This Washington
Extra Fizz: Misleading Ballot Title on High-Earners Income Tax Proposal
This post was originally published on Tuesday. It has been updated with additional comments from Attorney General Rob McKenna's spokesman Dan Sytman.
Progressive attorney Knoll Lowney has filed a potential statewide ballot initiative this year—I-1070— for a high-earners income tax (5 percent on income over $400,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals). Lowney isn't sure if he's going forward with it yet.
However, the deck may already be stacked against his idea. When the ballot title came back from the Attorney General's office, there was no mention of high earners.
Here's the language the Attorney General's office came up with:
A relevant civics lesson: Sponsors of proposed initiatives submit their idea to the Secretary of State's office, the Secretary approves it (or not), shores up the language, and then sends it on to the AG's office. The AG's office comes up with a ballot title.
Lowney was not happy about the ballot title when it came back from the AG's office—"it takes out the most important aspect of the initiative," he says—and he challenged it in Thurston County Superior Court.
Earlier this month, the judge ruled, sticking with the AG's generic ballot title. There is no appeal process.
Dan Sytman, spokesman for the Attorney General's office, says, "it's our responsibility to be descriptive not reflective of one party or another," referring to the fact that ballot titles are typically challenged from both sides of an issue.
Lowney reports that he was the lone challenger.
Sytman is checking to see why the AG's office recommended the language it did in this specific case.
UPDATE:
Sytman says the reason the AG's office settled on "certain income" instead of going with the specific numbers—$200,000 and $400,000 that the initiative language specifics—is because 1) the initiative calls for adjustments over time, so the numbers will change and 2) he says it wasn't clear if the initiative refers to gross income or adjustable income or taxable income.
"One side wants [the ballot title] to be persuasive to their point of view," Sytman says, "but our goal is to be neutral and avoid doing anything that characterizes the initiative."
He says that if Lowney goes forward with the initiative, "there will be a public fight with TV ads and voter pamphlet statements, but we don't want to get into the fight in the ballot title."
Sytman also stressed that the Solicitor General's Office—the division in the AG's office that handles ballot titles—is staffed with veterans from both Republican and Democratic AG administrations and the AG himself is not involved in the process.
Progressive attorney Knoll Lowney has filed a potential statewide ballot initiative this year—I-1070— for a high-earners income tax (5 percent on income over $400,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals). Lowney isn't sure if he's going forward with it yet.
However, the deck may already be stacked against his idea. When the ballot title came back from the Attorney General's office, there was no mention of high earners.
Here's the language the Attorney General's office came up with:
This measure would establish a tax on certain income, reduce the state property tax levy, reduce certain business and occupation taxes, and direct any resulting increased revenues to education and health services. [Bold is ours.]
A relevant civics lesson: Sponsors of proposed initiatives submit their idea to the Secretary of State's office, the Secretary approves it (or not), shores up the language, and then sends it on to the AG's office. The AG's office comes up with a ballot title.
Lowney was not happy about the ballot title when it came back from the AG's office—"it takes out the most important aspect of the initiative," he says—and he challenged it in Thurston County Superior Court.
Earlier this month, the judge ruled, sticking with the AG's generic ballot title. There is no appeal process.
Dan Sytman, spokesman for the Attorney General's office, says, "it's our responsibility to be descriptive not reflective of one party or another," referring to the fact that ballot titles are typically challenged from both sides of an issue.
Lowney reports that he was the lone challenger.
Sytman is checking to see why the AG's office recommended the language it did in this specific case.
UPDATE:
Sytman says the reason the AG's office settled on "certain income" instead of going with the specific numbers—$200,000 and $400,000 that the initiative language specifics—is because 1) the initiative calls for adjustments over time, so the numbers will change and 2) he says it wasn't clear if the initiative refers to gross income or adjustable income or taxable income.
"One side wants [the ballot title] to be persuasive to their point of view," Sytman says, "but our goal is to be neutral and avoid doing anything that characterizes the initiative."
He says that if Lowney goes forward with the initiative, "there will be a public fight with TV ads and voter pamphlet statements, but we don't want to get into the fight in the ballot title."
Sytman also stressed that the Solicitor General's Office—the division in the AG's office that handles ballot titles—is staffed with veterans from both Republican and Democratic AG administrations and the AG himself is not involved in the process.
