Emails show WA's ‘millionaires tax’ aims to overturn historic ruling
Uncovered emails create 'millionaires tax' controversy
Washington's recently-passed "millionaires tax" is facing new questions after un-redacted emails uncovered the steps lawmakers took to battle future legal challenges to the law, and how the Attorney General's office helped curate it.
OLYMPIA, Wash. - Internal records obtained through public disclosure requests by investigative reporter TJ Martinell with The Center Square claim Washington state lawmakers and the Attorney General’s Office coordinated to craft a "millionaire’s tax" specifically designed to provoke a legal challenge.
Martinell's report suggests the primary legislative intent is to force the state Supreme Court to reconsider the 1933 Culliton decision, which defines income as property.
Under the state constitution’s 14th Amendment, all property must be taxed uniformly, effectively prohibiting a progressive income tax.
Dig deeper:
In an August 2025 email to legislative counsel, Sen. Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle), the bill’s prime sponsor, outlined his objectives for the proposed 9.9% tax on federal adjusted gross income exceeding $1 million.
"I expect that the bill will get challenged in court," Pedersen wrote. "I would like to force the Washington Supreme Court to reconsider its case law that considers income to be property. Do you have any other suggestions about how to bolster the argument that this would be an excise tax and not a property tax?"
Martinell told FOX 13 Seattle that the records show the bill was tailored not to avoid legal scrutiny, but to invite it.
"They're not being subtle or being nuanced," Martinell said. "They're explicitly stating in these emails that this is the purpose of the tax […] to make sure it only runs up to legal problems on an issue that they want the Supreme Court to address."
The records show the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) provided detailed guidance on the bill’s language. According to Martinell’s reporting, this included advice on avoiding a "marriage penalty" to keep the legal focus solely on the Culliton precedent. The AGO also noted the absence of an "emergency clause," which would have prevented voters from challenging the law through a referendum.
"So, effectively, warning that the voters might have a say," Martinell said.
State officials defend the policy
The other side:
Proponents of the measure, including Governor Bob Ferguson, have consistently argued the tax is a necessary tool to balance the state’s tax code. State officials maintain the tax is designed to ensure the wealthiest residents pay their fair share to fund essential services, such as K-12 school meals and support for small businesses.
Addressing the collaboration between the legislature and legal counsel, a spokesperson for Attorney General Nick Brown said the Center Square’s misleading narrative is nonsense and provided FOX 13 Seattle with the following statement:
"We’re required by law to represent the Legislature. They get to ask us questions, and we respond. There’s nothing unusual about any of that. It is what attorneys and the offices of attorneys general do. Every Washington AG has represented the Legislature, answered questions from legislators of all parties and given advice when requested. That some political actors want to make more out of it doesn’t change the facts."
Voter precedent and economic concerns
Big picture view:
Despite the state’s assertion that the tax is targeted only at high earners, critics and some taxpayers express concern that overturning the 1933 precedent would clear the way for a broad-based income tax.
"This was a bill that was intended almost exclusively to be used as a vehicle for overturning legal precedent," Martinell said. "If the bill does what it’s intended, everyone in the state could be subject to paying an income tax."
Washington voters have historically rejected income tax proposals, most recently in 2010 with Initiative 1098, which failed with over 60% of the vote. Critics also point to the recent relocation of high-profile residents and businesses to states without income taxes as a potential consequence of the shifting fiscal landscape.
"Pie crust promises"
The email dump comes amid concerns over Washington’s business climate. High-profile departures, such as Jeff Bezos moving to Florida, have highlighted the potential for "tax flight."
Martinell pointed to Pedersen’s own description of a previous ban on income taxes as a "pie crust promise" — one easily made and easily broken.
"If the Supreme Court does rule in favor of them and overturn a century's worth of case law, everybody could be having to file an income tax return," Martinell warned. "At some point, there's going to be a reckoning."
FOX 13 Seattle reached out to Sen. Pedersen for comment regarding the internal records and are still waiting to hear back.
MORE NEWS FROM FOX 13 SEATTLE
WA man's loved ones battle misinformation, honor legacy after killing
2 cyclists hit by car on Seattle's Aurora Avenue
Seattle mayor responds to growing concerns surrounding data center proposals
Those cute sea lions at Seattle's Golden Gardens Park can still be dangerous
Small plane loses engine, makes emergency landing at Auburn, WA construction site
To get the best local news, weather and sports in Seattle for free, sign up for the daily FOX Seattle Newsletter.
Download the free FOX LOCAL app for mobile in the Apple App Store or Google Play Store for live Seattle news, top stories, weather updates and more local and national news.
The Source: Information in this story comes from original reporting by FOX 13 Seattle reporter Alejandra Guzman.