A judge in Thurston county dismissed a suit that challenged the accuracy of state language added to Washington's ballots inside the question over whether the new income tax should be repealed. The "public investment impact disclosure" legislation requiring the added language claimed itspurpose was to give voters more information: "Would the ballot measure add or subtract from state funding of services?"

However, critics say it is legislators who decide where funds are spent. A cut in one tax does not necessitate a cut in any given program because the legislature has the power to move the money around. The language also doesn't give context like the state budget has grown by more than 50 percent in a relatively short period of time. 

In this specific case, the objection goes further in that the tax is not currently collecting money and won't for some time, so how can the state add language to the ballot that says repealing the income tax will cut education and health services when the money hasn't even been spent and hasn't even started to be collected yet? Advocates for the disclosures say despite imperfections, it's important citizens know that any tax cut comes with a cost to services and that information is essential for voters.

Where do you stand? Are Public Investment Impact Disclosure" statements good for the voters of Washington?