Initiative 645: the campaigns' claims in their own words
Every factual claim in the official arguments for and against Washington Initiative 645 in the 2026 state voters' pamphlet, quoted verbatim with its heading, plus the governor's release that first used the 460,000-families figure. FactHub fact checks cite these statements so each rating rests on the campaign's exact words.
The voters' pamphlet is the one place each campaign stated its case in its own words, at equal length, on the same page, mailed to every voter. Every sentence in either statement that makes a checkable claim of fact or a prediction is included, so the set is fixed by what the campaigns wrote rather than by FactHub's choice. Statements of value or exhortation (for example 'Vote Yes' or 'Join Washington nurses') are left out. The governor's March 30, 2026 release is added because it is the earliest official source we found for the 460,000 figure the No argument uses.
Geography
Washington, United States
Unit of observation
One quoted statement: a sentence or passage from a campaign's voters' pamphlet argument or an official release.
Update cadence
One-time release for the November 3, 2026 election; new versions add statements from ads and officials as FactHub checks them.
Curator
FactHub Research Team
Curated data tables
These related tables form this versioned dataset release. Each
table has its own downloadable file and field definitions.
Quoted statements
Every checkable claim in the 2026 voters' pamphlet arguments for and against I-645, plus one official release, verbatim.
Node.js script that writes the CSV and JSON files from the quoted statements.
Statements on record
Exact quotes, unaltered, with what surrounded them, the primary
source, and an archived copy of it.
“Over the last 90 years, Washingtonians have rejected an income tax ten times because they knew it would threaten economic growth, discourage investment, and reach beyond the people originally targeted.”
Committee for the argument for Initiative 645 (Sen. Chris Gildon and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for I-645
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument for: "Vote Yes: Repeal the Income Tax, Make Olympia Keep Its Word" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Opens the Yes argument, counting statewide votes on income-tax measures since the 1930s as evidence that voters oppose any income tax.
“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
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument for: "Taxes Always Expand" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Refers to amendments, rejected while ESSB 6346 passed in 2026, that would have required a public vote before the tax could be broadened.
“80 times in the last five years Olympia has moved money from dedicated accounts to the general fund.”
Committee for the argument for Initiative 645 (Sen. Chris Gildon and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for I-645
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument for: "A History of Broken Promises" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Offered as evidence that money raised for a stated purpose can later be redirected to the state general fund.
“The capital gains tax was promised to support early learning and childcare, yet those commitments were delayed, reduced, or cancelled.”
Committee for the argument for Initiative 645 (Sen. Chris Gildon and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for I-645
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument for: "A History of Broken Promises" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Cites the 2021 capital gains tax, sold partly as funding for child care and early learning, as an example of a broken promise.
“First responders spent careers relying on promises about their retirements, only to watch the legislature raid their pensions to plug holes in the general fund.”
Committee for the argument for Initiative 645 (Sen. Chris Gildon and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for I-645
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument for: "A History of Broken Promises" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Offered as another example of lawmakers breaking promises, here about how the state funds public-employee retirement plans.
“Voting Yes repeals the new income tax before it begins, preserves the Working Families Tax Credit, paid family leave, and small-business tax relief.”
Committee for the argument for Initiative 645 (Sen. Chris Gildon and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for I-645
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument for: "Closing paragraph" ·
·
Assertion
Context: The Yes answer to the warning that repeal would undo the tax relief passed with the 2026 law.
“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
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument for: "Rebuttal of argument against" ·
·
Assertion
Context: The Yes reply to the No argument, warning that lawmakers alone could lower the $1 million threshold.
“This was never about schools or diapers, that's a scare tactic.”
Committee for the argument for Initiative 645 (Sen. Chris Gildon and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for I-645
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument for: "Rebuttal of argument against" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Responds to the No argument that repeal would make families pay sales tax on diapers and cut school funding.
Committee for the argument for Initiative 645 (Sen. Chris Gildon and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for I-645
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument for: "Rebuttal of argument against" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Offered in the Yes rebuttal to argue that the state does not need the new tax to fund its budget.
“An income tax on anyone will become an income tax on 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
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument for: "Rebuttal of argument against" ·
·
Prediction
Context: The closing prediction of the Yes rebuttal: that a tax on income over $1 million will eventually be extended to all earners.
“Washington has one of the nation’s most upside-down tax systems, where working and middle class families pay a far higher tax rate than the wealthiest.”
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
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument against: "Opening paragraph" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Opens the No argument, framing the tax as a way to make Washington's tax system less regressive.
“I-645 is fiscally irresponsible, slashing billions in funding for education and healthcare, increasing taxes on 460,000 hard-working families, and jeopardizing tax cuts for thousands of small businesses.”
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
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument against: "Opening paragraph" ·
·
Assertion
Context: The No argument's summary of what repeal would do; later paragraphs argue each effect in more detail.
“Hedge fund mogul Brian Heywood has spent millions backing I-645 because he wants a tax cut for the top 1%, while sticking working and middle class families and small businesses with higher costs.”
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
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument against: "Vote No: Stop a Tax Break for the Wealthiest" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Turns to who is paying for the Yes campaign, arguing that the measure mainly benefits the highest earners.
“I-645 could mean higher taxes for thousands of small businesses, force families to pay sales tax for basic household items like diapers, and raise taxes for 460,000 Washington families – just so those making over a million dollars in a year get a tax break.”
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
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument against: "Vote No: Stop a Tax Break for the Wealthiest" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Refers to the tax relief passed with the tax, including the Working Families Tax Credit expansion the governor said reaches 460,000 families.
“This measure cuts funding for K-12 public schools, healthcare, childcare, and other important public services by $13 billion over four years.”
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
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument against: "Vote No: Stop Cuts to Schools, Healthcare, and Childcare" ·
·
Assertion
Context: The No argument's headline cost figure: revenue the tax is projected to raise over its first four years of collections.
“That means larger class sizes, higher costs for healthcare and childcare, and the elimination of free school lunches for many children.”
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
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument against: "Vote No: Stop Cuts to Schools, Healthcare, and Childcare" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Follows the $13 billion figure and describes what the No campaign says losing that revenue would mean for services.
“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
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument against: "Rebuttal of argument for" ·
·
Assertion
Context: The No campaign's answer to the Yes argument that lawmakers could expand the tax.
“I-645 blows a $13 billion hole in the budget - don’t believe lies that we can keep tax cuts for working families and small businesses but eliminate the tax on the wealthy few that pays for them.”
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
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument against: "Rebuttal of argument for" ·
·
Assertion
Context: The No reply to the Yes claim that repeal keeps the tax relief passed with the tax.
“Expansion of the Working Families Tax Credit to 460,000 new working families.”
Office of Governor Bob Ferguson, Governor of Washington (press office)
Press release, "Governor Ferguson signs Millionaires' Tax into law" ·
·
Assertion
Context: A bullet in the governor's list of what ESSB 6346 does, published the day he signed the bill. It describes households newly eligible for the Working Families Tax Credit, an expansion that the Budget and Policy Center says begins in 2029. It is the earliest official use of the 460,000 figure we found.
Retrieved October 21, 2026. Washington state public record; excerpts quoted for commentary. Short excerpts quoted verbatim; the full page is available from the Secretary of State.
Reliability:
Government.
The Secretary of State prints each side's argument as submitted by its committee; it does not edit or check the claims. The arguments themselves are advocacy by the two campaigns.
Retrieved October 21, 2026. Washington state public record; excerpt quoted for commentary. One sentence quoted verbatim.
Reliability:
Party to the dispute.
Has a stake in this finding. The governor signed ESSB 6346 and campaigns against I-645, so the release presents the law favorably. It is used here only for what it says the law does and where the 460,000 figure comes from.
Limitations and reproducibility
Reproducible: Each quote was copied from the text layer of the Secretary of State's PDF of voters' pamphlet page 14 and from the governor's web page. build_statements.js regenerates the CSV and JSON files from the quotes it lists.
Selection of which sentences count as checkable claims is FactHub's judgment; sentences that are pure appeals or values were left out.
Quotes are copied from the PDF text layer; typographic characters (curly apostrophes, the en dash in the No argument) are kept as they appear.
The pamphlet does not name an individual speaker for each sentence. Each statement is credited to the committee that wrote that argument; the pamphlet lists six authors for each side.
Statements are not rated in this dataset. Ratings appear in the FactHub articles that cite each statement.
wa_i645_campaign_statements.csv
text/csv · 4.5 KB (4,657 bytes)
