Home | About Stephanie | News & Media | Email Updates | The Ledger | Contact
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
Welcome to another edition of Barnard’s Weekly Session Snapshot. I hope this email finds you and your family well.
The 2026 legislative session has now concluded, and the Legislature officially adjourned Sine Die on March 12. “Sine Die” is a Latin term that means “without a day,” and here in Olympia, it simply means the Legislature has finished its scheduled work for the year.
Even though session is ending, the effects of what happened here will not end with it.
One of the most consequential votes of the year was the passage of Senate Bill 6346, which puts Washington on the path toward a state income tax. After more than 24 hours of debate, the majority passed it anyway.
I voted no, and I want to explain why. You can watch my actual “no” vote by clicking on the photo below or here.
You can also read my full statement: Rep. Stephanie Barnard issues statement on her ‘no’ vote on the passage of state income tax bill
Front and center: Why this vote matters
Supporters keep calling Senate Bill 6346 a “millionaires tax,” as though that settles the issue. It does not.
This bill does far more than create a tax on a narrow group of people. It creates the legal framework, the bureaucracy, and the precedent for a personal income tax in Washington state. Once that machinery is built, the debate is no longer about whether Washington will have an income tax. The debate becomes how low future Legislatures will set the threshold and how many more Washingtonians will eventually be pulled in.
That is why this vote was so important.
And that is why more than 24 hours of debate mattered.
That debate was not just about delaying the inevitable. It was about making sure Washingtonians could see clearly what was happening, what was being proposed, and what the long-term consequences could be. A proposal this sweeping deserved scrutiny, transparency, and a real conversation about what it means for the future of our state.
A threat to innovation: The wrong signal at the wrong time
For me, this vote was never just about taxes. It was about direction.
Washington has built its economy by being a place where people imagine what does not yet exist and build it anyway. That spirit helped shape our aerospace sector, our agriculture industry, our technology leadership, and our energy innovation.
Innovation is not a side note in Washington. It is part of our identity.
That is why Senate Bill 6346 is so troubling. It sends exactly the wrong signal at exactly the wrong time.
We are competing right now for talent, research dollars, advanced manufacturing, clean energy development, quantum innovation, and the industries that will define the next fifty years. Investment follows certainty. Growth follows confidence. Opportunity follows a stable environment where entrepreneurs, employers, and innovators believe they can build something that lasts.
This bill introduces the opposite.
When the state creates a brand-new income tax structure, it sends a message that Washington is more interested in building new tax machinery than in building a climate where innovation can thrive. It tells job creators and investors that the rules here can shift, the tax burden can grow, and today’s limited proposal can become tomorrow’s broader one.
That should concern all of us.
Capital flight is real: People and employers are already looking elsewhere
This is not just theory. We are already seeing warning signs.
Jeff Bezos left Washington for Florida several years ago. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced his move to Florida just as this bill advanced. Boeing has shifted operations to the Carolinas. Starbucks is moving some operations to Tennessee. Major employers like Microsoft, Amazon, and T-Mobile continue making decisions about growth and investment in an environment where Washington is becoming less affordable and less competitive.
Those choices matter.
When high earners, investors, and major employers start looking elsewhere, the impact does not stop with them. It ripples outward to families, workers, small businesses, local communities, and the next generation of Washington job seekers. Capital flight is not just a buzzword. It is a warning sign that confidence is slipping.
And confidence matters.
A spending problem, not a revenue problem
Democrats continue to argue that new taxes are necessary due to external pressures, including instability from the federal government and broader economic uncertainty. But much of the strain Washington is facing today is self-inflicted.
State spending has more than doubled over the past decade. Job growth is flat. Washington now ranks among the least business-friendly states in the nation, and we are already one of the most expensive states to live in. Forecasts have also pointed to zero job growth in 2026.
Those are not signs that Washington needs a state income tax.
There are signs that Olympia needs more discipline.
We cannot tax our way out of a spending problem. If the majority continues to spend more than the state brings in and then turns to taxpayers whenever the math no longer works, this bill will not be the end of the story. It will simply be the next step in a pattern that is already making Washington harder to afford and harder to grow in.
A broken promise and a constitutional problem
This bill also raises serious constitutional concerns.
Washington’s constitution requires taxes on property to be applied uniformly, and Washington courts have long held that income is property. That legal conflict did not disappear because supporters gave the bill a more politically friendly label.
Just as troubling, this legislation runs counter to the Legislature’s recent promise. In 2024, lawmakers overwhelmingly adopted Initiative 2111 to prohibit state and local taxes on personal income. Two years later, many of those same lawmakers turned around and passed one anyway.
That is not a small shift. That is a broken promise.
And if supporters truly intended this tax to remain limited, they had the chance to prove it.
They refused.
One revealing vote: Democrats rejected a permanent $1 million threshold
Republicans offered an amendment to permanently codify the $1 million threshold in law.
Democrats voted no.
That vote matters because it tells us a lot more than the press releases do. If the majority truly believed this tax should stop there, they had every opportunity to lock that protection into statute. Instead, they preserved the ability for a future Legislature to lower the threshold and expand the tax to more people.
Washingtonians should pay very close attention to that.
Because once this machinery is in place, history tells us the pressure will not be to leave it untouched. The pressure will be to expand it.
Amendments Republicans supported: Real relief the majority rejected
Throughout the debate, Republicans offered amendment after amendment to provide real relief, real accountability, and real guardrails. If this bill were truly about helping Washingtonians, the majority had every opportunity to say yes.
Instead, Democrats rejected those efforts.
Here are some of the amendments Republicans supported that would have made the bill better for Washingtonians:
- Permanently codify the $1 million threshold so it could not be lowered later.
- Reduce the state sales tax by 1.5% to provide broad-based relief.
- Exempt prepared food from sales tax.
- Create a three-day back-to-school sales tax holiday for families.
- Expand the sales tax exemption beyond diapers to include additional essential child care products.
- Exempt pension income and benefits to help protect seniors on fixed incomes.
- Create deductions tied to the siting, construction, and operation of affordable housing.
- Dedicate 25% of the revenue to increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates and easing health care cost pressure.
- Create a dedicated Universal Free School Lunches account so promises to families were tied to actual funding.
- Add stronger transparency and accountability measures so taxpayers could track capital flight, business departures, and the long-term economic consequences of the tax.
Those were real opportunities to pair this bill with actual relief and real protections.
Democrats said no.
That tells us something important. This bill was never really about reform. It was about revenue.
A statement of priorities: What moved, and what did not
One of the most frustrating parts of this session is the contrast it revealed.
I came to Olympia focused on innovation, energy, and economic development. I pushed for ideas that would position Washington to compete for the future, including policies tied to advanced nuclear energy, quantum technology, data protection, and stronger economic growth.
Those are the kinds of policies that attract talent, bring jobs home, and make Washington a leader.
Yet too many growth-focused ideas struggled to move, while the framework for a brand-new income tax advanced.
That is not just policy. That is a statement of priorities.
Washington should be rolling out the red carpet for innovators, researchers, manufacturers, and employers who want to build the future here. We should not be creating new tax structures that inject uncertainty, weaken our competitive edge, and push opportunity elsewhere.
Looking ahead
Although the Legislature has concluded its work for the year, my updates will not stop here.
A lot happened during this session, and I want to make sure you have the information you need about the bills that passed, the ideas that were blocked, and the decisions that will affect families, employers, and communities moving forward.
In the weeks ahead, I will continue sending regular updates through Barnard’s Weekly Session Snapshot to help break down what happened this year and what it means for our district and our state.
Even after Sine Die, I remain committed to keeping you informed and representing your voice.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Barnard
