Former Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna just handed Democrats a history lesson they apparently skipped.

In a detailed legal memo, McKenna argues that Senate Bill 6346—the Democrats’ shiny new 9.9% “millionaire income tax”—runs straight into the brick wall of the Washington Constitution. Not maybe. Not arguably. Straight into it.

Since the 1930s, the Washington Supreme Court has been crystal clear: income is property, and property taxes must be “uniform and equal.” That language isn’t fuzzy. It’s baked into the 14th Amendment to the state Constitution, approved by voters in 1930. The amendment defines property broadly—everything subject to ownership, tangible or intangible. Stocks? Property. Bonds? Property. Money? Property. Income? Yep. Property.

In the landmark 1933 Culliton v. Chase decision, the court didn’t hedge. It declared that “income is property and a tax upon income is a tax upon property.” Translation: You can’t impose a graduated income tax without violating the constitution’s uniformity requirement.

Yet here we are again.

Democrats pushed SB 6346 through the Senate 27–22 anyway, betting that labeling it “fairness” will somehow override decades of precedent. McKenna notes that even the court’s controversial blessing of the 2022 capital gains tax (by calling it an “excise tax”) actually undercuts this new proposal—because SB 6346 is explicitly a broad-based income tax.

In other words, the Legislature isn’t testing the limits. It’s testing whether words still mean things.

The real irony? The original 1930 voter pamphlet argument admitted “uniform and equal” sounds fair but might feel unfair. That debate happened nearly 100 years ago—and voters still approved language that courts have unanimously interpreted the same way ever since.

Democrats can call it a “millionaires tax” all they want. The constitution calls it something else.

Unconstitutional.

Read more at Center Square.

In an op-ed by Jason Mercier, Vice President and Director of Research at Mountain States Policy Center, the point is painfully simple: it takes 33 votes in the Washington State Senate to send a constitutional amendment to the people. Senate Bill 6346 — the Democrats’ 9.9% income tax on earnings over $1 million — got 27.

In other words, if lawmakers actually followed the constitutional path Washington courts have outlined for nearly a century, the income tax would have fallen six votes short.

For decades, both the Legislature and the courts understood the rule: income is property, and property taxes must be uniform. That’s not a conservative talking point — it’s repeated Supreme Court precedent. As former Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, former Justice Phil Talmadge, and former Attorney General Rob McKenna wrote in a joint legal brief, the court has held “unequivocally” that income is intangible property.

And voters? They’ve been even clearer.

Constitutional amendments to authorize a graduated income tax were rejected in 1934, 1936, 1938, 1942, 1970, and 1973. Four additional income tax measures were rejected in 1944, 1975, 1982, and 2010. That’s ten statewide “no” votes.

Even in 1960, when pressed to revisit its rulings during a financial crunch, the state Supreme Court refused, noting that if circumstances had changed, “the constitution may be amended by vote of the people.” (Reminder: voters had already rejected that idea in 1934.)

Yet in 2026, Senate Democrats decided the better option was to pass SB 6346 outright and hope courts — or time — will erase 100 years of precedent.

Every Washington elected official swears to uphold the state Constitution. Not reinterpret it when politically convenient. Not sidestep it because they don’t like prior rulings.

Mercier argues the issue isn’t just about taxes — it’s about process. If lawmakers want to change the constitutional treatment of income, they have a lawful path. It requires 33 Senate votes and voter approval.

Instead, they chose 27 votes and crossed their fingers.

Now the question shifts to the House — and to the governor, a former attorney general. Will they honor the oath they swore, or follow the Senate’s gamble into constitutional chaos? Read more at Center Square.

After the Senate passed a 9.9% income tax on earnings over $1 million, House Democrats are poised to follow suit. They’re calling it fairness. AI expert Pedro Domingos is calling it risky.

On The Jason Rantz Show (Seattle Red 770 AM), Domingos warned that startup ecosystems are fragile — and Washington is playing with fire. The AI boom has clustered in San Francisco, not Seattle or Bellevue, because talent and capital follow “network effects.” Once momentum shifts, it doesn’t politely come back.

“There’s a fragility to these startup ecosystems,” Domingos said. “One or two wrong moves and permanent relocation happens.”

Translation: if you make it easier to build in Texas or California than in Washington, founders won’t stick around out of nostalgia.

Startups aren’t just companies — they’re communities of engineers and investors who can move faster than lawmakers can draft the next tax hike. Domingos argues that while Democrats frame the tax as correcting a “regressive system,” it instead makes Washington less competitive at the exact moment AI salaries and talent wars are intensifying nationwide.

“Washington should be creating advantages to compete, not stacking disadvantages,” he said.

With adjournment looming and the House vote ahead, lawmakers are betting that taxing top earners won’t ripple through the innovation economy.

That’s a bold strategy — especially when the people building the future can code from anywhere. Read more at Seattle Red.

Washington Democrats are advancing Substitute House Bill 1239, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Beth Doglio, which would significantly expand “earned release time” for many incarcerated felons.

Under current law, people convicted of serious violent offenses or certain Class A sex offenses are typically capped at earning just 10% off their sentence. This bill would raise that cap to 33.33% for many qualifying crimes committed after July 1, 2026 — including sentence enhancements for firearms, deadly weapons, and impaired driving that were previously excluded.

Translation: offenders who once had limited ability to shave time off could now cut their sentences by a third.

Some crimes remain off-limits, including aggravated first-degree murder for adults and mandatory minimum sentences. But opponents argue the practical effect is still sweeping.

Critics testified the bill “undermines the meaning of sentencing” by dramatically expanding early release. They note that most incarcerated individuals already earn good time under current rules — meaning this wouldn’t be a rare exception, but a broad policy shift. Victims expect certainty in sentencing, not a moving target.

Ultimately, Democrats once again prioritizing sentence reductions over public safety — and that expanding early release for offenders tied to weapons and DUI enhancements isn’t exactly what most voters have in mind when they hear “justice reform.”

The bill has cleared committee and is moving forward.

Another day, another “reform” — and another debate over whether the state is redefining accountability downward. Read more at Seattle Red.

The Seattle Times recently published an article headlined, “Talking to your kids about ICE activity? Experts share 6 tips.” Translation: immigration enforcement has now been rebranded as a childhood trauma event.

Reporter Ryan Nguyen frames President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement alongside conversations about gun violence and the birds and bees — as though deporting someone who broke federal law is the emotional equivalent of a natural disaster.

The premise? Parents must gently process “distressing images” of ICE detentions with their children. What the piece doesn’t process is this: the United States has borders. It has immigration laws. And it deports people who violate them — including individuals convicted of serious crimes.

That’s not horror. That’s sovereignty.

The article quotes therapists who caution against “doomscrolling” before school drop-off and recommend “bite-sized conversations” so children can gradually absorb news of immigration raids. One even suggests creating a “safety plan.”

A safety plan for what, exactly? Federal agents enforcing federal law?

Critics argue this isn’t journalism — it’s activism dressed up as parenting advice. The emotional framing turns law enforcement into lurking menace while sidestepping the uncomfortable reality that some deportations involve individuals convicted of violent offenses.

If the conversation with kids is honest — that nations enforce laws, that breaking them has consequences — fine. But recasting immigration enforcement as a bedtime trauma ritual doesn’t educate. It dramatizes.

Perhaps the simpler lesson for children is this: laws exist, countries enforce them, and sometimes the loudest panic comes not from policy — but from adults projecting it. Read more at Seattle Red.