In an op-ed, Senate Republican Leader John Braun argues that as the 2026 legislative session comes to a close, Democrats in Olympia have made one thing clear: protecting Washington’s children isn’t high on their priority list.

Braun points to several examples this session where Republicans tried to strengthen child safety protections, only to be blocked by the Democratic majority. When Republicans proposed shifting 100 positions within the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) out of administrative roles and into Child Protective Services—the agency’s front lines—Democrats voted it down.

The same happened during debate on House Bill 1128. Even though Republicans opposed the bill overall due to what they say is excessive childcare regulation, they offered a modest amendment requiring childcare workers to receive training on recognizing signs of abuse or imminent harm to children. Democrats rejected that amendment as well.

Braun also highlights a longer-running fight over legislation that would classify exposing children to fentanyl and other synthetic opioids as felony child endangerment. Despite bipartisan sponsorship, House Democrats have refused to allow the bill to reach the floor for four consecutive years.

Meanwhile, disturbing cases involving children harmed by drug exposure continue to surface in DCYF fatality reviews. In one case Braun cited, a 15-month-old boy died after being exposed to fentanyl while lying in bed near drug paraphernalia.

Braun says Republicans created a website highlighting these reviews to underscore the “costly toll of state negligence,” both in human tragedy and the more than $500 million taxpayers are now paying in legal settlements tied to agency failures.

Rather than working with Republicans on reforms, Braun argues Democrats have dismissed concerns—including one Seattle Democrat who described GOP speeches about child fatalities as “lurid talking points.”

The larger contradiction, Braun says, is that Democrats appear eager to intervene in family decisions involving schools, healthcare, or housing policy—but suddenly argue for keeping families intact when a child is at risk due to drug abuse.

His message to the majority: if the stories coming out of DCYF are uncomfortable to hear, the solution isn’t ignoring them—it’s passing policies that actually protect kids. Read more at The Chronicle.

In a sharply critical op-ed, Jason Mercier of the Mountain States Policy Center argues Washington Democrats have crossed a major line by advancing Senate Bill 6346, a graduated income tax he says directly contradicts the state constitution.

After a marathon 24-hour House debate, lawmakers passed the bill 51–46 before the Senate quickly concurred 27–21. Several Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the measure, but the bill is now headed toward the desk of Bob Ferguson, who has already indicated he plans to sign it.

Mercier says the problem isn’t just the tax itself—it’s the way Democrats are attempting to impose it. For nearly a century, the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that income is legally considered property under the Washington Constitution. Because of that definition, any graduated income tax must first be authorized through a constitutional amendment approved by voters.

That process has been attempted six times in state history—1934, 1936, 1938, 1942, 1970, and 1973—and voters rejected it every single time.

Rather than trying again, Mercier says Democrats are now deliberately passing a law they expect to be challenged in court in hopes the justices will reverse decades of precedent. In fact, one of the bill’s sponsors, Jamie Pedersen, openly admitted the legal challenge is the point, saying lawmakers want the court to reconsider its rulings.

Mercier also warns that the bill includes an emergency clause that blocks Washingtonians from using a referendum to repeal the tax—effectively cutting voters out of the decision altogether.

Beyond the constitutional concerns, Mercier argues the policy will further damage Washington’s already struggling business climate. The state already ranks near the bottom of the Tax Foundation’s State Tax Competitiveness Index, and surveys from the Association of Washington Business show nearly half of business leaders are considering moving their personal residence out of the state.

Meanwhile, other states are already preparing to capitalize. Mercier notes that officials in Montana actively recruit businesses from states passing anti-business policies, echoing a line from Greg Gianforte: “Do you want to move back to America?”

Mercier concludes that with a single vote, Washington lawmakers have managed to defy constitutional precedent, undermine the state’s economic competitiveness, and block citizens from challenging the tax at the ballot box—all while turning the once-proud “Choose Washington” slogan into a relic of the past. Read more at Center Square.

After the longest floor debate in Washington legislative history—an exhausting 24-hour marathon—the state House passed ESSB 6346, creating a brand-new income tax and the largest tax increase in state history. The final vote was 51–46. Every Republican voted no, while eight Democrats joined them in opposition. If Bob Ferguson follows through on his promise to sign it, he’ll accomplish both feats before even finishing his second year in office.

Democrats spent hours insisting the tax wouldn’t drive wealthy residents away. Reality didn’t take long to respond. Just two hours after the vote, Howard Schultz announced he was moving his family to Miami after 44 years in Washington. Schultz joins Jeff Bezos, who relocated to Florida after Washington adopted its capital gains tax—turning the Democrats’ “tax them and they’ll stay” theory into a rapidly shrinking case study.

Republicans attempted to soften the bill with more than fifty amendments. Democrats rejected nearly all of them. Proposals voted down included locking the tax permanently to millionaires, eliminating the marriage penalty, creating sales tax holidays, exempting baby formula, supporting universal school lunches, and protecting military veterans.

The debate often clashed with the actual votes. While Democrats repeatedly called the measure a “millionaires’ tax,” many of those same lawmakers voted against amendments that would have constitutionally restricted the tax to that group. The bill also quietly modifies numerous pension statutes to include them under “adjusted gross income,” raising concerns that public pensions could eventually become taxable as well.

Even the conditions set by Governor Ferguson himself were mostly ignored. He requested $1 billion in small business tax relief and a majority of new revenue directed toward tax relief. Instead, lawmakers delivered about $130 million in business relief and only roughly 27% of the revenue going back to taxpayers. His proposal for free school lunches was watered down to vague “intent” language with no binding requirement.

Despite lawmakers brushing aside most of his requests, Ferguson still says he will sign the bill.

Supporters claim the tax is necessary for budget stability. But according to the Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington has actually had the most stable tax revenue system in the country over the past five years. Critics argue the state’s multi-billion-dollar deficits are the result of spending choices, not revenue instability.

With Washington leaping from zero income tax to a top rate of 9.9%, the state now stands out—but not in a good way. While states like South Carolina are working to phase out income taxes entirely, Washington lawmakers have chosen to go the opposite direction.

Legal challenges are expected. But the more immediate fight may come from voters themselves—who have rejected income tax proposals eleven times in state history and may not appreciate Olympia deciding the eleventh rejection simply didn’t count. Read more at the Washington Policy Center.

The day after Washington House Democrats passed Senate Bill 6346—creating the state’s first personal income tax after a marathon 24-hour debate—business groups across the state wasted little time warning lawmakers they may have just sabotaged Washington’s economic competitiveness.

The House approved the bill 51–46, sending it closer to the desk of Bob Ferguson, who has already indicated he plans to sign it. The legislation would tax annual personal income above $1 million, a move supporters claim targets only the wealthy.

But critics say the real-world consequences started immediately.

On the same day the House passed the bill, Howard Schultz announced he and his wife had moved to Florida after nearly five decades in Washington—fueling concerns that the state’s biggest taxpayers may simply relocate rather than stick around to fund Olympia’s latest spending plans.

Business organizations quickly sounded the alarm. National Federation of Independent Business Washington Director Patrick Connor said lawmakers repeatedly claimed the tax would help small businesses—but ignored the people actually running them.

According to Connor, small business owners across the state made it clear they did not want a new income tax. Yet lawmakers pressed ahead anyway, while adopting a tax break benefiting hospitals and large physician groups but leaving smaller medical practices out.

A coalition including the Association of Washington Business, Washington Roundtable, Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, Bellevue Chamber of Commerce, and Greater Spokane Inc. also warned that adopting an income tax eliminates one of Washington’s key competitive advantages.

AWB President Kris Johnson called the move a “seismic shift” in the state’s tax structure that could drive entrepreneurs and employers to consider moving to states with more stable tax environments.

Critics also warn the tax won’t stay limited to millionaires for long. Johnson said business leaders expect lawmakers will return next year seeking even more revenue, potentially expanding the income tax to a broader group of taxpayers.

Advocacy groups raised similar concerns. Americans for Prosperity Western Region Director Heather Andrews noted Washington voters have rejected income tax proposals for decades, warning the policy could ultimately put families, workers, and small businesses at risk as it expands over time.

Republican lawmakers echoed those concerns—and raised constitutional questions about the bill. House Minority Leader Drew Stokesbary pushed back against Democrats who argued it’s the courts’ job to determine whether the tax violates the state constitution.

Stokesbary pointed out that lawmakers themselves swear an oath to uphold the constitution when they take office—suggesting passing a legally questionable tax and letting the courts sort it out later isn’t exactly what voters had in mind.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader John Braun suggested Schultz’s departure sends a clear signal about the direction of the state’s business climate after years of tax increases under Democratic majorities.

The bill now returns to the Senate for final concurrence before heading to the governor’s desk. But if the immediate reaction from employers, entrepreneurs, and major taxpayers is any indication, the political debate over Washington’s first income tax is just getting started. Read more at Center Square.

A federal judge declined to issue an emergency restraining order that would have granted press credentials to independent Seattle journalists Brandi Kruse, Jonathan Choe, and Ari Hoffman during the final days of Washington’s legislative session—leaving them locked out of the House floor as Democrats pushed through their controversial income tax legislation.

The ruling from Benjamin Settle Estudillo found the journalists had not demonstrated they were likely to succeed on claims that the denial violated their constitutional rights. The Democrat-controlled Washington House had argued the trio were political participants rather than independent journalists—a claim critics say rings hollow given that favored legacy outlets continue to receive credentials without issue.

Kruse, host of the unDivided podcast, said her biggest frustration wasn’t with the judge or even the state—but with reporters from legacy media organizations she believes actively supported the effort to keep independent journalists out.

She described watching reporters from the The Seattle Times fill the House press table during the overnight income tax debate—something she noted rarely happens—suggesting it was done intentionally to ensure there would be no space available if her press credentials were approved.

Kruse argued the episode exposed what she sees as a troubling alliance between legacy media and the political establishment.

“If that doesn’t tell you we are working for you and they are working for the party in power, I don’t know what does,” she said, accusing traditional outlets of protecting their access and influence rather than defending broader press freedoms.

Despite the ruling, the legal fight is far from over. Attorney Jackson Maynard said the case will continue as the journalists seek what they argue is their constitutional right to access the legislature as members of the press.

For critics of the majority party, the timing raised eyebrows: as Democrats pushed through one of the most controversial tax packages in state history, the reporters most likely to challenge them were stuck outside the room. Read more at Seattle Red.

Please consider making a contribution to ensure Shift continues to provide daily updates on the shenanigans of the liberal establishment. If you’d rather mail a check, you can send it to: Shift WA | PO Box 956 | Cle Elum, WA 98922

Forward this to a friend.  It helps us grow our community and serve you better.

You can also follow SHIFTWA on social media by liking us on Facebook and following us on Twitter.

If you feel we missed something that should be covered, email us at [email protected].