Rep. Jim Walsh loses "meritless" attempt to limit voter information on ballot initiative

Judge rejects SW Washington lawmaker's effort to undercut financial disclosure law

A Washington judge’s ruling last week in effect told State Rep. Jim Walsh that he can’t hide key information from voters — or use doublespeak to justify doing so. 

Walsh, a conservative Republican who represents Southwest Washington, filed suit May 9 to prevent financial information about three initiatives from appearing on the general election ballot this November.

The measures would repeal the state capital gains tax on the wealthy (Initiative -2109); scrap the state’s “cap-and-trade” system (Initiative-2117);  and make participation in the state long-term care insurance program optional (Initiative-2124).

Each would have a tremendous impact on the state budget by cutting billions in dollars of revenue, much of it earmarked for education, combatting climate change and providing long-term health care for future generations.

A 2022 state law requires descriptions of how much initiatives would cost to be printed on ballot. The law requires brief, 15-word disclosures if a ballot measure repeals, levies or modifies a tax or fee, and if it would cause a net change in state revenue. 

The law is straightforward and was passed with tremendous public support. It was a response to initiative champion Tim Eyman’s many initiatives to cut state taxes and spending without disclosing how they would affect the state budget or programs.  Eyman’s efforts are one reason city governments across the state are facing financial crunches.

These 2024 initiatives raise serious matters.

I-2117 would repeal the state’s Climate Commitment Act, which works to cap and reduce pollution while creating revenue for investments that address climate change. It raised $1.8 billion in 2023 through quarterly auctions in which emission allowances are sold to businesses covered under the act.

I- 2109 would repeal the tax imposed on the sale or exchange of stocks, bonds and other high-end assets, with exemptions for the first $262,000. Only the wealthy pay this.

I- 2124 will decide whether state residents must pay into Washington Cares, the state’s public long-term care insurance program.

Walsh, who is the state GOP chair, and his allies argued  — incredibly and duplicitously — that the three initiatives don’t fit the criteria under the 2022 disclosure law. 

Cap-and-trade allows businesses to buy allowances to offset their greenhouse gas emissions if needed, but those are not taxes, Walsh and others argued. 

The long-term care program administers an insurance premium, not a tax, according to their lawsuit. 

And, they said, the capital gains tax should be considered repealed given a separate initiative that the Legislature approved earlier this year banning any tax on personal income. 

The state is still collecting the capital gains tax, and if the tax were in fact repealed there would be no need for the initiative.   

Walsh himself has referred to some of these programs as taxes before filing the lawsuit. And even Eyman, who opposed the 2022 disclosure law, has conceded that I-2109 — the measure to abolish the capital gains tax — would repeal a tax and cost the state billions in revenue.

In an email to the Associated Press, Walsh called the financial disclosure requirements a “warning label” that would be “weaponized.”  

There we have that overused popular word again, the one used to mask real intentions and deflect genuine concerns. 

What Walsh really tried to do here is undercut opposition to the initiatives by using contorted logic and deception. Voters should know what they are voting for, and every scrap of reliable information helps.

“Their lawsuit had one inexcusable purpose: to hide the truth about the impacts of these initiatives from voters,” Aaron Ostrom, executive director of the progressive advocacy organization FUSE Washington, said in a statement about the suit. “They know they will lose if voters understand what these destructive, deceptive initiatives actually do.”

State AttorneyGeneral Bob Ferguson, who is running for governor, put out a statement that called the lawsuit a “meritless” attempt to deny voters information. 

Thankfully, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Allyson Zipp ruled against Walsh and GOP Mainstream Republican Chair Deanna Martinez.

Zipp determined it was the intent of the Legislature, when it approved the 2022 law, to provide greater transparency to voters with the disclosure statements, according to an Associated Press report.

Therefore, what is considered a “tax or fee” should not be interpreted in a “cramped or limited manner.” Rather, she said, the law should be viewed more broadly to provide additional information when voters are asked to legislate at the ballot box, according to AP.

With so much riding on the vote, citizens should have a fair shot at understanding the financial as well as programatic impacts of these ballot measures.

Walsh said he and Martinez are likely to appeal, but they should quit before they look even more silly and duplicitous.