Supporters claim fraudulent sign-ins made Washington's proposed 'millionaire's tax' look unpopular

On Tuesday, the Washington state House’s finance committee will hear what Democrats are calling the “millionaire’s tax.” Anytime such a hearing happens, anyone can register their opposition or support for bills being heard online — even if they don’t want to testify, they can make their position known with a few clicks.

But ahead of Tuesday’s hearing, perhaps the most significant and controversial piece of legislation that’s come through the legislature in years, a record-breaking number of names appeared in opposition. As of Monday afternoon, over 100,000 names appeared signed in as "con" on the House’s website, while less than 10,000 had signed in "pro" or "other."

A number of unions and pro-tax groups claim many of those names are fraudulent and are asking the state attorney general to investigate. Names on the "con" list include leaders of unions that heavily support the tax, or even Democratic state Sen. Victoria Hunt, who is one of the co-sponsors.

“Somebody had signed in without my permission, on my behalf,” Hunt said in a press conference Monday morning.

A number of the names signed in are also duplicates, the campaign for the tax alleged in a letter addressed to Attorney General Nick Brown and Washington state House Clerk Bernard Dean.

Brown and Dean said they hadn’t yet received the letter when KUOW first contacted them Monday morning. Later in the day, Dean said that the office of the House clerk is investigating reports of duplicate or fraudulent names.

"This incident calls into question the legislative record and warrants our attention," Dean said in an email. "We are investigating this incident and plan on making system improvements in the future to prevent this sort of abuse.

Brown didn't officially respond to KUOW's request to comment by publication.

RELATED: Tension rising over how to spend revenue from proposed WA income tax

Adam Glickman, the treasurer for a union representing nurses and long-term care workers in Washington, said he and a number of union members had been registered as "con."

“While I was home fast asleep, somebody apparently put my name and organization into the official testimony record as against the millionaires tax,” Glickman said at a virtual press conference. “This is a serious issue. This is a criminal act.”

Tax backers claim this violates Washington laws against “electronic impersonation” and knowingly providing false information “likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.”

Senate and House Republicans didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

“Even with their wildest claims, this is still the most unpopular bill in history,” Brian Heywood, a hedge fund manager and one of the major opponents of the bill, said in a statement. “The majority party and their affiliated PACs are quick to claim fraud when voters voice an opinion that is in opposition to their own. …Their continued fear-based rhetoric and attacks appear aimed at distracting from a simple fact: people do not want an income tax.”

This is a key point in a rhetorical battle over this income tax on high earners: Polling has shown it could be quite popular. But voters have rejected income and corporate taxes 10 times in the last century, as recently as 2010. Where do they stand now?

RELATED: Washington state voters have rejected income taxes 10 times. Is this year different?

Sign-ins for bill hearings are usually not a good answer to that question; they're a better indication of how well interest groups can organize their members or grassroots. But some lawmakers do consider or mention them.

Last year, a property tax bill in the state Senate set the record for the most sign-ins, according to the to the Senate Secretary — over 45,000, almost entirely "con" — and didn’t make it past committee.

That record was shattered earlier this month when the millionaire’s tax was heard in the Senate: over 61,000 against, and only about 19,000 for. (These records are only for Senate hearings; the House wasn’t able to provide similar tallies.)