A contentious courtroom scene in Washington state has ignited debate over judicial conduct after a hearing Friday concerning ballot language for a measure to repeal the state’s tax on high-income earners.
The dispute centered on how Washington’s attorney general described Initiative Measure No. IP26-645 on the November ballot. The measure would prohibit individual income taxes in the state, effectively repealing a 9.9% tax on annual individual income exceeding $1 million.
Thurston County Judge Chris Lanese presided over arguments about whether the attorney general’s characterization of the initiative was neutral, as required by state law. Supporters of the initiative argued the official description was biased, particularly language stating the measure would “decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare).”
Courtroom Controversy
Video of the proceedings, broadcast on state television, showed Lanese displaying what observers characterized as an unusually animated demeanor during the hearing. The footage circulated widely on social media, drawing criticism from those who argued the judge appeared to favor one side of the argument.
The attorney representing initiative supporters contended that the attorney general’s language misrepresented the measure’s impact, arguing that the state legislature makes spending decisions, not the attorney general. According to observers, Lanese repeatedly interrupted these arguments.
Ultimately, Lanese ruled to allow the attorney general’s ballot language to stand.
The Tax at Issue
Washington’s graduated income tax on high earners has been controversial since its passage. The tax does not take effect until 2028 and will not generate revenue until 2029, according to Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center.
Guppy questioned the attorney general’s framing, noting that “the state has not collected one single dollar of income tax yet” and asking how programs could be described as facing cuts when “those programs are not even funded.”
Brian Heywood of Let’s Go Washington, the group backing the repeal initiative, told The Center Square that the measure “cuts no programs, benefit, or existing funding.” He characterized it as repealing “an unconstitutional income tax that will not collect a dollar until 2029,” adding, “You cannot cut money that does not yet exist.”
Political Context
The case unfolds against a backdrop of Democratic dominance in Washington state politics, particularly in Thurston County, home to the state capital of Olympia. Initiative supporters gathered signatures in what they described as record time to place the repeal measure on the ballot.
The original tax, often referred to by supporters as a “millionaire’s tax,” has faced constitutional questions in a state where the constitution has historically been interpreted as forbidding graduated income taxes. Critics have noted the law contains no language explicitly limiting its application to high earners.
Washington has no personal income tax, making it one of a handful of states that rely heavily on sales taxes and other revenue sources. The debate over whether to implement such a tax has been a recurring feature of state politics for decades.
The November ballot will give Washington voters the opportunity to decide whether to prohibit individual income taxes before the current law takes effect.
Source: pjmedia.com — https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2026/08/08/watch-unbiased-leftist-judge-become-completely-unhinged-in-court-in-huge-political-case-n4955947
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, tax, or legal advice. Do your own research and consult a licensed professional before making financial decisions.
