ESSB 6346 — Chapter 238, Laws of 2026 — is Washington’s new 9.9% income tax. The House Majority Leader celebrated it on the floor. Here is what the enacted law actually says.
“It has been a long journey here to this moment, not just the over 24 hours that we’ve spent on this floor debating this proposal, but the 93 years that Washingtonians have struggled with a grossly outdated tax structure that falls by far the heaviest on the lowest income.”
A 24-hour marathon debate. A 51–46 vote. And a law written with three features every Washingtonian should read for themselves.
The law’s own words: “Only individuals are subject to payment of the tax.” An “individual” is “a natural person.”
Small-business owners are inside the base, because sole-proprietor and pass-through business income is reported on the owner’s personal return — the statute expressly reaches “a business, trade, or profession carried on in this state, including a sole proprietorship.”
ESSB 6346 §§201(1), 101(4), 405(1), 101(7).
A corporation is not an individual — so under this law, a C corporation never gets the bill. The word “corporation” appears in the tax’s operative sections only inside the pass-through definitions.
Families and business owners pay on their personal returns. The biggest structures in the economy are simply outside this tax.
ESSB 6346 §§201(1), 101(4); full-text review of Chapter 238, Laws of 2026.
Section 1208 declares the tax “necessary for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions” — the constitutional formula that removes a law from the people’s referendum power.
They didn’t just pass the tax. They wrote it so you couldn’t petition to vote on it.
ESSB 6346 §1208; Wash. Const. art. II, §1(b).
Precision matters, so here it is: this tax applies to household income above the $1,000,000 standard deduction, and “$0” means zero of this tax — corporations still pay other Washington taxes. Both points come straight from the enacted law. What the law never does is send this bill to a corporation.
Washington courts have long treated a graduated income tax as unconstitutional under Culliton. Here is how Fitzgibbon dismissed that precedent:
“[Culliton] was a single Supreme Court case from before anybody in this room was alive, on a five-to-four decision that said income was property” … “no other state in the union, nor the federal government” shares that view.
The question of whether his tax survives that precedent is now headed through the courts. He didn’t wait for the answer — and he didn’t leave you a referendum.
Next: the record →