, giving Olympia the ability to expand the income tax to everyone.
  Committee for the argument for Initiative 645 (Sen. Chris Gildon and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for I-645, September 17, 2026 · In the dataset
- Without I-645, Olympia can expand the income tax to reach into your paycheck with the simple stroke of a pen. No public vote and no permission required, any time they want.
  Committee for the argument for Initiative 645 (Sen. Chris Gildon and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for I-645, September 17, 2026 · In the dataset
FactHub chart wa-millionaires-tax-threshold-real-value

Update history

October 22, 2026 Version 2: new main photo (Senate chamber); links to companion I-645 drafts removed until those are final. No change to the findings.
October 22, 2026 Version 3: the Yes pamphlet's 'rejected opportunities to permanently limit its reach' is now a rated objection (True), and its rebuttal 'Without I-645, Olympia can expand the income tax to reach into your paycheck' is newly rated (Mostly true); both quotes are cited from the campaign-statements dataset.
October 21, 2026 First draft.

Cited by

Briefing I-645: what it does, and what each side claims

Version details

The exact citing versions, and the version of this article each cites.

Briefing wa-i-645 — version 6 (published) cites version 3
Briefing wa-i-645 — version 4 (published) cites version 3

For search, research, and AI systems

Machine-readable fact-check

This page includes standardized ClaimReview metadata describing the exact claim, FactHub's finding, publisher, and review dates. You can inspect the record below and confirm that it matches the article you just read.

View ClaimReview JSON

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"ClaimReview","url":"https://facthub.org/n/article/i645-threshold-simple-majority/3","datePublished":"2026-10-21","dateModified":"2026-10-21","author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"FactHub","url":"https://facthub.org/"},"claimReviewed":"Lawmakers can lower the $1 million threshold by a simple majority without a public vote, and they rejected amendments to require one.","reviewRating":{"@type":"Rating","alternateName":"True"},"image":"https://facthub.org/node-assets-v2/article/i645-threshold-simple-majority/3/senate-chamber/social-1200x630.jpg"}

This metadata helps machines discover the fact-check. It does not prove the conclusion or guarantee special treatment by a search engine.

Challenge this fact-check

Every source above is linked so you can check it yourself. Identify the specific conclusion you dispute and provide verifiable evidence that could change it. Credible challenges deserve review and a visible response.

Submit evidence Send general feedback instead

Technical details: node handle article:i645-threshold-simple-majority

Washington's $1 million income-tax threshold can be lowered by a simple majority.

Charts in this check