.png.jpg)
Washington state Reps. Hunter Abell, R-Inchelium, and Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, say legislation passed this week following a historic 24-hour floor debate to create a Washington state income tax directly conflicts with long-standing Washington Supreme Court precedent and raises serious constitutional concerns, according to a release from the lawmakers.
Senate Bill 6346 imposes a 9.9% income tax on income above a $1 million threshold. Abell and Walsh argue the policy contradicts the Washington Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Culliton v. Chase (1933), which held that income is property under the state constitution and therefore subject to the constitutional requirement that property taxes be uniform.
“For nearly a century, the law in Washington has been clear,” Abell, a constitutional attorney, said in the release. “In Culliton v. Chase, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that income is property. Because the constitution requires property to be taxed uniformly, a graduated income tax violates that requirement. That precedent has never been overturned.”
The Culliton decision struck down Washington’s first attempt to impose a graduated income tax and has served as the primary constitutional barrier to income taxes in Washington ever since.
During the marathon floor debate on Senate Bill 6346, Abell and Walsh introduced Amendment 2578. The amendment would have replaced the bill’s intent section with language drawn directly from the Culliton decision, the release stated.
“The amendment was simple,” Walsh said. “If the Legislature was going to knowingly pass a law that conflicts with the state constitution, it should at least acknowledge the controlling court decision that says so.”
The amendment was rejected.
Abell said the refusal to incorporate or even recognize the Culliton precedent demonstrates that lawmakers were willing to move forward despite clear constitutional warnings.
“The Legislature has a duty to uphold the constitution,” Abell said. “Passing a law that contradicts nearly a century of Supreme Court precedent while hoping the courts will change their minds later is not responsible lawmaking.”
Walsh said the legislation appears designed to provoke a legal challenge.
“The majority knows exactly what the Culliton decision says,” Walsh said in the release. “They passed this bill anyway. That tells you this income tax scheme is not about sound policy. It is about forcing a legal confrontation in hopes the courts will rewrite the constitution for them.”
The debate over the bill also highlighted broader concerns about the structure of the tax itself.
“The way the legislation is written, it establishes an income tax on everyone but currently includes a $1 million exemption,” said Abell. “Lowering that exemption in the future would require nothing more than another vote of the Legislature.”
Both lawmakers said the extended floor debate and numerous amendments offered by House Republicans demonstrated that significant legal and policy concerns remain unresolved.
Senate Bill 6346 passed the House with no Republican support.
The 2026 legislative session ended on Thursday.
A video released by the lawmakers includes clips of floor debate on SB 6346, which can also be found at https://youtu.be/QBgFzcnT_rw.
