Taxing The Rich Is More Popular Than Any Of The Democrats Who WA Millionaires Tax

Both chambers in the Washington State Legislature have now approved the historic “millionaires tax,” which would levy a 9.9% tax on income over $1 million. While highlight reels of the marathon floor debate in the House and the two floor votes in the Senate will show Republicans flailing around, arguing that a small income tax will surely bring about economic apocalypse, 11 Democrats also quietly opposed their caucus’s flagship policy of the session. Reps. Dan Bronoske (D-Lakewood), Melanie Morgan (D-Tacoma), Kristen Reeves (D-Federal Way), Adison Richards (D-Bremerton), Alicia Rule (D-Blaine), Clyde Shavers (D-Clinton), Joe Timmons (D-Bellingham), and Amy Walen (D-Kirkland) and Sens. Adrian Cortes (D-Battle Ground), Drew Hansen (D-Bainbridge Island), and Deborah Krishnadasan (D-Gig Harbor) all voted “no.” 

Some may argue that the representatives from swingier districts voted “no” to avoid attacks from the right in their upcoming re-election campaigns, but recent election results show that all of these lawmakers are less popular with their constituents than the concept of taxing the rich.

Every seat in the Washington State House of Representatives and half of those in the Senate will go up for election this year, a reality likely coloring the decisions of many lawmakers seeking re-election.

Right now, progressives populists are having “a moment” with tax-the-rich candidates earning press buzz, endless think-pieces and, most importantly, seats in the halls of power. Taxing the rich is an incredibly popular proposal in Washington as well. Recent polling found that 71% of Democrats, 54% of Republicans, and 61% of general Washingtonians support the millionaires tax. And an impressive 64% of Washingtonians voted in 2024 to defend the State’s capital gains tax, a 7% tax on the sale or exchange of long-term capital assets. Not a single one of the Democrats who voted against the millionaires tax is more popular, even in their own district, than taxing the rich. 

Only a few of these lawmakers can even hope to use the purpleness of their district as an excuse for siding with Republicans: Richards, Krishnadasan, Rule, Shavers, Timmons, and Cortes. And yet all of them are still less popular than taxing the rich in their home districts.

Let's take Richards for example. Richards recently beat a Republican for his spot in the House with 51.8% of the vote. He represents the 26th legislative district, which includes Bremerton, Port Orchard, and Gig Harbor. Republicans can and do win elections there. The millionaires tax is clearly ‘Democrat-coded’ and supporting it will inspire GOP attack ads. But in Richards’s district, voters actually support taxing the rich.

In 2024, a group of rich right-wingers ran I-2109, a ballot measure to repeal the State’s capital gains tax (also considered an income tax by its critics). But it turns out Washingtonians cared more about public education funded by that tax than some rich dudes’ profits when day trading. The repeal failed with more than 64% defending the tax. In the 26th LD, 59.3% voted to keep the tax. That means Richards is a full eight percentage points less popular with his constituents than the concept of taxing the rich, which he just voted against. 

For all eleven Democrat defectors, their constituents gave stronger support for taxing the rich than they did for their most recent candicacy.

10th LD

Capital gains: 60.5%

Shavers: 57.9%

18th LD

Capital gains: 60.4%

Cortes: 50%

23rd LD

Capital gains: 69%

Hansen: 64.2%

26th LD

Capital gains: 59.3%

Richards: 51.8%

Krishnadasan: 52.5% (2025)

28th LD

Capital gains: 65.7%

Bronoske: 57.9%

29th LD

Capital gains: 73.3%

Morgan: 68.8%

30th LD

Capital gains: 65%

Reeves: 58.7%

42nd LD

Capital gains: 62%

Rule: 55.3%

Timmons: 52.7%

48th LD

Capital gains: 63%

Walen: 95.7% (unopposed in 2024), 40.7% (competitive race in 2025)

Of course, this is a limited comparison. A voter could have supported the capital gains tax and not the millionaires tax — consent once is not consent in perpetuity. Or a voter could have supported the capital gains tax and the millionaires tax, but not mind their representative voting against it, especially as many argue that this issue should go to the ballot anyway. Speaking of which, the only case where a representative performed better in 2024 than the campaign defending capital gains is with Walen who earned 95.7% of the vote that year when she ran unopposed. 

Walen explained her opposition in an op-ed in the Seattle Times, arguing that lawmakers should pose the millionaires tax to voters in a ballot measure. 

“Washington needs an income tax,” Walen wrote. “But we need to do it with our residents, not to them.”

It may be true that her constituents in the 48th LD, despite leaning strongly Democrat, would want permission to be taxed. After all, the district includes some of the wealthiest places in the state — Bellevue, Redmond Medina, etc. But when asked in I-2109 if they wanted to tax the rich to fund education, the vast majority — 63% —- voted to defend the capital gains tax. And the tax fared much better than Walen did in 2025 when she lost to her seatmate then-Rep. Vandana Slatter 40.7% to to 58% in their contest for the Senate seat. Slatter went on to vote for the millionaires tax in the Senate. 

Walen is up against a progressive challenger this cycle, Redmond City Council Member Jessica Forsythe. Forsythe told The Burner she supports the millionaires tax, so progressive revenue may become one of the central distinctions in the Dem-on-Dem race.

"In a time when working families are stretched thin, our legislators need to do everything they can to combat our regressive tax system," Forsythe wrote. "I stand in support of the passage of the Millionaire’s tax which invests in education, provides free breakfast and lunch to students, sales tax relief on hygiene products, and tax breaks for small businesses."

She continued, "These are issues that I will continue to fight for in the legislature. Our district deserves a representative who will stand firmly with working families, fight for fair taxation and build a sustainable future."

But lawmakers in all districts and of all parties should have to reckon with the fact that their constituents want to tax the rich, in many cases, more so than they want to keep their current representatives in office.