In Washington’s biggest tax fight in decades, voters were backing the state’s new high-earners income tax in Tuesday’s vote count, rejecting an initiative that would repeal it.

Initiative 645, the tax-repeal proposal, was trailing with 58% of voters opposed. The “no” vote was bolstered by a huge margin in Democrat-dominated King County, where 66.5% of voters were against I-645. It also trailed in Snohomish and Pierce counties.

If Tuesday’s result stands, it would mark a tectonic shift in Washington’s tax code, ending the state’s holdout status as one of a handful without an income tax — keeping in place what backers called the “millionaires tax” passed by the Legislature this year.

Courts will likely still have the last word on the tax as a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality is pending.

Hundreds of thousands of ballots remain to be counted in the coming days.

The mood at the No on 645 campaign, at Seattle’s Reverie Ballroom, was upbeat as national results confirmed a good night for Democrats and liberal causes.

Speaking to the crowd, state Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, the prime architect of the tax, framed the historic vote as a long-sought win.

“For 93 years, we have been saddled with an anchor around our neck, with a tax system that is bad for working people, that’s bad for small businesses, that’s bad for just about everybody except for the 1%,” he said.

More in the article.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 43 points 2 days ago (11 children)

Sadly the results on the "trans sports bans" weren't as progressive. Places where it lost it was close, and counties where it won it won big.

Who chooses female genital exams over the risk of a "biological male" competing in a sport??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 21 points 2 days ago* (6 children)

    Yep, if not rejected by the WA courts, this now means that any girl wanting to play sports will have to undergo exams. The way the WA initiative is written, it will only affect girls.

    The ACLU and many other trans rights groups have vowed to fight it up to the state supreme court.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 days ago (5 children)

    Doesn't a sports physical already do this? Not arguing for or against it, but it just seems redundant

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

    As far as I understand, they weren't always required for every girls K-12 league. This makes it so it's required.

    It also obviously bans trans girls from competing in any sports, even if they have the same hormone levels and build as afabs. Previously, this was allowed by the state.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Yeah WA bums me out a lot with the amount of Republicans here. Hopefully someday Cascadia could be a thing and they can flee to FL or whatever

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (5 replies)