State Lawmakers Pass Bill Creating Tax on High Earners; Constitutional Questions Raised
March 18, 2026
By:
Brandon Hansen
Legislation establishing a new tax on high-income earners in Washington state passed on March 10 after a marathon 24-hour floor debate in the state Legislature, drawing sharp criticism from lawmakers who argue the measure conflicts with longstanding state constitutional precedent.
Senate Bill 6346 would impose a 9.9% tax on annual income exceeding $1 million, roughly impacting 20,000 top-earning households, starting in 2029, according to the Washington State Budget and Policy Center. The bill is expected to generate between $3.5 billion and $4 billion annually. Supporters said the measure targets the state’s highest earners, while critics contended the tax could face legal challenges.
State Rep. Hunter Abell (R-Inchelium) and Rep. Jim Walsh (R-Aberdeen) said in a joint release that the legislation directly conflicts with the Washington Supreme Court’s 1933 ruling in Culliton v. Chase.
“For nearly a century, the law in Washington has been clear,” Abell 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.”
According to Abell, the Culliton decision struck down Washington’s first attempt to establish a graduated income tax and has remained a major legal barrier to similar proposals ever since.
During debate on the bill, Abell and Walsh proposed an amendment that would have replaced the bill’s intent section with language drawn directly from the Culliton ruling. According to the lawmakers, the amendment was intended to acknowledge the legal precedent before moving forward with the policy.
The amendment was rejected during the debate.
Abell said the Legislature’s decision to move forward without addressing the precedent raises concerns about the bill’s legal footing.
“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.”
Supporters of the measure argued that the tax targets only the highest-income residents and could help fund state priorities.
The bill now moves to the governor's desk and legal observers anticipate potential constitutional challenges tied to the historic court ruling.