³ÉÈËXÕ¾

In a decision with major implications for Washington’s upcoming election, the Washington Supreme Court rejected Rep. Jim Walsh’s, R-Aberdeen, bid Thursday that would have stopped the state from issuing financial impact statements related to three key initiatives.

Walsh challenged the fiscal assessments of three of those measures that are appearing on the November 2024 ballot:

• , which would repeal the state’s capital gains tax.
• , which would repeal the Washington Climate Commitment Act, a cap-and-trade program designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• , which would make participation in Washington’s long-term care insurance program, “WA Cares,” optional rather than mandatory.

More WA political news: Washington Supreme Court race becomes most expensive in state history

Walsh argued that the state’s Office of Financial Management (OFM) had made errors in calculating the financial effects of these initiatives.

He further claimed that would have no fiscal impact because the legislature had already effectively repealed the capital gains tax by enacting , which prohibits income taxation.

The court, however, upheld a lower court decision and sided with state officials, ruling that the capital gains tax is an excise tax, not an income tax, and that its repeal would reduce state revenue, thus requiring a fiscal impact statement.

Walsh’s case sought an extraordinary legal order known as writs of prohibitionÌý²¹²Ô»å mandamus. These writs are rarely granted and are only available when no other legal remedies are present. The court ruled that the officials in question were following the law and did not exceed their authority, dismissing Walsh’s requests.

More from Matt Markovich: Show me the ‘Dark Money’ in Washington politics

Walsh’s legal challenge, which named Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, Attorney General Bob Ferguson and OFM Director David Schumacher as respondents, has now been dismissed.

The court had earlier ruled that the initiatives should show up on the November ballot with fiscal disclosures in place. Thursday’s ruling explains why the court ruled as it did.

Matt Markovich covers government and politics for MyNorthwest and ³ÉÈËXÕ¾ Newsradio