In a new op-ed, Rep. Jim Walsh, the Republican state representative from Aberdeen and chairman of the Washington State Republican Party, highlights three bills pushed by Governor Bob Ferguson, Attorney General Nick Brown, and legislative Democrats that together paint a troubling picture of where Olympia is headed.

First is Senate Bill 6346, Ferguson’s so-called “millionaires’ tax.” Walsh argues the proposal is plainly unconstitutional because it creates a non-uniform income tax, something the Washington Constitution prohibits. The bill’s supporters are essentially betting the Washington Supreme Court will overturn its long-standing Culliton v. Chase precedent declaring income to be property for tax purposes. In other words, Democrats are passing a law today based on the hope that the court rewrites the rules tomorrow. And just to make sure voters don’t interfere, lawmakers attached a “necessity clause”—even though the tax wouldn’t fully take effect until 2029—blocking citizens from challenging it through a referendum.

Next is Senate Bill 5925, which Walsh warns dramatically expands the power of the attorney general. The bill would allow the AG to issue civil investigative demands—essentially search-warrant-like orders in non-criminal cases. Anyone targeted would have to hire lawyers and fight the state in court just to challenge it. Judges could also issue gag orders, preventing the person or business under investigation from speaking publicly about it. Walsh argues the result is a powerful new political weapon capable of dragging individuals or companies into costly legal battles before any enforcement action even occurs.

The third bill, Senate Bill 5794, targets county sheriffs. Critics say the measure would allow a governor-appointed commission to decertify and effectively remove elected sheriffs from office. Walsh notes that the bill has drawn strong opposition from sheriffs across the state, including Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank and Thurston County Sheriff Derek Sanders, who argue it undermines local elections and voter authority.

Taken together, Walsh argues the three bills share the same troubling theme: they expand centralized power in state government while weakening constitutional safeguards and local control. From an income tax built on shaky legal ground, to expanded investigative authority, to a pathway for removing elected sheriffs, the measures represent what he calls a broader shift toward bureaucratic control in Olympia. Read more at Seattle Red.

Washington Democrats love lecturing everyone else about “transparency,” but when it comes to their own internal dealings in Olympia, apparently the blinds stay firmly shut.

The Washington State Court of Appeals has ruled that the Legislature can claim “legislative privilege” to keep many internal records secret, siding with lawmakers in a case brought by open-records advocate Jamie Nixon and the Washington Coalition for Open Government. The lawsuit was filed after requests for legislative communications were either heavily redacted or withheld entirely.

This fight stems from a 2019 Washington Supreme Court decision that said the Legislature must comply with the state’s Public Records Act. Since then, lawmakers have leaned heavily on a new theory—“legislative privilege”—to argue that their internal emails, drafts, and discussions should remain off-limits to the public.

The Court of Appeals agreed, saying the separation of powers doctrine allows lawmakers to shield certain internal records in order to protect their “decision-making process.”

Transparency advocates say the ruling effectively turns Olympia into a black box. Washington Coalition for Open Government President Mike Fancher warned the decision means the public can no longer meaningfully scrutinize how legislation is crafted behind the scenes.

And here’s the kicker: lawmakers could have fixed the problem themselves. A proposed constitutional amendment this session would have explicitly made internal legislative records subject to disclosure while protecting lawmakers from liability for what they said in debate. But the proposal never even received a public hearing.

Apparently, when it comes to government transparency, Olympia Democrats are happy to demand it from everyone else—just not from themselves. Read more at Center Square.

Washington Democrats finally delivered on a long-time progressive goal Tuesday night, passing a sweeping 9.9% income tax on high earners—a policy Republicans warn will push entrepreneurs and job creators out of the state. And almost immediately, critics got a pretty high-profile example of exactly that happening.

Just as the Legislature wrapped up debate on the tax, Starbucks founder Howard Schultz announced on LinkedIn that he and his wife Sheri Schultz are leaving Seattle after 44 years and relocating to Miami, Florida—a state with no income tax.

Schultz’s message was polite and optimistic, but the timing was impossible to miss.

“We have moved to Miami for our next adventure together,” Schultz wrote, noting they’re enjoying South Florida while spending more time near their children and grandchildren on the East Coast. He also expressed hope that Washington will remain a place where business and entrepreneurship can thrive—a subtle line that reads a little differently given the policy climate he’s leaving behind.

Of course, Schultz isn’t the first major Washington business figure to relocate. Jeff Bezos famously moved to Florida after Democrats passed the state’s capital gains tax. Yet despite the growing list of wealthy residents heading for no-income-tax states, Democrats continue insisting the rich won’t leave.

Now Governor Bob Ferguson is expected to sign the new income tax into law, cementing what critics say is the first step toward a broader state income tax system.

And the optics couldn’t be more on the nose: the same night Olympia politicians approved a new tax on high earners, the man who built Seattle’s most recognizable company announced he was taking his taxable income somewhere else. Read more at Seattle Red.

In a new op-ed, Charlie Harger, host of Seattle’s Morning News on KIRO Newsradio, warns that a little-noticed bill from Olympia could soon reshape neighborhoods across Washington—whether local communities want it or not.

The legislation, House Bill 2266, requires cities statewide to allow permanent supportive housing in any residential zone. Local governments would be barred from zoning it out or imposing stricter conditions than those applied to a typical apartment building.

Harger stresses that people struggling with addiction deserve genuine help and a path to recovery. But he argues the model mandated by the bill isn’t built around recovery at all. Permanent supportive housing generally has no time limits, no treatment requirements, and no expectations for sobriety, with services offered only if residents voluntarily seek them.

Operators such as Plymouth Housing and the Downtown Emergency Service Center have openly described the model as focused primarily on keeping people off the street rather than pushing them toward treatment. Harger notes critics say these facilities often bring significant challenges to surrounding neighborhoods, including crime concerns and repeated emergency responses.

According to Harger, the bill effectively removes the ability of cities—or residents—to push back. He points to previous disputes, including a housing proposal in Kenmore that sparked local concern, as an example of why state lawmakers stepped in. The bill ultimately passed with Democratic majorities and now sits on Governor Bob Ferguson’s desk awaiting his signature.

Harger also cites recovery advocate Ginny Burton, who argues that real recovery requires expectations and guardrails—something she fears this model abandons.

The broader concern, Harger writes, is that after spending billions on policies critics say have failed to reduce addiction and homelessness, the state is now mandating that same approach in neighborhoods across Washington. Read more at MyNorthwest.com.