UPDATE 2:

Here's the new initiative.

The change re: domestic partners is on page 15. See subsection five under Section 904, which says the act should be implemented in accordance with bill 5668.

Funny, though. They meant bill 5688. That's the domestic partners bill. 5668 regulates sales of mobile homes.

Dave Ammons, spokesperson for the Secretary of State, says the proponents were clear that they think their initial initiative automatically would  jibe with the domestic partners laws passed by the legislature last year, but the new initiative is intended to make it absolutely clear. The new initiative also deals with a technical issue around B&O taxes. Remember: I-1077 would lower B&O taxes for small businesses. Today's amended initiative clarifies that point in light of the new B&O increases just passed by the legislature.

UPDATE:

Sandeep Kaushik, a consultant on the high-earners income tax campaign, confirms (what we noted earlier today) that "today we will file another initiative." However, aware that it will take a couple of weeks to go through the process, they are still "working to find a way to make it clear that state law would apply here [in the current initiative] to domestic partners."

Kaushik referred to the domestic partners bills passed by the state legislature over the past three years that say domestic partners have the same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples.

However, just in case that legal argument doesn't hold, I-1077 is filing an alternative that addresses the issue. "This issue [of tax reform] is too important, and we have to get it right," Kaushik said.

Editor's Note: Kaushik co-founded PubliCola in January 2009. He has no editorial role at PubliCola.

Original Post:

My old boss and pal at the Stranger, Dan Savage, had a solid gripe with I-1077 (the high-earners income tax): There's no consideration for gay partners. The initiative says the trigger for paying the tax is $400,000 for married couples and $200,000 for individuals. But there's a gay penalty. A gay couple in which one partner makes more than $200,000 will have to pay the tax.

Savage editorialized that the group pushing initiative should refile.

Dan may get his wish.

We hear from petition signature gatherers that the campaign has told them to hold off while they seriously consider refiling to address the domestic partner issue.

The downside for the high-earners income tax campaign is that refiling will gobble up much-needed time to qualify. They need about 300,000 signatures by July 2. Filing initiatives is a cumbersome process that requires going through the Secretary of State's Office and the Attorney General's Office.

Josh Friedes, Advocacy Director for local gay rights group Equal Rights Washington, had "a cordial conversation" with Kelly Evans, a political consultant with I-1077, at last night's King County Conservation Voters shindig, where, he says, "we commiserated about the challenges when there are problems with the initiative that affect communities you're concerned with."

Friedes says there's "an ongoing conversation to make sure that [the initiative] is fair to all of Washington's families and individuals."

I have calls in to the Yes on 1077  campaign and Evans.