Sep 16, 2026 · 55 min · 14 segments
On this episode of Inside Olympia: We dig into the legal and constitutional arguments on either side of the millionaires tax debate.
Paul LawrenceGuest
Jackson MaynardGuest
Austin JenkinsHost
This November, Washington voters will decide whether to keep or reject the new income tax on people making more than a million dollars a year.
But there is a parallel legal effort to overturn the tax on constitutional grounds.
Opponents want the Supreme Court to find that the tax violates an existing ban on graduated income taxes in the state.
Supporters hope the court will revisit its 1933 decision that ruled income as a form of property subject to a uniform rate.
This hour, we are going to dig into the legal and constitutional arguments on either side of this case.
Joining me now is Jackson Maynard, executive director and counsel for the Olympia-based Citizen Action Defense Fund, which is helping to finance the legal challenge, and attorney Paul Lawrence of Pacifica Law Group in Seattle, who supports the tax and was an intervener in a previous case that upheld Washington's capital gains tax.
It is estimated that around 25,000 Washington households would pay the tax and that it would bring in around $3.5 billion per year.
The Supreme Court precedent in question is the 1933 Culleton case in which a divided Supreme Court found that income is a form of property.
Article 7 of the state constitution says property means everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.
From there, the losing side could appeal to the Supreme Court, which has the power to revisit past precedent.
It's a high wire act for a non-attorney to be explaining legal matters with a couple of attorneys at the same table.
But let's start just by sort of setting the table for who each of you is and why you're here speaking on this topic.
This November, Washington voters will decide whether to keep or reject the new income tax on people making more than a million dollars a year.
But there is a parallel legal effort to overturn the tax on constitutional grounds.
Opponents want the Supreme Court to find that the tax violates an existing ban on graduated income taxes in the state.
Supporters hope the court will revisit its 1933 decision that ruled income as a form of property subject to a uniform rate.
This hour, we are going to dig into the legal and constitutional arguments on either side of this case.
Joining me now is Jackson Maynard, executive director and counsel for the Olympia-based Citizen Action Defense Fund, which is helping to finance the legal challenge, and attorney Paul Lawrence of Pacifica Law Group in Seattle, who supports the tax and was an intervener in a previous case that upheld Washington's capital gains tax.
It is estimated that around 25,000 Washington households would pay the tax and that it would bring in around $3.5 billion per year.
The Supreme Court precedent in question is the 1933 Culleton case in which a divided Supreme Court found that income is a form of property.
Article 7 of the state constitution says property means everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.
From there, the losing side could appeal to the Supreme Court, which has the power to revisit past precedent.
It's a high wire act for a non-attorney to be explaining legal matters with a couple of attorneys at the same table.
But let's start just by sort of setting the table for who each of you is and why you're here speaking on this topic.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
