The Washington State Supreme Court denies the Republican Party’s attempt to dismiss reporting on budget impact initiatives

The Washington Supreme Court has done that rejected a bid by Washington State Republican Party Chairman Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, to block the state from making financial impact statements on three initiatives on the Nov. 5 ballot.

The three measures are Initiative 2109, to repeal the state’s capital gains tax; Initiative 2117, to repeal the Climate Commitment Act of 2021 and its cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and Initiative 2124, to make participation in the WA Cares long-term care insurance program optional instead of mandatory.

Walsh argued that the Office of Financial Management miscalculated the potential impact of repealing the measures and that I-2109 would have no impact because lawmakers had essentially repealed the capital gains tax by Initiative 2111 in March. I-2111 prohibits the state and its localities from imposing a personal income tax

Walsh told The Center Square that he was disappointed in the Supreme Court’s “narrow conclusion, which really focused on technicalities while ignoring the merits of the case.”

He further explained, “They said we mislabeled a file, and they criticized our advocacy style.”

“Mandamus and injunction are available in very limited circumstances not demonstrated here,” the court said in a unanimous ruling. “We affirm the trial court’s denial of the injunction, mandamus waiver, and dismissal of this case.”

A writ of mandamus is a court order compelling a government official, government agency, or lower court to take action. An injunction is a court order that prevents a judicial action that exceeds the jurisdiction of a court.

“This is not a profile of courage; they didn’t take into account the content of what we were saying,” Walsh said, likening the court’s decision to waiting in line at the Department of Licensing.

“They tell you you’re in the wrong line, you have to go in the other line,” he continued.

Walsh said he plans to run again at some point after the election, given the importance of the issue.

“They didn’t go into the content of it,” Walsh continued. “They allowed Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s misleading, exploitative commentary to remain on the ballot, and in doing so, they are not serving the people of Washington. They ran away, they were gone.”

Walsh took some solace in the fact that the Supreme Court could hear the case in the future.

“They indicated that if we put the right form in the filing, they would consider the case on the merits, so OK, we’ll go to the other line,” he said.

State law requires a public investment impact disclosure to appear alongside the initiative on the ballot, providing a brief description of the public investments that will be affected by the measure. The Attorney General must use neutral language that cannot reasonably be expected to influence the vote.

Walsh and other promoters, including Let’s Go Washington, the organization behind the initiatives, told The Center Square that the language on the ballot is anything but neutral.

Hallie Balch of Let’s Go Washington pointed out what voters see on the ballot for I-2117.

The ballot language includes the following: “This measure would reduce funding for investments in transportation, clean air, renewable energy, conservation, and emissions reduction.”

Balch said: “It would be helpful if there was an impartial, non-political message next to the explanation of vote because it feels like it is so one-sided.”

She said the message should include language stating that supporting I-2117 will lower gas prices and grocery and utility bills.

Earlier this year, the court ruled that budget revelations must take place on the November ballot. In Thursday’s ruling, the court explained the reasons for this.