A supporter of Initiative 645 has asked a newspaper editorial board to correct a statement made in an opinion piece opposing the measure, arguing that the editorial incorrectly described how the legislature could respond if voters approve the initiative.
The request comes after an editorial criticized Initiative 645 and raised concerns about tax relief provisions that would remain in place if the income tax is repealed. The editorial also stated that lawmakers would be unable to change those impacts for two years without obtaining a supermajority vote.
The initiative supporter disputes that conclusion and says the statement does not accurately reflect either the timeline of the proposal or the legal authority available to lawmakers.
In a letter sent to the editorial board, the writer thanked members for inviting a discussion about Initiative 645 and acknowledged that reasonable people can disagree about the measure. However, the letter argues that readers should receive a more accurate explanation of how the proposal would operate if approved by voters.
A key part of the disagreement centers on the timing of the tax relief provisions linked to the original law. According to the letter, those provisions are scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2029.
The writer notes that the constitutional restriction on amending a voter-approved initiative would expire on Dec. 3, 2028. Because the restriction would end before the tax relief provisions become active, the letter argues that lawmakers would still have an opportunity to make changes before the measures take effect.
The correction request also challenges the legal interpretation presented in the editorial.
According to the letter, Initiative 645 repeals the income tax and prohibits taxes on individual income. The writer says the measure does not reenact separate provisions involving sales tax relief, business tax relief, or the expansion of the Working Families Tax Credit.
The letter further argues that the initiative removes language from the original law that described the income tax and related tax measures as part of an integrated tax reform package.
As a result, the writer contends that voters would be deciding whether to repeal and prohibit an income tax, while the remaining tax relief provisions would continue to exist as separate policies that lawmakers could address through future legislation.
The debate focuses on Article II, Section 41 of the state constitution. That provision requires a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber to amend a voter-approved law during its first two years after approval.
The initiative supporter argues that the constitutional requirement applies only to amendments that affect the essential purpose and effect of the initiative itself.
To support that position, the letter references a legal opinion issued in 1988 by the office of former Attorney General Kenneth Eikenberry. According to the opinion cited in the letter, lawmakers may pass legislation on the same general subject as a voter-approved initiative without necessarily amending the initiative.
The opinion also states that legislation may affect related policies indirectly while leaving the initiative’s core purpose unchanged.
Based on that interpretation, the writer argues that changes to sales tax exemptions, business tax provisions, or the Working Families Tax Credit would not restore an income tax and therefore would not alter the initiative’s primary objective.
The letter states that lawmakers could amend, delay, or repeal those separate provisions through a simple-majority vote during legislative sessions in 2027 or 2028.
The supporter therefore argues that the editorial was incorrect when it stated that lawmakers would be unable to alter “any of the initiative’s impacts” during the two-year period.
As part of the correction request, the writer proposed alternative wording. The suggested language explains that Initiative 645 would repeal the income tax while leaving related tax relief provisions in place and that lawmakers would retain authority to amend or repeal those provisions before they take effect.
The proposed correction also notes that the constitutional restriction would expire before Jan. 1, 2029, when the tax relief measures are scheduled to begin and before the first payments under the tax would be due.
The letter concludes by asking the editorial board to revise the disputed statement and provide readers with what the writer describes as a more accurate explanation of the legal and timing issues involved in the Initiative 645 debate.
As discussion over the measure continues, questions about legislative authority and the future of related tax policies remain central topics in the public conversation surrounding Initiative 645.
