As Democrats’ proposed income tax bill moves through the Washington Legislature, a record-breaking wave of public opposition has sparked a parallel fight — not just over tax policy, but over fraud allegations, verification, and how consistently those claims are treated.
More than 170,000 people registered opposition to the measure through the Legislature’s online testimony system. Roughly 61,359 individuals signed in against the bill while it was in the Senate, and another 115,028 registered opposition after it moved to the House. Those totals far exceed prior public testimony records, including a previous high of roughly 40,000 sign-ins on a property tax issue.
Fraud allegations emerge
After opposition totals climbed rapidly, critics suggested the figures were inflated by automated “bots.” As requests were made for evidence supporting that claim, the bot narrative appeared to fade. The focus then shifted to allegations of duplicate or fraudulent entries.
The Northwest Progressive Institute (NPI) published an analysis claiming approximately 37,000 entries were fraudulent, citing duplicates and questionable submissions.
THE NEW SPIN:
A progressive basement blogger is mad over 100,000 people signed in against the WA Democrats' income come tax and is now making allegations of fraud.
Accidentally, he just made the case for Voter ID pic.twitter.com/tUn00laCpN
— Ari Hoffman (@thehoffather) February 23, 2026
In response, Let’s Go Washington (LGW) — a group opposing the bill — said it conducted its own verification effort and was able to independently verify 101,062 of the 115,028 individuals who registered opposition in the House, and 53,430 of the 61,359 who registered opposition in the Senate.
Washington voters have rejected an income tax 11 times previously. Let’s Go Washington founder Brian Heywood said following the partisan allegations of the bill’s proponents, “Even with their wildest claims, this is still the most unpopular bill in history. These attempts to minimize the concerns of voters don’t change the outcome, it just emphasizes how desperate they are to downplay the clear and historic rejection.”
Heywood added that NPI and like-minded organizations “aren’t defending democracy, they’re attacking the process because they don’t like the result. Instead of resorting to procedural complaints and innuendo, they should acknowledge the obvious: this is the most unpopular bill our state has ever seen.”
Why are most of the CON votes arriving during waking hours in Washington State, but most of the PRO income tax votes coming in during waking hours in India? https://t.co/428C1Ov4dj
— stevemur (@stevemur) February 22, 2026
Data analysts also noted that the registration in favor of the tax mostly came in during waking hours in India, compared to the opposition votes coming in during waking hours in Washington State. The controversy has led to many opponents of the tax pointing out the irony that those on the left now appear to support ID requirements and fraud investigations.
Washington State Income Tax public feedback.
Red is CON, and Green is PRO.
Look at the time of day of the Green. Does this look organic to you? Or does it seem a bit hired-out to, via somewhere other than WA? https://t.co/UBJHMhmAAH pic.twitter.com/q2PyUB1YAC
— stevemur (@stevemur) February 22, 2026
How the sign-in system works
Washington’s legislative portal allows residents to register support or opposition to bills remotely. The system does not require identity verification beyond self-reported information and a checkbox confirming the user is not a bot. The current dispute has renewed debate over whether stronger verification measures should be adopted for official legislative testimony sign-ins.
All it took was over 160,000 people registering against the state income tax to make Washington Democrats finally care about addressing fraud and voter ID
Funny that the media in Washington never wanted to cover the rampant allegations of daycare or voter fraud pic.twitter.com/LrAnqh9oZa
— Ari Hoffman (@thehoffather) February 23, 2026
The broader context: fraud claims and officials’ reactions
The controversy has also drawn attention because of how state and local officials have responded to other fraud-related disputes.
Earlier this year, amid growing allegations of fraud involving Somali-run daycare operations in the Seattle area, independent journalists began investigating possible misuse of public funds. Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson criticized the journalists, calling them “extremist influencers,” and encouraged those who believed they were “the victim of a hate crime” to contact Washington’s Hate Crimes and Bias Incident Hotline.
The comments drew national attention. Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon responded: “Asking questions/citizen journalism are NOT HATE CRIMES in America — they are protected speech, and if Seattle tries to chill that speech, [DOJ Civil Rights Division] will step in to protect it and set them straight! Govern yourselves accordingly!”
The day prior, Dhillon had issued a warning directed at Washington Attorney General Nick Brown after a similar post discouraging journalists’ inquiries: “ANY state official who chills or threatens to chill a journalist’s 1A rights will have some ‘splainin to do. [DOJ Civil Rights Division] takes potential violations of 18 USC § 242 seriously!”
That episode centered on whether investigating potential fraud constituted protected journalism or improper targeting. The current income tax dispute centers on whether large-scale citizen opposition filings are authentic or manipulated — and what verification standards should apply.
Consistency in fraud investigations
The two controversies raise a broader question: why do some elected officials and aligned groups aggressively raise fraud concerns around the testimony system while dismissing or discouraging scrutiny of fraud allegations in other contexts?
Democrats more concerned over alleged “fraud” of who signed in against their income tax, than they are about millions of dollars in alleged fraud in state programs or daycares.
— Travis Couture (@TravisSCouture) February 24, 2026
They argue that if tens of thousands of legislative sign-ins warrant scrutiny, alleged misuse of taxpayer funds should warrant equal or greater scrutiny. And if identity is now considered a serious integrity issue for public comment and testimony, the state should have a serious debate about what identity safeguards — if any — should apply elsewhere in civic systems, including elections.
