Close

WSPTA Login

Menu

August 27, 2026

FAQ: WSPTA’S OPPOSITION TO INITIATIVE IP26-645

 

Contents

Part 1: Initiative IP26-645 ↑

1. What is Initiative 645 (IP26-645 or I-645)?

Earlier this year the “Millionaire’s Tax” (ESSB 6346; Chapter 238, 2026 Laws) passed the Washington State Legislature and was signed into law by Governor Ferguson. Initiative 645 asks voters to repeal this tax. It also prohibits any tax on, or measured by, individual income, at the state level and in every county, city, and local jurisdiction in Washington. The state’s fiscal impact statement estimates that the repeal would reduce state revenue by $11.4 billion across state fiscal years 2027 through 2031.

Why we’re quoting the ballot language word for word. Some supporters call this measure “Repeal the Income Tax.” That name will not appear anywhere on your ballot. What you will see is the certified ballot title, drafted by the Attorney General’s office. We reproduce it exactly, with nothing paraphrased, so that when you open your ballot, you recognize the measure immediately.

Here is the ballot title, which appears on the ballot itself:

“Initiative Measure No. IP26-645 concerns state and local taxes. This measure would repeal a 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1,000,000; prohibit taxes measured by individual income and taxes on individual income or the receipt of individual income; and define ‘income.'”

Here is the public investment impact disclosure that will appear on the ballot:

“This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare).”

Here is the ballot measure summary, which appears in the voters’ pamphlet:

“This measure would repeal a 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1,000,000; prohibit state and local governments from imposing taxes on individual income or the receipt of individual income and taxes measured by an individual’s income; and define income as ‘any gain or benefit measured in money derived from an individual’s capital, labor, property, or other source.’ It would also define ‘individual’ as a natural person for purposes of excise taxes.”

2. What is the Millionaire’s Tax, who pays it, and where does the money go?

The Millionaire’s Tax is a 9.9% state tax on individual income above $1 million a year. It applies to income earned starting January 1, 2028, with the first returns and payments due in calendar year 2029.

Who pays. Only individuals – businesses are not subject to the tax. A standard deduction of $1 million per household is subtracted before any tax is calculated. Only the income above that deduction is taxed. The Department of Revenue estimates about 25,000 Washington households will pay it, well under one percent of households in the state.

Where the money goes. To the state general fund – not to schools directly. The Legislature expressed an intent to use the revenue for things including free school meals and transfers for childcare and early learning, but that intent language is not binding. The section of the law that actually directs the money sends it mostly to the general fund, where legislators decide each budget how much goes to K-12 and how much goes everywhere else.

The one exception. Beginning July 1, 2029, five percent of the revenue collected for the previous fiscal year is deposited into the Fair Start for Kids Account, which by law may be used only for childcare and early learning. The Office of Financial Management estimates that transfer at $377 million over the 2029–31 biennium. That is the only portion of the revenue dedicated to a specific purpose in the text of the law. The Millionaire’s Tax law also included specific tax relief provisions that impact individuals, families, and small businesses that pay B&O taxes.

3. What would I-645 actually change?

The full text is here: Initiative Measure No. 645. I-645 does several things:

It repeals the Millionaire’s Tax. The measure lists specific numbered sections of the 2026 law that created the tax and repeals them by name. It is an itemized list, not a general statement that the tax is void. The Attorney General’s explanatory statement describes the effect: “If approved, the proposed measure would repeal the annual tax on individual income over $1,000,000. This would also eliminate the funding collected from the tax that would go to the general fund (which funds public K-12 education, higher education such as universities and community colleges, health care, and other human services) and childcare and early learning.” See questions 2 and 7.

It also prohibits taxing income. The measure writes a definition of income into state law – “any gain or benefit measured in money derived from an individual’s capital, labor, property, or other source” – and defines “individual” as a natural person for excise tax purposes. It then prohibits taxes on individual income, on the receipt of individual income, and taxes measured by an individual’s income. That prohibition is written to apply to counties, cities, and other local jurisdictions as well as the state. The only tax the measure explicitly lists and repeals is the tax on income over $1,000,000; the prohibition is written in terms of a category rather than any particular tax.

It instructs that it be read broadly. The measure includes a provision asking that its own language be construed as broadly as possible.

What it most likely does not change. The Attorney General’s explanatory statement also says, “The non-income tax credits, exemptions, and deductions that accompanied this tax would not be repealed and would remain in place.” Leaving these tax cuts in place with no revenue from the Millionaire’s Tax to offset them negatively impacts the state’s already troubled budget.

4. What does a NO vote do?

Because this measure would repeal something, the vote can be confusing. A NO vote on IP26-645 leaves the Millionaire’s Tax exactly as it is today — the version the Legislature passed earlier in 2026. A NO vote is not a vote against current or future income taxes. It is a vote to keep current tax law in place.

Read the full analysis in WSPTA’s position statement on IP26-645.

5. Why is WSPTA opposing a tax measure?

WSPTA is not a tax organization, and this position is not an opinion about tax policy in the abstract. In general, WSPTA does not have a position on how the state should raise revenue, or on what any household’s tax bill ought to be.

WSPTA does have positions on school funding. Closing the Funding Gaps is our top legislative priority. Resolution 18.46, adopted by our members, directs us to pursue adequate school funding through revenue that is predictable, progressive, and sustainable – and to do it without negatively impacting other programs that support children and families.

I-645 impacts both halves of that goal. The state’s fiscal impact statement estimates that repeal would reduce state revenue by $11.4 billion across state fiscal years 2027 through 2031, money that would otherwise overwhelmingly go to the general fund that pays for public schools. And the general fund is also where childcare, early learning, food assistance, health coverage, and family stability programs sit. Basic education carries a constitutional protection that those supports do not. Because they lack it, they sit in the part of the budget legislators reach first when revenue falls short.

That is the question in front of our members and all Washington voters: not whether our state should tax income, but what a reduction of this size does to schools and to the supports children depend on outside of basic education.

The lane we stay in. WSPTA speaks for families about what happens to schools and to children. We are not lawyers or tax experts, and where a question turns on how a provision would be applied or how a court would read it, we will say so plainly and avoid speculation. That applies throughout this section.

6. WSPTA didn’t endorse the Millionaire’s Tax bill in February. Why oppose repealing it now?

WSPTA did not oppose the Millionaire’s Tax bill in February. We declined to endorse it, and we said exactly why: the bill’s commitment to schools was in its intent section, not in the part of the law that governs where the money goes.

From our February 18 letter to members: while the bill states an intent to preserve essential services including K-12 education by depositing revenues into the general fund, “none of the revenues are actually dedicated to these purposes.” We observed that “intent does not equal action,” asked legislators to write a dedicated share into the bill itself – for example, a percentage directed to the Education Legacy Trust Account – and told members that when the Legislature was ready to make that commitment in the bill, WSPTA would stand with them.

They didn’t write it in. Dedicating some of the revenues to K-12 education remains our position, and we will ask again in 2027.

I-645 asks a different question. Not whether the bill is written the way WSPTA wanted, but whether the state should give up the revenue entirely – and rule out an entire category of revenue tools at the state and local level along with it. Those are separate questions.

WSPTA is not claiming the Millionaire’s Tax solves school funding. It doesn’t, and our position statement says so. State allocations to school districts fall short of what schools need, and the gaps our members care most about – transportation, materials and supplies, special education, staffing – are not closed by it.

The Legislature began building a bridge toward an amply funded system and stopped halfway. Our complaint in February was that the bridge was unfinished. An unfinished bridge is a reason to hold legislators to their promise and demand its completion, not to tear it down and prohibit the materials for building another.

7. What would repealing the Millionaire’s Tax cost, and how do we know?

The Office of Financial Management (OFM) estimates that I-645 would reduce state revenue by $11.4 billion across state fiscal years 2027 through 2031. That figure comes from the state’s official fiscal impact statement, prepared by OFM using Department of Revenue (DOR) estimates, and it will appear in the voters’ pamphlet.

Broken out by budget cycle, using the same estimates:

  • About $3.1 billion from the 2027–29 budget. Lawmakers begin writing that budget in January 2027, weeks after this vote.
  • About $8.3 billion from the 2029–31 budget that follows.
  • $377 million of that 2029–31 amount is the transfer to the Fair Start for Kids account, which pays for childcare and early learning. OFM estimates $155.4 million in state fiscal year 2030 and $221.6 million in 2031. See question 2.

The fiscal impact statement for I-645 also projects about $150 million in administrative savings over the same period, mainly from eliminating enforcement costs of the new tax.

These are OFM and DOR figures, not WSPTA’s. DOR describes them as estimates, and they rest on assumptions the fiscal impact statement sets out – including forecasts of how much income will be earned above the threshold and how much of the tax will actually be collected.

8. Isn’t K-12 funding protected by the constitution?

Basic education is defined narrowly and carries a protection that most other services for children do not.

Washington’s constitution makes “ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders” the state’s paramount duty. In McCleary v. State, the Washington State Supreme Court found the state was not meeting that obligation, retained jurisdiction over the case for six years while the Legislature responded, and ended its oversight in 2018.

Two limits matter for understanding this protection’s relevance to I-645 and its impacts on budgets.

The protection attaches to “basic education,” which is defined in state law. It is a specific program of instruction and services, not everything a school does or everything a district spends money on. Some of what schools need most falls outside it – school buildings and their upkeep are not part of basic education, and neither are school meals (OSPI). Districts cover those costs from other sources, including local levies.

The protection does not extend to the other ways the state supports children. Childcare, early learning, food assistance, health coverage, and family stability programs are funded through the general fund without a comparable constitutional obligation behind them. They sit in the part of the budget legislators can reduce when they need to balance it. That is why a general fund reduction does not land evenly: the supports that help children arrive at school ready to learn are more exposed to cuts than basic education is.

What the paramount duty establishes is an obligation the state owes regardless of how much revenue it has. It does not specify where that revenue comes from, and it does not protect the programs outside basic education.

9. If the money doesn’t go to schools, why does WSPTA care?

Because WSPTA advocates for “the whole child” and understands that for every child to reach their potential, they need food and to feel safety and belonging, as well as modern buildings and curricula, and excellent educators. Additional money in the general fund is money we can still fight for, and we intend to.

The general fund is where the state pays for public schools. It is also where legislators decide, every session, how much of it goes to K-12 and how much goes everywhere else. WSPTA will be in Olympia in January asking for a larger share regardless of how November goes. The size of the fund determines whether the session’s focus is on what gets more or what gets less. A shrinking fund puts us on defense, protecting funding districts already have instead of closing the gaps they are already carrying. See question 7 for what a reduction of this size would mean for the budgets legislators write next.

The same is true of the supports outside basic education – childcare, early learning, food assistance, health coverage, family stability programs. Those sit in the part of the budget legislators can reduce. See questions 5 and 8.

The Millionaire’s Tax law also includes a working example of the kind of explicit allocation WSPTA asked for in February. Five percent of the tax’s revenue is dedicated by statute to the Fair Start for Kids account, which may be used only for childcare and early learning; a dedicated share, written into the text, that does not depend on any given session’s priorities. That is the mechanism we wanted for K-12, and it is the one we will be asking for in 2027. Repealing the tax removes the revenue and the example along with it.

10. Does I-645 apply to city and county taxes too?

Yes, as the measure is written. Its prohibition is not limited to Olympia.

The measure states that neither the state nor any county, city, or other local jurisdiction may impose a tax on individual income, on the receipt of individual income, or a tax measured by an individual’s income. It defines income for this purpose as any gain or benefit measured in money derived from an individual’s capital, labor, property, or other source. The Attorney General’s explanatory statement describes the prohibition the same way: it reaches state and local governments alike. See question 3.

That scope is worth noticing because the campaign around this measure is about a state tax paid by about 25,000 households. The prohibition it would enact is written more broadly than the tax it repeals, and it applies to every level of government in Washington.

WSPTA’s concern here is rooted in Resolution 18.46, which directs us to pursue school funding through revenue that is predictable, progressive, and sustainable. This measure would remove one source of that kind and, by its own terms, restrict a category of options at every level of government for the future. Furthermore, any potential unintended consequences might be harder to address than with an ordinary law: a voter-approved initiative cannot be amended by the Legislature for two years except by a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

What the prohibition would mean for taxes already on the books is a separate question, and one WSPTA is not in a position to answer. See question 11.

11. Would I-645 affect the capital gains tax, payroll taxes, or unemployment insurance?

WSPTA is not in a position to answer that, and we are not going to guess.

The measure’s prohibition is written in terms of a category rather than a list of specific taxes, and it asks that its language be construed broadly. See question 3. What that would mean for taxes already on the books is a legal question. WSPTA is a parent and teacher organization. We do not give legal or tax advice, and a question that turns on how a court would read a statute is not one we can answer honestly.

We would rather point you to the documents than characterize them:

Claims are circulating about what this measure would and would not reach. We are not repeating any of them.

Here is what we can say. As parents, we prefer to act cautiously when funding for children may be at stake. This measure asks voters to accept a degree of uncertainty about state and local revenue, and to do it at a moment when the budget is already short. See question 7. A NO vote leaves current law in place and raises no new question about any existing tax. That is a judgment about risk to children and schools, which is ours to make, and not a prediction about legal outcomes, which is not.

12. Why does this vote matter if the Millionaire’s Tax is already being challenged in court?

A constitutional challenge to the Millionaire’s Tax is pending in state court. WSPTA is not going to predict how that case is resolved, or when. What we can tell members is what is on the ballot.

The court case concerns the tax. The initiative, however, asks voters two things: whether to repeal the tax, and whether to prohibit taxes on or measured by individual income broadly defined at the state level and in every county, city, and other local jurisdiction in Washington. See question 3 and question 10.

That question of prohibiting an entire category of revenue is not before any court. It is on the ballot, and it is broader than the tax the case is about. It reaches revenue that does not exist yet, at levels of government the case does not concern. A vote in November is the only thing that decides it.

13. Would I-645 change what most families pay in taxes?

For the overwhelming majority of Washington households, no. The Millionaire’s Tax applies only to income above the $1 million per household deduction threshold, and is estimated to be paid by about 25,000 households, or only about 0.8% of households statewide. So over 99% of households would pay no tax. See question 2.

The 2026 law that created the tax also enacted a set of tax reductions and credits that reach more families. Those provisions are not on the measure’s repeal list, and the Attorney General’s explanatory statement states that they would not be repealed and would remain in place with no revenue from the Millionaire’s Tax to offset them. See question 3.

Nothing here is a statement about any particular household. For a full description of what the measure does, see the state voters’ pamphlet, the Attorney General’s explanatory statement, and the OFM fiscal impact statement.

14. Where does WSPTA’s position on I-645 come from?

Every year, delegates from local PTAs and councils across the state meet at a legislative assembly to vote on and amend member-submitted resolutions, legislative principles, and legislative issues. WSPTA’s entire advocacy platform is member submitted and member adopted.

The Board’s opposition to I-645 applies positions our members have already adopted:

Our top legislative priority. Closing the Funding Gaps is WSPTA’s number one legislative priority for 2026.

Legislative principles. Our Legislative Principles commit WSPTA to support revenue that is adequate, stable, and equitable for the programs children depend on, and to oppose budget policies, deficit reduction efforts, and other proposals that reduce funding for child-related programs.

Resolutions:

Part 2: Taking a Position ↑

15. Can a tax-exempt organization take a position on a ballot measure?

Yes, organizations with tax exemptions under section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) are permitted to take positions on ballot measures, and educating members on ballot measures can further the PTA mission. Local PTAs and councils are encouraged to take positions and educate their members.

Ballot measure work does count as lobbying under IRS rules, which limit lobbying to an insubstantial part of a 501(c)(3)’s activities. If your PTA is a 501(c)(3) and plans to spend money on this effort, check the guidance linked below first.

For details, see Votes to Endorse and/or Support Ballot Measures.

16. Can PTAs support or oppose candidates?

No. A PTA may take a position on an initiative. It may not take a position on a candidate.

Under IRS rules, a 501(c)(3) cannot support or oppose a candidate for public office. WSPTA’s rule is broader and covers every PTA regardless of tax status. Article 2(E) of the WSPTA Uniform Bylaws states: “WSPTA and its constituent organizations or members in their official capacities may not, directly or indirectly, participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office.”

In practice: no contributions, no statements for or against a candidate, and no use of PTA board or membership lists to support or oppose a candidate. Individual PTA leaders may endorse candidates personally, but must not mention PTA in the endorsement, including on social media.

17. What gives the WSPTA Board of Directors authority to take a position on ballot measures?

The member-adopted WSPTA Uniform Bylaws Article 7, Section 6E1 allows the Board to adopt positions between meetings of delegates:

“The WSPTA board of directors shall have full power and authority over the affairs of WSPTA between meetings of delegates except as otherwise provided in these bylaws. The board of directors: 1. May adopt legislative positions not part of the adopted legislative program.”

WSPTA Policy 5.3.2 sets out the options available to the Board on statewide initiatives: endorse or oppose, each with or without active involvement. The Board voted to oppose this initiative, with active involvement.

Those positions apply resolutions that WSPTA members have already adopted. See question 14.

18. Can our PTA adopt the WSPTA position? How should we decide?

Yes. Your PTA or council can adopt the WSPTA position.

Best practice is a membership vote. Your board is accountable to your members, so ballot measure decisions are best made by the members themselves. Timing is usually manageable: regular board and membership meetings require ten days’ notice, and a special board meeting requires five. Ballots are mailed in mid-October, so a membership meeting in September or early October may work for most PTAs if you begin scheduling now.

Your board may take the vote instead if a membership meeting is not feasible. If it does, inform your members of the decision. Any member who objects may request that the item be placed on the agenda for a membership meeting.

Spending money requires a membership vote. See question 19.

Sample motion language and step-by-step guidance are in Votes to Endorse and/or Support Ballot Measures. The sample motion is already written to cover a NO vote.

19. What’s the difference between opposing a measure and actively campaigning against it?

They are two separate decisions, and they take two separate votes.

Taking a position — “endorsing,” in WSPTA’s guidance, which covers endorsing either a YES or a NO vote — means your PTA goes on record and tells members what it recommends. Either the board or the membership may take this vote, with a membership vote being best practice.

Committing resources — “supporting” — means your PTA puts time, money, or materials behind that position. If money is involved, the members must vote, and the PTA needs a member-approved budget line item for it.

A vote to oppose an initiative does not by itself authorize spending. If your PTA wants to contribute funds, that is a separate motion at a membership meeting.

20. Can our PTA take a position opposite to WSPTA’s?

No. When a local PTA or council affiliates with PTA, it agrees to adhere to the bylaws of both National PTA and WSPTA, which prohibit adopting positions in opposition to those adopted by National PTA or WSPTA.

Your PTA may remain neutral and choose not to engage on this initiative. Individual members and leaders are free to hold and express their own views. The restriction applies to positions taken in the name of the PTA.

21. What can we do once we’ve adopted a position?

Share persuasive information through any PTA channel:

  • PTA email lists and newsletters
  • PTA social media accounts
  • PTA meetings and coffee chats
  • Non-district websites
  • Presentations at local PTA or council meetings
  • Yard signs, letters to the editor, doorbelling, phone banking

You do not need to write your own materials. This page and the board position statement are yours to share, quote, and link. Keep an eye out for further resources from WSPTA around member engagement and education in the near future.

Councils have a particular role: schedule presentations at local PTA meetings, share resources with local PTA leaders, and help them plan their own votes with enough lead time.

Whether or not your PTA took a position, you may always encourage people to register and vote.

22. What can’t we do?

Do not use school or district resources to persuade. This is the rule most likely to cause a problem, and it is a matter of state law (RCW 42.17A.555) as well as PTA policy. A PTA may not promote a ballot measure position on:

  • a district-sponsored website
  • a school-sponsored newsletter
  • kid mail or backpack mail
  • a school reader board
  • a school or district event
  • a school email address, or a school-affiliated social media account administered by staff

Only factual information may be shared using district resources. On a school or district channel you may describe what is on the ballot; you may not ask anyone to vote a particular way. If you are unsure whether a channel counts as a district resource, ask your principal or district communications office before you send. Your PTA may still use school property for meetings if it has a signed facility use agreement.

Do not endorse or oppose candidates. See question 16.

Do not release PTA membership lists to outside interests, including campaigns.

23. Is this a partisan position?

No. WSPTA is nonpartisan, works with legislators across the political spectrum, and takes no position on candidates or parties.

This position rests on resolutions WSPTA members adopted at a legislative assembly. WSPTA has not joined any campaign or coalition on these measures and reached its conclusions independently. See question 24.

24. Is WSPTA working with other campaigns?

Several organizations are campaigning on IP-645. WSPTA is not affiliated with other campaigns and has not joined any coalition on these measures. WSPTA reached its positions independently, based on each initiative’s own text, published resources, and resolutions that WSPTA members have adopted.

25. What is WSPTA asking PTAs and members to do?

Vote NO on IP26-645. WSPTA encourages all 80,000+ of our members to vote no this initiative.

For local PTAs and councils, we suggest:

  1. Schedule a vote. See question 18 for how. Ballots are mailed in mid-October, so start now.
  2. Tell your members what your PTA decided and why.
  3. Share this page and the position statement through your PTA’s channels. Questions 21 and 22 cover what’s allowed and what isn’t.
  4. Encourage everyone to register and vote, whatever your PTA decided.

Questions? Contact your council or region advocacy chair, or the WSPTA advocacy director at ptaadvocacydir@wastatepta.org.

Category: Advocacy , Legislative
Tags: 2026-2027 Legislative Session , Advocacy , Advocacy in Action! , Focus on Advocacy , Initiatives 2026 , olympia
Back to Blog
© 2026 Washington State PTA   |   Privacy Policy  |   Site Design & Development by SiteCrafting