Five-second answer

Claim we investigated

Any attempt to expand it to those of us making under a million would be decided on the ballot - voters always have the final say.

False. State law lets lawmakers lower the threshold by majority vote, and they rejected an amendment requiring a referendum. The codified law sets the deduction by ordinary statute, the House rejected Rep. Dufault's referendum requirement on March 9, 2026, and the Supreme Court upheld the necessity clause that kept this very tax off the referendum ballot.

Quote or cite this fact-check

FactHub rates the claim “Any attempt to expand it to those of us making under a million would be decided on the ballot - voters always have the final say” False (high confidence): State law lets lawmakers lower the threshold by majority vote, and they rejected an amendment requiring a referendum. Reviewed October 21, 2026. https://facthub.org/n/article/i645-voters-final-say/3

One-minute summary

What the evidence establishes

  • Established. The $1 million standard deduction is set in an ordinary statute, RCW 82A.04.360. A later Legislature can change it by majority vote in both chambers and the governor's signature, or by overriding a veto.
  • Established. On March 9, 2026, the House rejected Rep. Jeremie Dufault's amendment that would have sent the tax to a referendum if the deduction were ever reduced. Amendments for a constitutional cap and for referring the whole act to voters also failed.
  • Established. The tax carries a clause declaring it necessary for the support of state government. The Washington Constitution exempts such laws from the referendum, and on May 4, 2026 the state Supreme Court upheld the clause, blocking a referendum on this tax.
  • Context. Voters keep two tools: an initiative, which needs about twice as many signatures as a referendum (I-645 is one), and a referendum on any future change that lacks a necessity clause.
  • Not shown. Whether lawmakers will lower the threshold is not shown either way. No bill to do so has been filed, and Gov. Bob Ferguson has pledged to veto one.
Important context: This rates the exact words of the No on I-645 committee's rebuttal in the official 2026 voters' pamphlet. The question is whether current law requires a public vote before the $1 million threshold could be lowered, not whether lawmakers intend to lower it. The Yes campaign's statement uses a similar slogan, 'Voters have the final say,' to mean something different: that I-645 lets voters repeal the tax.

The evidence

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

Independence note: This check uses 4 methods across 3 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) on the Legislature's website. Washington State Legislature United States 2026 RCW 82A.04.360 sets a standard deduction of $1,000,000, shared by spouses and registered domestic partners. Nothing in the law requires voter approval to change it. Initiative 2111's income-tax ban, as amended in 2026, exempts the tax only 'so long as the standard deduction is at least $1,000,000 for a household,' so a lower threshold would need a second amendment in the same or another bill. A lower threshold would also have to amend RCW 1.90.100, whose exemption for the tax lasts only while the deduction is at least $1 million. That too is a statute changeable by majority vote, so it is a procedural step, not a vote of the people. RCW 82A.04.360 RCW 1.90.100
Reading of the floor amendments to ESSB 6346 as filed by the Legislature, each marked with its outcome and date. Washington State Legislature United States 2026 Rep. Jeremie Dufault's amendment 474 said any reduction to the deduction 'will send this title 82A RCW to a referendum of the people'; the House did not adopt it on March 9, 2026. The House also rejected Rep. Ed Orcutt's amendment 513, which would have removed the necessity clause and referred the act to voters, and Rep. Chris Corry's amendment 600, which would have made the tax contingent on voters approving a constitutional amendment. In the Senate, Sen. Chris Gildon's amendment requiring a constitutional cap of 9.9% and a $1 million minimum deduction failed on February 16, 2026. The amendment records show outcomes, not vote counts; we did not confirm whether each was decided by roll call or voice vote. All were offered by Republicans in the minority, and rejecting them is not the same as planning to lower the threshold. ESSB 6346 House floor amendment 474 (Dufault) ESSB 6346 House floor amendment 513 (Orcutt) ESSB 6346 House floor amendment 600 (Corry) SSB 6346 Senate floor amendment S5213.1 (Gildon)
Reading of Article II, section 1(b) of the Washington Constitution and the act's necessity clause, and news reporting of the May 4, 2026 Supreme Court decision quoting the order. Washington State Legislature, Washington State Supreme Court, Washington State Standard United States 2026 The constitution reserves the referendum power on legislation except for laws 'necessary for the ... support of the state government and its existing public institutions.' ESSB 6346 section 1208 declares the tax necessary for that purpose. The Secretary of State rejected a referendum petition, and on May 4, 2026 the Supreme Court denied the challenge, holding that the law 'undisputedly generates revenue for the state's existing institutions.' The 2025 capital gains surcharge carried the same kind of clause. We relied on a news report quoting the court's order rather than the order itself. The court ruled only on the referendum; it did not decide whether the tax is constitutional. Washington State Constitution, Article II, Section 1 RCW 82A.04.030 Washington State Standard, May 4, 2026 RCW 82.87.040
Reading of Article II, section 1(a) of the Washington Constitution and the same news report on the referendum decision. Washington State Legislature, Washington State Standard United States 2026 Voters can propose and enact laws by initiative, which is how I-645 reached the November 2026 ballot after the referendum was blocked; it requires about twice as many signatures as a referendum. A future change to the threshold could be referred to voters by petition, but only if it does not carry its own necessity clause. An initiative or referendum gives voters a say only if someone gathers enough signatures in time; neither happens automatically when a law changes. Washington State Constitution, Article II, Section 1 Washington State Standard, May 4, 2026
1. The $1 million deduction is an ordinary statute Reading of the codified millionaires tax (RCW 82A.04.360) and the amended income-tax ban (RCW 1.90.100) on the Legislature's website.

RCW 82A.04.360 sets a standard deduction of $1,000,000, shared by spouses and registered domestic partners. Nothing in the law requires voter approval to change it. Initiative 2111's income-tax ban, as amended in 2026, exempts the tax only 'so long as the standard deduction is at least $1,000,000 for a household,' so a lower threshold would need a second amendment in the same or another bill.

Limit: A lower threshold would also have to amend RCW 1.90.100, whose exemption for the tax lasts only while the deduction is at least $1 million. That too is a statute changeable by majority vote, so it is a procedural step, not a vote of the people.

Verify: RCW 82A.04.360: Taxable income — Standard deduction RCW 1.90.100: Personal income tax prohibition

2. Lawmakers rejected amendments that would have required a public vote Reading of the floor amendments to ESSB 6346 as filed by the Legislature, each marked with its outcome and date.

Rep. Jeremie Dufault's amendment 474 said any reduction to the deduction 'will send this title 82A RCW to a referendum of the people'; the House did not adopt it on March 9, 2026. The House also rejected Rep. Ed Orcutt's amendment 513, which would have removed the necessity clause and referred the act to voters, and Rep. Chris Corry's amendment 600, which would have made the tax contingent on voters approving a constitutional amendment. In the Senate, Sen. Chris Gildon's amendment requiring a constitutional cap of 9.9% and a $1 million minimum deduction failed on February 16, 2026.

Limit: The amendment records show outcomes, not vote counts; we did not confirm whether each was decided by roll call or voice vote. All were offered by Republicans in the minority, and rejecting them is not the same as planning to lower the threshold.

Verify: 6346-S.E AMH DUFA HARA 474 6346-S.E AMH ORCU REIN 513 6346-S.E AMH CORR TAYT 600 6346-S AMS GILD S5213.1

3. A necessity clause kept this tax off the referendum ballot, and the Supreme Court upheld it Reading of Article II, section 1(b) of the Washington Constitution and the act's necessity clause, and news reporting of the May 4, 2026 Supreme Court decision quoting the order.

The constitution reserves the referendum power on legislation except for laws 'necessary for the ... support of the state government and its existing public institutions.' ESSB 6346 section 1208 declares the tax necessary for that purpose. The Secretary of State rejected a referendum petition, and on May 4, 2026 the Supreme Court denied the challenge, holding that the law 'undisputedly generates revenue for the state's existing institutions.' The 2025 capital gains surcharge carried the same kind of clause.

Limit: We relied on a news report quoting the court's order rather than the order itself. The court ruled only on the referendum; it did not decide whether the tax is constitutional.

Verify: Washington State Constitution (full text) RCW 82A.04.030: Tax imposed — Rates WA Supreme Court bats down referendum attempt targeting income tax RCW 82.87.040: Tax imposed — Long-term capital assets

4. What voters can still do Reading of Article II, section 1(a) of the Washington Constitution and the same news report on the referendum decision.

Voters can propose and enact laws by initiative, which is how I-645 reached the November 2026 ballot after the referendum was blocked; it requires about twice as many signatures as a referendum. A future change to the threshold could be referred to voters by petition, but only if it does not carry its own necessity clause.

Limit: An initiative or referendum gives voters a say only if someone gathers enough signatures in time; neither happens automatically when a law changes.

Verify: Washington State Constitution (full text) WA Supreme Court bats down referendum attempt targeting income tax

Common questions

“Yes on I-645 pamphlet statement: "Voters have the final say."”

Short answer: Same slogan, different meaning

Both campaigns use the phrase. The Yes statement uses it to mean that I-645 lets voters repeal the tax this November, which is accurate for this initiative. The No rebuttal uses it to say future expansions would be decided on the ballot, which current law does not require.

“Voters are deciding the tax right now, so they do have the final say.”

Short answer: Only because of an initiative

Voters are deciding I-645 because an initiative campaign gathered signatures after the referendum was blocked. That is a path voters can choose, not a requirement that applies to lawmakers. If the Legislature later lowered the threshold with a necessity clause, voters would again need an initiative to weigh in.

“A Democratic senator said a $250,000 threshold would 'go back to the people for a vote.'”

Short answer: A prediction, not a rule

Sen. Jesse Salomon, criticizing his opponent's idea, said there was 'no way' such a change wouldn't go back to the people for a vote. That is a political prediction that voters would act through a petition, not a legal requirement.

“Lawmakers have no plans to lower the threshold, so the point is moot.”

Short answer: Not what the claim says

The pamphlet sentence is about who decides, not whether a change is planned. No bill to lower the threshold has been filed and Gov. Ferguson has pledged to veto one, but neither makes a public vote legally required.

Conclusion

The No campaign's rebuttal makes a statement about process: that any expansion to people earning under $1 million would be decided on the ballot. Washington law does not work that way. The $1 million deduction is in an ordinary statute, and the provision exempting the tax from Initiative 2111's ban is also a statute; a future Legislature could change both by majority vote. During the 2026 session the House declined to adopt an amendment that would have required a referendum on any reduction, and both chambers rejected proposals for a constitutional limit. The tax itself shows how a referendum can be avoided: it carries a necessity clause, which the Supreme Court upheld in May 2026. Voters are not powerless. They can launch an initiative, as I-645's backers did, or refer a future change to the ballot if lawmakers leave out a necessity clause. But those depend on citizens gathering signatures; they are not a guarantee that 'voters always have the final say.' This rating is about the law, not intent: there is no bill to lower the threshold, and the governor has promised to veto one. The finding would change only if a law or constitutional amendment required a vote, which none does. Confidence is high because the finding rests on statutes, the amendment record and the constitution.

How we checked

  1. Took the claim verbatim from the No committee's rebuttal in the Secretary of State's 2026 voters' pamphlet.
  2. Read the codified statutes that set the deduction and the I-2111 exemption, and Article II, section 1 of the state constitution.
  3. Read the ESSB 6346 floor amendments that would have required a vote or a constitutional limit, with their recorded outcomes.
  4. Checked how the referendum on this tax was blocked, using reporting that quotes the Supreme Court's May 4, 2026 order.
  5. Listed the ways voters can still act, and recorded limits for each item.

Editorial note: Scope: whether current law requires a public vote to expand the tax. Whether lawmakers will expand it, and whether the tax is constitutional, are separate questions. A companion article covers what the Legislature can do with the threshold. 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.

  1. 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 and rebuttal, 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.

    • Contradicts: The No rebuttal says expansion below $1 million would be decided on the ballot.

      What the source says
      Any attempt to expand it to those of us making under a million would be decided on the ballot - voters always have the final say.
      Rebuttal of argument for · No on I-645 committee

    • Qualifies: The Yes statement uses the same phrase about repealing the tax through I-645.

      What the source says
      Voters have the final say.
      Argument for, last paragraph · Yes on I-645 committee
  2. 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 deduction is set by ordinary statute at $1 million, shared by spouses and partners.

      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
  3. 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 tax is exempt from the I-2111 ban only while the deduction stays at $1 million or more.

      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)
  4. 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
  5. Government ESSB 6346 House floor amendment 513 (Orcutt). 6346-S.E AMH ORCU REIN 513

    Amendment to remove the necessity clause and refer the act to voters.

    Reliability: Official amendment text filed with the House, marked with its outcome.

    • The House rejected removing the necessity clause and referring the act to voters.

      What the source says
      NOT ADOPTED 03/09/2026 … EFFECT: Removes the necessity clause.
      Header and effect statement
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Government Washington State Constitution, Article II, Section 1. Washington State Constitution (full text)

    The initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people.

    Reliability: Official text of the state constitution published by the Legislature.

    • Laws necessary for the support of state government are exempt from the referendum.

      What the source says
      except such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions
      Article II, Section 1(b)

    • Qualifies: Voters keep the initiative power to propose and enact laws.

      What the source says
      The first power reserved by the people is the initiative.
      Article II, Section 1(a)
  9. 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.

    • ESSB 6346 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
  10. Government RCW 82.87.040. RCW 82.87.040: Tax imposed — Long-term capital assets

    The capital gains tax, including the 2025 surcharge and its necessity declaration.

    Reliability: Official codified Washington law.

    • The capital gains tax, including its 2025 surcharge, is likewise declared necessary for state government.

      What the source says
      The tax levied in subsection (1) of this section is necessary for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions.
      RCW 82.87.040(2)
  11. 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 court held the necessity clause valid, keeping the tax from a referendum.

      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

    • Qualifies: Opponents could still use an initiative, which needs about twice the signatures.

      What the source says
      The opposition can still move forward with an initiative to overturn the tax on millionaire earners. But that path to challenging the law will require twice as many signatures to advance.
      Opening paragraphs
  12. 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: Sen. Salomon predicted that a $250,000 threshold would go back to voters and be rejected.

      What the source says
      So what my opponent said, $250,000, it’s incredibly out of touch because there’s no way, should we pass something crazy like that, that it wouldn’t go back to the people for a vote and they would vote it down
      Opening paragraphs · Sen. Jesse Salomon (D), 32nd Legislative District
  13. FactHub dataset Initiative 645: the campaigns' claims in their own words
    • Any attempt to expand it to those of us making under a million would be decided on the ballot - voters always have the final say.
      Committee for the argument against Initiative 645 (WEA President Janie White and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against I-645, · In the dataset

Update history

  1. Version 2: new main photo; link to a companion I-645 draft removed until it is final. No change to the findings.
  2. Version 3: the rated quote is now cited from the campaign-statements dataset. No change to the findings.
  3. First draft.

Cited by

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-voters-final-say/3","datePublished":"2026-10-21","dateModified":"2026-10-21","author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"FactHub","url":"https://facthub.org/"},"claimReviewed":"Any attempt to expand it to those of us making under a million would be decided on the ballot - voters always have the final say.","reviewRating":{"@type":"Rating","alternateName":"False"},"image":"https://facthub.org/node-assets-v2/article/i645-voters-final-say/3/i-voted/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-voters-final-say:3