When the Washington Legislature passed the state’s new “Millionaires Tax,” Gov. Bob Ferguson called it historic. “It’s not too often in this line of work that you have a vote that’s truly historic, and by any definition, that’s what this was,” he said.
He is right about one thing. It is historic. But it is historic for all the wrong reasons.
Washington has operated under a clear constitutional principle meant to protect taxpayers from exactly this kind of policy shift. Article VII, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution requires tax uniformity and defines property broadly to include income. For decades, courts have upheld that interpretation, which is why Washington has consistently rejected a graduated income tax unless the Constitution itself is amended.
This new tax ignores that principle. It opens the door to targeted taxation based on income level, something voters have rejected time and again. But the constitutional concern is only part of the problem. The deeper issue is how disconnected this policy is from the realities of the state it governs.
In Central Washington, where I serve as a Yakima County Commissioner and where I am running for Congress, agriculture is not an abstract policy issue. It is the backbone of our economy and our communities. Washington produces roughly $14 billion in agricultural goods each year and leads the nation in crops like apples, hops, cherries, and pears. Central Washington drives much of that production, feeding both our state and the country. But behind those numbers are family farms operating on thin margins in a volatile industry.
Agriculture is one of the most capital-intensive sectors in our economy. Farmers invest millions into land, irrigation, equipment, and long-term crops that can take years to generate returns. Many are asset-rich but cash-poor, with their wealth tied up in the ground rather than sitting in a bank account.
Income in agriculture is also unpredictable. A farm may see several difficult years followed by a single year that appears profitable due to a land sale, generational transfer, or restructuring. That does not mean the farmer is suddenly wealthy in a meaningful or sustainable way. Under this new tax, those one-time events could push a family farm over the million-dollar threshold and trigger a significant tax burden. What is being framed as a tax on the ultra-wealthy risks becoming a penalty on generational agriculture. And this comes at a time when farmers are already under immense pressure.
Labor shortages and rising wages continue to strain operations. Regulatory burdens tied to environmental policies have increased costs across the board. Fuel, fertilizer, and equipment prices have surged. Water access remains one of the most critical and unresolved challenges in our region. At the same time, Washington farmers compete in global markets where even small cost increases can determine whether a farm stays viable.
Layering a new income tax on top of these pressures sends a clear message: the policymakers driving this decision do not understand the industries they are regulating.
Gov. Ferguson called this vote historic.
He was right.
The question is what kind of history we are writing.
Because the uncertainty alone – whether this policy survives legal challenge or expands further – creates real risk for the future of family farms in Washington. Investment decisions will be delayed. Expansion will slow. Some operations may not survive the added pressure. This is not a careful, thoughtful reform. It is a political experiment imposed on the very communities that sustain our state’s economy.
Food security is national security. And policies that weaken American agriculture do not just harm farmers – they affect every family that depends on a stable, affordable food supply.
Washington deserves better than symbolic victories that ignore economic reality. We need leadership that understands the people, industries, and communities that make this state work. This moment may be historic. But unless we change course, it will be remembered as the point when Washington turned its back on the very foundation of its economy.
