The short version

Claim we investigated

Washington's constitution, as the state Supreme Court has read it since 1933, bars a graduated or high-rate income tax.

True. Courts have ruled since 1933 that income is property, which must be taxed at one uniform, capped rate. Court rulings from 1933 to 2019 struck down income taxes as unequal taxes on property, and in 2023 the court left that rule in place. No court has ruled on the 2026 tax.

Quote or cite this fact-check
FactHub rates the claim “Washington's constitution, as the state Supreme Court has read it since 1933, bars a graduated or high-rate income tax” True (high confidence): Courts have ruled since 1933 that income is property, which must be taxed at one uniform, capped rate. Reviewed November 3, 2026. https://facthub.org/n/article/wa-constitution-income-tax-ban/1

Key points

What the evidence establishes

  • Established. The constitution's text never mentions an income tax. It says taxes on the same class of property must be uniform.
  • Established. A 1930 amendment defines property as everything that can be owned. In 1933 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that this includes income.
  • Established. Courts struck down a graduated tax voters passed in 1932, a flat 1935 tax with personal exemptions, and a 1951 corporate income tax.
  • Established. In 2023 the court upheld the capital gains tax as a tax on sales, not income, and declined to revisit the 1933 rule.
  • Not shown. No court has ruled on the 2026 millionaires tax. A lawsuit is pending, and the tax's backers want the 1933 ruling overturned.
  • Context. The rule dates from 1933, 93 years ago, not over a hundred. The property definition behind it dates from 1930.
Important context: Initiative 645 on the November 3, 2026 ballot would repeal Washington's new 9.9% tax on household income above $1 million, which starts in 2028. Some posts urging a Yes vote say the tax is unconstitutional because the state constitution bans income taxes. This article rates what the constitution and the court rulings that interpret it say. Whether the courts will uphold the 2026 tax is a separate question: a lawsuit filed in April 2026 is still pending.

The evidence

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

Independence note: This check uses 6 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 Article VII of the Washington Constitution, its amendment history and the original 1889 text, as published by the Legislature. Washington State Legislature United States 1889, 1930, 1944, 1972 Article VII, section 1 says all taxes must be uniform on the same class of property, and defines property as everything, tangible or intangible, that can be owned. That definition came from Amendment 14, approved in November 1930. Section 2 caps all property taxes combined at 1% of value; the 2023 court notes the 1% figure dates from 1972, replacing a 1944 cap. The article never mentions an income tax. The 1889 original required a uniform rate on all property, with no definition of property. The 2023 court says the 1930 amendment widened what the state could tax. The text alone does not say whether income is property. That is a court's reading, which the court can revisit. The history of the 1% cap comes from the 2023 opinion's footnote. Washington State Legislature Washington State Supreme Court
Reading the full 1933 Culliton v. Chase opinions (lead, concurring and dissenting) and the 2023 court's account of how the case was decided. Washington State Supreme Court United States 1932, 1933 In 1932 about 70% of voters approved Initiative 69, a graduated income tax. In Culliton v. Chase (1933) the lead opinion said 'income' is property and a tax on income is a tax on property. It held the graduated rates 'wholly lacking in uniformity.' A concurring justice noted the case did not involve a uniform income tax. The dissent called the property reasoning 'sheer sophistry.' The 2023 court records that the first vote was a 4-4 tie and the final result was 5-4. The account of the 4-4 tie and the vote change comes from a historian cited in the 2023 opinion, not from the 1933 record itself. The 1933 ruling addressed a graduated tax; it did not decide a flat tax. Washington State Supreme Court (via Caselaw Access Project) Washington State Supreme Court
Reading the full Jensen v. Henneford (1936) and Power, Inc. v. Huntley (1951) opinions, and the 2023 court's list of later rulings. Washington State Supreme Court, Washington Court of Appeals United States 1936, 1951, 2019 In 1936 the court struck down a 1935 tax levied 'for the privilege of receiving income' and held that taxing the right to receive income is taxing ownership. It struck even the flat 3% part, because $1,000 and $2,500 personal exemptions split income into unequal classes. In 1951 it struck a 4% corporate tax as a property tax 'masquerading as an excise' that reached nearly all income. The 2023 court lists these and a 2019 ruling against Seattle's tax as courts 'consistently striking down' net income taxes. We read Jensen and Power in full but relied on the 2023 opinion's description of the 2019 Seattle ruling and a second 1936 case. Each ruling turned on that law's own features. Washington State Supreme Court (via Caselaw Access Project) Washington State Supreme Court (via Caselaw Access Project) Washington State Supreme Court
Reading the full Quinn v. State (2023) majority and dissent. Washington State Supreme Court United States 2023 By 7-2, the court upheld the 7% capital gains tax as an excise, a tax on the act of selling assets. Because it is not a property tax, the uniformity rule and the 1% cap did not apply, and the court declined to reexamine Culliton. It contrasted that tax with the struck-down income taxes, where the taxed event 'was the receipt of income itself.' The dissent wrote, 'In Washington, income is property.' The ruling did not reaffirm or reject Culliton; it avoided the question. It shows the court will uphold some taxes measured by gains, but says nothing about a tax on all income. Washington State Supreme Court Washington State Supreme Court
Reading the Secretary of State's history of statewide income-tax ballot measures. Washington Secretary of State United States 1932, 1934, 1936, 1938, 1942, 1944, 1970, 1973, 1975, 1982, 2010 Voters were asked 11 times to adopt a personal or corporate income tax. Only the 1932 measure passed. Six of the ten defeats were constitutional amendments, the route around the 1933 ruling. In 1936 the chief justice pointed out that 'the people have not seen fit to amend the constitution' to allow an income tax. The list groups personal, corporate and gross-income taxes. Vote results show how people voted, not why. The live page now returns an error, so this relies on an archived copy. Washington Secretary of State Washington State Supreme Court (via Caselaw Access Project)
Reading the session law for ESSB 6346, the county court's case page, and news reports quoting the sponsor and the attorney general. Washington State Legislature, Klickitat County Superior Court, FOX 13 Seattle, KIRO Newsradio United States 2025, 2026 ESSB 6346 imposes a 9.9% tax 'on the receipt of' taxable income above a $1 million standard deduction, starting in 2028. Its title calls it a tax on individual income, and its findings call the state's tax system the second most regressive in the nation. If a court strikes the tax, most of the act, including its tax relief, is void. Petter v. State, filed in Klickitat County, challenges it. The sponsor's email said he wanted the Supreme Court to reconsider the rule 'that considers income to be property.' The attorney general said the 1933 ruling was 'wrongly decided.' The sponsor's email is known from news reports of leaked records, not from the record itself. The county's case page was last updated May 1, 2026, and we found no ruling as of November 3, 2026. The state's court filings were not available to us. Washington State Legislature Washington State Legislature Klickitat County FOX 13 Seattle, May 8, 2026 KIRO 7 / KIRO Newsradio, May 2026
1. What the constitution's text says Reading Article VII of the Washington Constitution, its amendment history and the original 1889 text, as published by the Legislature.

Article VII, section 1 says all taxes must be uniform on the same class of property, and defines property as everything, tangible or intangible, that can be owned. That definition came from Amendment 14, approved in November 1930. Section 2 caps all property taxes combined at 1% of value; the 2023 court notes the 1% figure dates from 1972, replacing a 1944 cap. The article never mentions an income tax. The 1889 original required a uniform rate on all property, with no definition of property. The 2023 court says the 1930 amendment widened what the state could tax.

Limit: The text alone does not say whether income is property. That is a court's reading, which the court can revisit. The history of the 1% cap comes from the 2023 opinion's footnote.

Verify: Washington State Constitution, Article VII (Revenue and Taxation) Quinn v. State, No. 100769-8 (March 24, 2023), majority opinion: history

2. 1933: the court rules that income is property Reading the full 1933 Culliton v. Chase opinions (lead, concurring and dissenting) and the 2023 court's account of how the case was decided.

In 1932 about 70% of voters approved Initiative 69, a graduated income tax. In Culliton v. Chase (1933) the lead opinion said 'income' is property and a tax on income is a tax on property. It held the graduated rates 'wholly lacking in uniformity.' A concurring justice noted the case did not involve a uniform income tax. The dissent called the property reasoning 'sheer sophistry.' The 2023 court records that the first vote was a 4-4 tie and the final result was 5-4.

Limit: The account of the 4-4 tie and the vote change comes from a historian cited in the 2023 opinion, not from the 1933 record itself. The 1933 ruling addressed a graduated tax; it did not decide a flat tax.

Verify: Culliton v. Chase, 174 Wash. 363, 25 P.2d 81 (1933) Quinn v. State, No. 100769-8 (March 24, 2023), majority opinion: history

3. 1936 to 2019: later courts closed the routes around the rule Reading the full Jensen v. Henneford (1936) and Power, Inc. v. Huntley (1951) opinions, and the 2023 court's list of later rulings.

In 1936 the court struck down a 1935 tax levied 'for the privilege of receiving income' and held that taxing the right to receive income is taxing ownership. It struck even the flat 3% part, because $1,000 and $2,500 personal exemptions split income into unequal classes. In 1951 it struck a 4% corporate tax as a property tax 'masquerading as an excise' that reached nearly all income. The 2023 court lists these and a 2019 ruling against Seattle's tax as courts 'consistently striking down' net income taxes.

Limit: We read Jensen and Power in full but relied on the 2023 opinion's description of the 2019 Seattle ruling and a second 1936 case. Each ruling turned on that law's own features.

Verify: Jensen v. Henneford, 185 Wash. 209, 53 P.2d 607 (1936) Power, Inc. v. Huntley, 39 Wn.2d 191, 235 P.2d 173 (1951) Quinn v. State, No. 100769-8 (March 24, 2023), majority opinion: holding

4. 2023: the capital gains tax survives as a tax on sales Reading the full Quinn v. State (2023) majority and dissent.

By 7-2, the court upheld the 7% capital gains tax as an excise, a tax on the act of selling assets. Because it is not a property tax, the uniformity rule and the 1% cap did not apply, and the court declined to reexamine Culliton. It contrasted that tax with the struck-down income taxes, where the taxed event 'was the receipt of income itself.' The dissent wrote, 'In Washington, income is property.'

Limit: The ruling did not reaffirm or reject Culliton; it avoided the question. It shows the court will uphold some taxes measured by gains, but says nothing about a tax on all income.

Verify: Quinn v. State, No. 100769-8 (March 24, 2023), majority opinion: holding Quinn v. State, No. 100769-8 (March 24, 2023), dissent of Gordon McCloud, J.

5. Voters approved one income tax and rejected ten Reading the Secretary of State's history of statewide income-tax ballot measures.

Voters were asked 11 times to adopt a personal or corporate income tax. Only the 1932 measure passed. Six of the ten defeats were constitutional amendments, the route around the 1933 ruling. In 1936 the chief justice pointed out that 'the people have not seen fit to amend the constitution' to allow an income tax.

Limit: The list groups personal, corporate and gross-income taxes. Vote results show how people voted, not why. The live page now returns an error, so this relies on an archived copy.

Verify: Income Tax Ballot Measures (archived October 13, 2026) Jensen v. Henneford, 185 Wash. 209, 53 P.2d 607 (1936)

6. The 2026 tax and the pending lawsuit Reading the session law for ESSB 6346, the county court's case page, and news reports quoting the sponsor and the attorney general.

ESSB 6346 imposes a 9.9% tax 'on the receipt of' taxable income above a $1 million standard deduction, starting in 2028. Its title calls it a tax on individual income, and its findings call the state's tax system the second most regressive in the nation. If a court strikes the tax, most of the act, including its tax relief, is void. Petter v. State, filed in Klickitat County, challenges it. The sponsor's email said he wanted the Supreme Court to reconsider the rule 'that considers income to be property.' The attorney general said the 1933 ruling was 'wrongly decided.'

Limit: The sponsor's email is known from news reports of leaked records, not from the record itself. The county's case page was last updated May 1, 2026, and we found no ruling as of November 3, 2026. The state's court filings were not available to us.

Verify: Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6346, Chapter 238, Laws of 2026 (session law) ESSB 6346 (Chapter 238, Laws of 2026): title and legislative findings Case Information (Millionaires Tax) Architect of WA's millionaire tax defends strategy revealed in leaked emails WA AG defends role drafting millionaires tax legislation, pushes back on McKenna's claims

Common questions 10

“Washington's constitution says the state can't have an income tax.”

Short answer: No, the words aren't there

The constitution's text never mentions an income tax. The ban comes from a 1933 court ruling that counted income as property under a 1930 definition, so it must be taxed uniformly. Courts have followed that reading ever since.

See the evidence: What the constitution's text says

“Washington voters have never approved a state income tax.”

Short answer: They did, in 1932

In 1932, about 70% of voters approved a graduated income tax, Initiative 69. The Supreme Court struck it down 5-4 in 1933. Voters then rejected ten income-tax measures from 1934 to 2010, six of them constitutional amendments.

See the evidence: 1933: the court rules that income is property

Related claim: Washington voters rejected income-tax measures ten times between 1934 and 2010. — Voters rejected ten income-tax measures from 1934 to 2010, but approved one in 1932 that courts struck down.

“The 1930 amendment behind the ban was written to limit taxes.”

Short answer: No, to widen them

The 1930 amendment was meant to let the state tax more kinds of wealth, such as stocks and bonds that had escaped taxes. The court later used its broad definition of property to strike down the income tax voters passed two years after it.

See the evidence: What the constitution's text says

“Fact: The Washington State income tax is unconstitutional. It’s been that way for over a hundred years.”

Our rating: Mostly true

Past rulings point against the 2026 tax, but no court has ruled on it, and its backers are asking the court to overturn them. The bar dates from 1933, 93 years ago.

See the evidence: The 2026 tax and the pending lawsuit

“It's literally in the state constitution that we can't have a state income tax.”

Our rating: Misleading

The constitution's text never mentions an income tax. The bar is real today, but it comes from court rulings reading the uniformity rule, which the court can revisit.

See the evidence: What the constitution's text says

“The millionaires tax is an end-around to avoid the state constitution.”

Short answer: Partly

The law calls itself a tax on income and plans for a court fight. It voids most of the act if a court strikes the tax. But the sponsor also asked how to 'bolster the argument that this would be an excise tax,' the theory that saved the capital gains tax in 2023. So the state is pursuing two routes: avoid the 1933 rule, or overturn it.

See the evidence: The 2026 tax and the pending lawsuit

“The millionaires tax is a tax on earning income, like the business tax, not a tax on property.”

Short answer: The state's likely defense

The sponsor says 'It's a tax on doing something,' like the business and occupation tax and the capital gains tax. Courts have rejected similar labels before: in 1936 a tax on 'the privilege of receiving income,' and in 1951 a corporate 'excise.' The 2026 law taxes 'the receipt of' income. Whether that differs is for the courts to decide.

See the evidence: 1936 to 2019: later courts closed the routes around the rule

“The tax has one flat 9.9% rate, so it is uniform.”

Short answer: Not under the 1936 ruling

In our reading, the 1936 ruling cuts against that. The court struck a flat 3% tax because personal exemptions of $1,000 and $2,500 split income into unequal classes. The 2026 tax exempts the first $1 million. The rate, 9.9%, is also far above the 1% cap the court applies to property taxes.

See the evidence: What the constitution's text says

“The Supreme Court is sure to approve the tax anyway.”

Short answer: Unknown

No one can know yet. The court overrules precedent only when it is shown to be incorrect and harmful or its basis has eroded. In 2023 it declined to reexamine the 1933 ruling. The attorney general says that ruling was wrongly decided, and Petter v. State is pending.

See the evidence: The 2026 tax and the pending lawsuit

“If courts strike the tax, the tax cuts passed with it survive.”

Short answer: No, most are voided

The law says that if a court of final jurisdiction invalidates the tax, most of the act is void, including its sales-tax exemptions and credits. It also tells the Department of Revenue to keep implementing the tax during the litigation.

See the evidence: The 2026 tax and the pending lawsuit

Conclusion

The constitution's text and nine decades of court rulings fit together. Article VII never mentions an income tax. It requires every tax on the same class of property to be uniform, and a 1930 amendment defines property as everything that can be owned. In 1933, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court held that income fits that definition. A graduated rate therefore taxes one class of property unequally.

Later rulings closed the routes around that holding. In 1936 the court struck down a flat 3% tax because its personal exemptions split income into classes. It also rejected calling it a tax on the privilege of receiving income. In 1951 it struck down a corporate income tax labeled an excise. A Seattle tax fell the same way in 2019. Since 1944 the constitution has also capped property taxes, now at 1% of value, a cap existing property taxes already use.

The 2023 capital gains ruling is the main counterweight. The court upheld that tax as a tax on selling assets, not on income, and declined to revisit the 1933 rule. The sponsor of the 2026 tax argues it is likewise a tax on the activity of earning. He and the attorney general also say the 1933 ruling was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

Confidence is high because the claim is about what the rulings hold, and they say it plainly. What is unproven is the future: whether today's court will keep the rule, distinguish it, or overturn it. That question is pending in Petter v. State. The flat claim that the 2026 tax 'is unconstitutional' states that pending ruling as settled.

How we checked
  1. Defined the claim as what Washington's constitution, as read by the state's appellate courts, says about a graduated or high-rate income tax. We rated the exact words of two widely shared posts separately.
  2. Read Article VII of the constitution, its amendment history and the original 1889 text.
  3. Read the full opinions in Culliton v. Chase (1933), Jensen v. Henneford (1936), Power, Inc. v. Huntley (1951) and Quinn v. State (2023). We relied on Quinn for two rulings we did not read in full.
  4. Read the enacted 2026 law (ESSB 6346), the county court's case page for Petter v. State, and news reports quoting the sponsor and the attorney general.
  5. Checked the ballot history against the Secretary of State's list, as in FactHub's companion article.
  6. Recorded what is still open: the pending lawsuit and whether the court will keep the 1933 rule.

Editorial note: Scope: what Washington's constitution says about income taxes and how the state's appellate courts have read it, rated as of November 3, 2026. The article does not predict how the courts will rule on the 2026 tax or how voters will decide Initiative 645. The legal analysis is FactHub's reading of the published opinions, not legal advice; the comparison of the 2026 law with the 1936 Jensen ruling is our own and is labeled as such. A companion article checks the count of income-tax measures voters have rejected. FactHub takes no 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 15

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

  1. Government Washington State Legislature. Washington State Constitution, Article VII (Revenue and Taxation)

    The official text of Article VII with each amendment's history note and the original 1889 sections.

    Reliability: Official text of the state constitution published by the Legislature, including stricken original sections.

    • Every tax on the same class of property must be uniform.

      What the source says
      All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax
      Article VII, Section 1

    • The constitution defines property as everything, tangible or intangible, that can be owned; it does not mention income.

      What the source says
      The word "property" as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.
      Article VII, Section 1

    • All property taxes combined are capped at 1% of value a year.

      What the source says
      shall not in any year exceed one percent of the true and fair value of such property in money
      Article VII, Section 2

    • The definition of property came from Amendment 14, approved in November 1930.

      What the source says
      AMENDMENT 14, 1929 p 499 Section 1. Approved November, 1930.
      Article VII, Section 1, history note for Amendment 14

    • Qualifies: The 1889 original required a uniform rate on all property according to its value, with no definition of property.

      What the source says
      a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation on all property in the state, according to its value in money
      Original text, Article VII, Section 2
  2. Government Washington State Supreme Court (via Caselaw Access Project). Culliton v. Chase, 174 Wash. 363, 25 P.2d 81 (1933)

    The 1933 decision striking down Initiative 69, with the lead, concurring and dissenting opinions, from Harvard Law School's scanned Washington Reports.

    Reliability: The court's published opinions, reproduced by Harvard's Caselaw Access Project from the official reports; the scan has some optical-reading errors.

    • The lead opinion held that income is property and a tax on income is a tax on property.

      What the source says
      The overwhelming weight of judicial authority is that “income” is property and a tax upon income is a tax upon property.
      Opinion of Holcomb, J.

    • Because income is property, the graduated rates were not uniform.

      What the source says
      It needs no argument to demonstrate that the income taxes here levied are wholly lacking in uniformity.
      Opinion of Holcomb, J.

    • Qualifies: A concurring justice stressed that the case concerned a graduated tax, not a uniform one.

      What the source says
      We are not here concerned with an act relating to a uniform income tax
      Concurring opinion of Mitchell, J. · Justice Mitchell, concurring

    • Qualifies: The dissent rejected the reasoning that an income tax is a property tax.

      What the source says
      To so reason seems to me to be sheer sophistry.
      Dissenting opinion of Blake, J. · Justice Blake, dissenting
  3. Government Washington State Supreme Court (via Caselaw Access Project). Jensen v. Henneford, 185 Wash. 209, 53 P.2d 607 (1936)

    The 1936 decision striking down the 1935 personal net income tax, including its flat normal tax.

    Reliability: The court's published opinions, reproduced from the official reports; quotes keep the scan's optical-reading errors (such as 'tbe' for 'the').

    • The 1935 tax was labeled a tax on the privilege of receiving income.

      What the source says
      for the privilege of receiving income therein while enjoying the protection of its laws
      Majority opinion, quoting section 2 of the 1935 act

    • The court held that taxing ownership through a privilege label is still a property tax.

      What the source says
      But the mere right to own and hold property cannot be made the subject of an excise tax, because to tax by reason of ownership of property is to tax the property itself.
      Majority opinion of Steinert, J.

    • Even the flat 3% tax failed, because personal exemptions split income into unequal classes.

      What the source says
      a credit of one thousand dollars is allowed…Tbe normal tax, therefore, just as the surtax, violates tbe uniformity provision of tbe constitution.
      Majority opinion, discussion of section 10 credits

    • The court voided the whole act, both the flat and the surtax parts.

      What the source says
      unconstitutional and void, both as to the normal tax and as to the surtax.
      Majority opinion, closing

    • The chief justice noted that voters had not amended the constitution to allow an income tax.

      What the source says
      the people have not seen fit to amend the constitution to permit us to hold otherwise.
      Concurring opinion of Millard, C.J. · Chief Justice Millard, concurring
  4. Government Washington State Supreme Court (via Caselaw Access Project). Power, Inc. v. Huntley, 39 Wn.2d 191, 235 P.2d 173 (1951)

    The 1951 decision striking down a 4% corporate tax on net income that the Legislature had labeled an excise.

    Reliability: The court's published opinions, reproduced from the official reports.

    • The court held that calling an income tax an excise did not change what it was.

      What the source says
      the tax is a mere property tax “masquerading as an excise.”
      Majority opinion of Hill, J.

    • The tax reached nearly all income, unlike the business tax, which is a true excise.

      What the source says
      taxes almost any income from almost every source.
      Majority opinion of Hill, J.
  5. Government Washington State Supreme Court. Quinn v. State, No. 100769-8 (March 24, 2023), majority opinion: history

    The 2023 capital gains decision, whose background section recounts the 1930s history of income taxes in Washington.

    Reliability: Slip opinion from the court's website. Its history relies on published histories by Burrows, Roberts and Spitzer.

    • Qualifies: The court's first vote on the 1932 tax was a 4-4 tie; the final result was 5-4.

      What the source says
      records relay that the first vote was deadlocked, four to four.
      Slip op. p. 9

    • Qualifies: Voters approved Initiative 69, a graduated income tax, with about 70% in 1932.

      What the source says
      two tax-related popular initiatives, I-64 and I-69, each by a vote of 70 percent.
      Slip op. p. 9

    • Qualifies: The 1930 amendment widened what the state could tax by broadening the definition of property.

      What the source says
      expanded the constitutional definition of "property" to capture
      Slip op. p. 8

    • The 1% cap on property taxes dates from 1972, replacing an earlier cap.

      What the source says
      today was enacted in 1972 through amendment 55.
      Slip op. p. 9, n.3
  6. Government Washington State Supreme Court. Quinn v. State, No. 100769-8 (March 24, 2023), majority opinion: holding

    The 7-2 majority opinion upholding the capital gains tax as an excise.

    Reliability: Slip opinion from the court's website; the State of Washington was a party.

    • Qualifies: The court upheld the capital gains tax as an excise and declined to reexamine the 1933 ruling.

      What the source says
      decline to reexamine Culliton because article VII's uniformity and levy limitations
      Slip op. p. 17

    • Since 1933, appellate courts have consistently struck down net income taxes as unequal property taxes.

      What the source says
      Since Culliton, Washington appellate courts have…consistently striking down graduated net income taxes as
      Slip op. pp. 20-21

    • The court distinguished struck-down taxes in which the taxed event was receiving income.

      What the source says
      incident was the receipt of income itself
      Slip op. p. 27
  7. Government Washington State Supreme Court. Quinn v. State, No. 100769-8 (March 24, 2023), dissent of Gordon McCloud, J.

    The two-justice dissent, which would have struck the capital gains tax as a property tax over the 1% cap.

    Reliability: A dissent states the view of the justices who signed it, not the court's holding.

    • Two justices restated the rule that income is property in Washington.

      What the source says
      In Washington, income is property.
      Dissent, opening · Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud, dissenting
  8. Government Washington Secretary of State. Income Tax Ballot Measures (archived October 13, 2026)

    The Elections Division's table of statewide income-tax ballot measures. The live page now returns an error.

    Reliability: Official election records; the page groups personal, corporate and gross-income taxes together.

    • Voters were asked 11 times to adopt a personal or corporate income tax; only the 1932 measure passed.

      What the source says
      Washington voters have been asked on 11 separate occasions to adopt a state personal income tax or corporate income tax. Only the first vote, in 1932, was successful
      Introduction
  9. Government Washington State Legislature. Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6346, Chapter 238, Laws of 2026 (session law)

    The enacted millionaires tax, signed March 30, 2026.

    Reliability: The official session law as certified by the Senate. Line numbers in the file appear between quoted lines.

    • The law taxes the receipt of taxable income, starting January 1, 2028.

      What the source says
      a tax is imposed on the receipt of Washington taxable
      Sec. 201(1), p. 6

    • The tax applies only above a $1 million standard deduction.

      What the source says
      ONE MILLION DOLLAR STANDARD DEDUCTION
      Sec. 314, heading

    • If a court of final jurisdiction strikes the tax, most of the act is void.

      What the source says
      jurisdiction invalidates section 201 of this act, sections 1 through
      Sec. 1202, p. 107

    • Lawmakers told the Department of Revenue to keep implementing the tax during litigation.

      What the source says
      to spend appropriated amounts to implement…this act regardless of litigation.
      Sec. 1209, p. 108
  10. Government Washington State Legislature. ESSB 6346 (Chapter 238, Laws of 2026): title and legislative findings

    The certificate of enrollment and Section 1 findings of the enacted millionaires tax.

    Reliability: Has a stake in this finding. The findings state the Legislature's own reasons for the tax; they are the majority's view, not a neutral finding.

    • The law's own title calls it a tax on individual income.

      What the source says
      TAXES--INDIVIDUAL INCOME OVER $1 MILLION
      Certificate of enrollment

    • Qualifies: The Legislature's stated reason is that the state's tax system is among the most regressive.

      What the source says
      remains the second most regressive in the nation
      Sec. 1(7), p. 3
  11. Government Klickitat County. Case Information (Millionaires Tax)

    The county's page for Petter v. State, the lawsuit challenging the 2026 tax in Klickitat County Superior Court.

    Reliability: County court information page listing the case number, parties and judge; it does not post filings.

    • Qualifies: The lawsuit challenging the tax is pending in Klickitat County Superior Court.

      What the source says
      26-2-00073-20
      Case Number

    • Qualifies: The county's case page was last updated May 1, 2026.

      What the source says
      Last Content Update: 5/1/26
      Page header
  12. News report FOX 13 Seattle, May 8, 2026. Architect of WA's millionaire tax defends strategy revealed in leaked emails

    A television news report quoting a leaked email from the tax's sponsor, Sen. Jamie Pedersen, and an interview with him.

    Reliability: Local TV station; the email was first reported by The Center Square from public records. We have not seen the original email.

    • Qualifies: The sponsor wrote that he wanted the Supreme Court to reconsider treating income as property.

      What the source says
      I’d like to force the Washington State Supreme Court to reconsider its case law that considers income to be property.
      Leaked email quote · Sen. Jamie Pedersen, Senate Majority Leader and sponsor

    • Qualifies: In the same email he asked how to strengthen the argument that the tax is an excise.

      What the source says
      Do you have any other suggestions about how to bolster the argument that this would be an excise tax and not a property tax?
      Leaked email quote · Sen. Jamie Pedersen

    • Qualifies: The sponsor argues the tax falls on the activity of earning, not on owning.

      What the source says
      It's a tax on doing something.
      Interview quote, constitutional issue · Sen. Jamie Pedersen

    • Qualifies: As of the report, the lawsuit was undecided.

      What the source says
      The decision on that is pending.
      Paragraph on the McKenna and Talmadge lawsuit
  13. News report KIRO 7 / KIRO Newsradio, May 2026. WA AG defends role drafting millionaires tax legislation, pushes back on McKenna's claims

    News report on Attorney General Nick Brown's radio interview about his office's advice on the tax.

    Reliability: Local news outlet quoting the attorney general, whose office defends the tax in court.

    • Qualifies: The attorney general says the 1933 ruling was wrongly decided.

      What the source says
      we agreed that it was wrongly decided
      Brown quote · Nick Brown, Washington Attorney General
  14. Other X post by @JoeKennewick, Nov. 2, 2026. Post urging a Yes vote on I-645 and votes in Supreme Court races

    A widely viewed post (about 12,800 views on November 3) stating that the income tax is unconstitutional.

    Reliability: Has a stake in this finding. A personal account urging a Yes vote on I-645; quoted as the claim being checked.

    • Qualifies: The post states as fact that the income tax is unconstitutional and has been for over a hundred years.

      What the source says
      Fact: The Washington State income tax is unconstitutional. It’s been that way for over a hundred years.
      Post text · @JoeKennewick
  15. Other X post by @jaylyn600, Nov. 2, 2026. Post on Washington's income tax

    A widely viewed post (about 11,500 views on November 3) saying the constitution literally bars a state income tax.

    Reliability: A personal account; quoted as the claim being checked.

    • Qualifies: The post says the constitution literally says the state can't have an income tax.

      What the source says
      it's literally in the state constitution that we can't have a state income tax.
      Post text · @jaylyn600

Update history 1 change, last

  1. Initial version.

For developers: ClaimReview data

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/wa-constitution-income-tax-ban/1","datePublished":"2026-11-03","dateModified":"2026-11-03","author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"FactHub","url":"https://facthub.org/"},"claimReviewed":"Washington\u0027s constitution, as the state Supreme Court has read it since 1933, bars a graduated or high-rate income tax.","reviewRating":{"@type":"Rating","alternateName":"True"},"image":"https://facthub.org/node-assets-v2/article/wa-constitution-income-tax-ban/1/temple-of-justice/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:wa-constitution-income-tax-ban