Washington lawmakers had the chance to decide who plays in girls’ school sports. They passed. So on Nov. 3, voters will settle it themselves. Initiative 638 would keep male athletes out of K-12 competitions meant only for girls, and it is now one of the most closely watched ballot measures in the country.
That alone says something. Democrats hold wide majorities in Olympia, yet a question about fairness for girls could not get a hearing. Now it sits in front of every voter. And because similar measures are also on the ballot in Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska, the result could ripple far beyond the Pacific Northwest.
Key Takeaways
- Initiative 638 would bar male athletes from girls-only interschool sports in Washington’s public K-12 schools and in private schools that compete through the state association.
- Girls who want to compete would need a form from their own health care provider verifying their sex.
- The Legislature declined to act on the measure, so it went straight to the Nov. 3 ballot.
- The state budget office puts the state cost at about $21,000 to update guidance, while local district costs are unknown.
- Washington became the first state to let transgender students compete by gender identity almost 20 years ago.
What Initiative 638 Would Actually Do
According to the Attorney General’s official explanatory statement, the measure would require policies that keep male students from competing with or against female students in events designated for girls only. In the statement’s words, this “would generally prevent transgender girls from participating on girls’ sports teams.”
The rule covers public schools and private schools that compete through the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association. Also, students who join girls’ teams would need a form signed by their personal health care provider. That verification rests on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or natural testosterone levels.
Notably, the measure’s limits apply only to teams and events set aside for girls. In short, it answers one narrow question: who competes in the girls’ category.
Why Initiative 638 Is on the Ballot at All
Washington’s Constitution lets citizens send an initiative to the Legislature. Lawmakers can pass it, ignore it, or offer an alternative. In this case, House Speaker Laurie Jinkins and Democratic leaders chose not to act. As a result, the measure went automatically to voters.
The conservative group Let’s Go Washington, funded largely by hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, gathered the signatures. Critics point to that money. Still, consider the numbers. Hundreds of thousands of Washington voters signed. On top of that, The Seattle Times reports that unreleased polling from a progressive group has consistently shown majority support for the ballot language.
In other words, this is not a fringe idea forced on an unwilling public. It is a popular idea that the people in charge refused to debate. Moreover, once voters approve an initiative, lawmakers cannot change it for two years, according to the Times. That is the whole point of direct democracy when the Legislature stops listening.
Fairness Is Not a Culture-War Slogan
Opponents call this a manufactured fight. State Rep. My-Linh Thai told the Times the measure is “making something out of nothing.” Officials estimate there are only five to 10 transgender student athletes in the state.
However, a small number does not make the problem small for the girl who loses her spot. After all, a single entrant can change a podium, a final heat, or a trip to state. The Times itself lists a 2024 track meet, a wrestling match last year, and a cross-country race this month that drew attention and protests.
The concern behind Initiative 638 is not theory. In fact, a high school wrestler from the Puyallup School District and her mother have an emergency application pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. Among other things, they want notice and the right to opt out of matches against transgender opponents without penalty. The Ninth Circuit denied them relief. Since then, Justice Elena Kagan has called for a response, and the application is still awaiting action.
Meanwhile, most Americans see the basic fairness issue. Pew Research Center surveys found that about two-thirds of respondents favor requiring transgender athletes to play on teams that match their sex at birth, the Times notes. Clearly, that is not a fringe position. It is the mainstream one.
The Supreme Court Left This Question to States
This summer, the Supreme Court upheld West Virginia and Idaho laws that keep transgender girls off girls’ teams. As Education Week reported, the ruling backs policies already in place in 27 states. Even so, it does not require any state to adopt them.
In a footnote, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that “nothing in this opinion is intended to decide” whether states may go the other way. So the decision falls to each state. That is how federalism should work, and Initiative 638 puts it into practice. Washington voters, not federal judges and not a school association, should set the rules for Washington schools.
What a Yes Vote Would Tell the Country
Washington is not a red state. Republicans have lost more than a dozen legislative seats there since 2016, the Times notes. For that reason, a win in Seattle’s backyard would carry weight. “It will certainly send shock waves,” Republican consultant Keith Schipper told the paper.
More importantly, it would remind leaders in both parties that common sense still wins votes. Ordinary families do not need a think tank to tell them that male and female athletes differ in sports. They simply want someone in charge to say so out loud.
Fair Questions About Initiative 638
To be fair, opponents raise real concerns. Some worry that the verification form could mean an invasive exam for girls. That deserves a straight answer. The Attorney General says students would need some type of medical evaluation. Even so, the form comes from the family’s own health care provider. In addition, it can rest on genetics or hormone levels, not only anatomy.
Others say it may face a challenge under the state constitution. That may happen, and if so, courts will sort it out. Nevertheless, a possible lawsuit is not a reason to leave girls without protection. Lawmakers could have written a cleaner version themselves. Instead, they chose silence.
Finally, the cost is modest. The state budget office estimates a one-time state cost of about $21,000 to update guidelines. District costs are unknown, but they mostly involve rewriting policies. For a fiscal conservative, that is a cheap price for a clear rule.
We have seen this pattern before. In our look at Colorado’s preschool fight and social media rules for kids, the same lesson held: parents, not bureaucrats, should have the final word on what is good for their children.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Initiative 638?
It is a Washington ballot measure on the Nov. 3, 2026, ballot. It would keep male athletes out of girls-only interschool sports in K-12 schools.
When would Initiative 638 take effect?
If voters approve it, the state budget office assumes an effective date of Dec. 3, 2026. Also, the rules would apply going forward, not to past seasons.
Does it affect boys’ or coed teams?
No. According to the Attorney General’s statement, the new limits apply only to teams and individual events designated for female students.
So here is our question for you: should voters or lawmakers decide who competes in girls’ sports?
Follow World of Payne for More
For more conservative commentary on schools, family, and freedom, visit the World of Payne homepage. Then follow the World of Payne show on X, Facebook, and Instagram.
