Almost 20 years ago, Washington became the first U.S. state where transgender students could compete on sports teams consistent with their gender identity.
Now Washington voters could be among the first in the country to approve a ban on transgender girls playing girls sports through their K-12 schools, or the first to reject such a ban.
On the ballot in next week’s election, Initiative 638 is putting Washington in the spotlight.
Part of the debate focuses on the practical consequences of I-638’s potential passage: How transgender and cisgender student athletes could be affected, along with their parents and schools.
But supporters and opponents of I-638 agree the initiative is also important because of its local and national political implications, as Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have hammered on this issue in recent years.
“This state has consistently rejected every anti-LGBTQ initiative that’s come before it,” said state House Speaker Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, who is opposed to I-638. “That is one of the reasons to target Washington.”
Republican lawmakers in many red states have passed similar measures into law, but I-638 marks an attempt to reach voters directly, rather than persuading the Democrats who control Washington’s Legislature.
Supporters view the initiative as a chance to counter an LGBTQ+ movement they say has overstepped — and motivate dispirited conservative voters in a state where Republicans have been losing ground. They say transgender girls being able to compete in girls athletics is unfair to cisgender girls.
“One of the goals of an initiative is to wake the public up,” said state Rep. Michelle Valdez, R-Gig Harbor, who supports I-638. “You have to get something you can say in one sentence and that will resonate with people.”
There aren’t many known transgender student athletes in Washington, but some have recently become the subject of attention and stirred protests.
Opponents see I-638 as part of a national strategy by conservatives to weaken LGBTQ+ rights and to boost turnout against Democrats by capitalizing on fear about transgender people. The opponents argue barring transgender girls from playing on teams with their cisgender peers is discrimination.
Republicans are skilled at “whipping up these culture war issues to inflame their base,” said Dean Nielsen, a Washington-based political consultant for Democrats. “That’s what this is all about.”
The Nov. 3 election matters not only because the result could change student sports in Washington, experts say, but also because the outcome could influence political trends throughout the nation.
If it passes, It will certainly send shock waves,” said Keith Schipper, a Nevada-based Republican political consultant with Washington ties. “In Washington state of all places, that’s always going to make people’s eyes pop out.”
Why now?
It’s not just voters in Washington who will consider an initiative restricting trans athletes. Similar ballot measures are up in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska.
“There’s a reason why this is on the ballot this year, when (Republicans) have one of the most unpopular presidents in American history looming over the top of the ticket,” Nielsen said.
And it’s not the first time this strategy has been deployed with LGBTQ+ issues, said Logan Casey, policy director at the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ think tank.
Between 1994 and 2012, opponents of same-sex marriage pushed more than three dozen ballot measures to restrict or ban marriage equality at the state level, according to a MAP report.
More recently, a number of states have acted legislatively to ban transgender students from participating in girls and women’s sports. In 2020, Idaho became the first to pass such a ban. Since then, more than half of the U.S. has implemented similar restrictions.
I-638 and the three other ballot measures being considered nationwide this November are “a culmination of a much longer and coordinated campaign against transgender people and our rights,” Casey said.
There are reasons to think Washington voters could approve I-638.
Let’s Go Washington — the conservative political committee backing the initiative — said its polling indicates I-638 is likely to pass, while the liberal Ballot Initiative Strategy Center said its polling has pointed to many voters being undecided or persuadable.
Unreleased polling from the Northwest Progressive Institute has consistently shown majority support among Washington voters who are presented with initiative language as it appears on the ballot, said Executive Director Andrew Villeneuve. That language says I-638 would prohibit students it defines as "biologically male" from competing in school sports "intended for female students only."
The results mean it stands a decent chance of passing unless opponents can “break through” to voters with concerning details about the consequences of I-638, like how it could require a potentially invasive physical exam for girls, Villeneuve said.
Despite polling that seems to favor the initiative, some local LGBTQ+ rights advocates are optimistic Washingtonians will vote down I-638.
Washington has a strong network of statewide policies that prohibit discrimination against transgender people in public spaces and that allow transgender students to play on teams consistent with their identity, noted Michael Woodward, executive director of local transgender rights nonprofit TRACTION.
“The average Washingtonian is not interested in that (policy change) happening,” Woodward said. “We all want equity and fairness for everybody, including trans people.”
Nationally, Kim Jones, co-founder of an organization that provides legal support to female athletes filing lawsuits against trans-inclusive policies, said she thinks ballot measures like I-638 are “an expression of frustration” by members of the public who disagree with those policies.
Jones, from the Independent Council on Women’s Sports, claimed measures like I-638 are needed “to return the integrity and fairness of girls and women’s sports to the sex category that they were created around.”
She pointed to national polling. About two-thirds of respondents to Pew Research Center surveys said they favored laws or policies that would require transgender athletes to play only “on teams that match their sex at birth.” Nearly three-quarters said they felt uncomfortable with transgender athletes on sports teams consistent with their gender identity.
Why here?
There are multiple reasons why a measure like I-638 is hitting the ballot in Washington, starting with the makeup of the Legislature here.
In states with Republican-majority legislatures, lawmakers have simply passed transgender student athlete bans into law. But Democrats hold wide majorities in both Washington’s House and Senate.
I-638 is also on the ballot in Washington because Brian Heywood, the conservative hedge fund manager behind Let’s Go Washington, is bankrolling the measure along with several others.
Qualifying a statewide initiative for the ballot requires collecting hundreds of thousands of petition signatures, and that’s expensive.
A similar effort in Nevada sputtered due to lack of funding, said Schipper, the Nevada Republican consultant who previously worked in Washington, which has a larger population and more wealthy residents.
“When a billionaire says, ‘I’m going to cut the check,’” that matters, Schipper said.
Washington doesn’t necessarily have more transgender student athletes than other states and may not have many at all. Officials have estimated there are currently five to 10 total, although disclosure isn’t required.
But several competitions involving transgender student athletes in Washington have received significant advocate and media attention, nonetheless: A track meet in 2024. A wrestling match last year. A cross-country race earlier this month.
While former state lawmaker Mark Miloscia, who at one point led the conservative Christian policy organization Family Policy Institute of Washington, said he thinks "PTA moms and dads" are worried about trans athletes, opponents of I-638 argue the alarm has been driven in large part by activists, rather than ordinary girls and parents.
“This policy was not from the kids,” said state Rep. My-Linh Thai, D-Bellevue, opposed to the initiative, describing it as “making something out of nothing.”
Still, I-638 opponents say they recognize the issue has traction with some voters because fairness in girls sports is a reasonable-sounding aim.
They contend conservatives have latched onto the issue partly because most of their other candidates and ballot measures have been losing across Washington. Republicans have shed over a dozen seats in the Legislature since 2016.
“The political players understand it’s a weak point," for Democrats because many voters are still unfamiliar with transgender issues, added Jaelynn Scott, executive director of the Seattle-based advocacy organization Lavender Rights Project and a state House candidate who could become the first openly transgender lawmaker in Washington.
Indeed, many voters may not know a transgender person at all — a 2024 Pew survey found that about 40% of adults knew someone who is transgender.
Political consequences
If I-638 passes, it will probably be hailed by conservatives as an important success in a blue state and a model to follow elsewhere, Nielsen said.
Schipper from Nevada agreed, suggesting a win for I-638 could be “a bat signal this is still a winning issue for us,” even in a tough election year for Republicans.
Within Washington, I-638 passing could serve as a warning to Democratic leaders, or at least help centrist Democrats push back against staunchly progressive Democrats, said Valdez, the Republican lawmaker.
“Right now, there is unchecked power,” Valdez said. “This will allow those Democrats who are pushing back to finally say, ‘You need to listen to the people.’ ”
Scott also thinks a win for I-638 could cause Democratic leaders to adopt a more cautious approach on LGBTQ+ issues, “out of fear” of provoking additional conservative attacks.
“It will be well-intended, but I think misguided,” because Republicans will keep trying to undermine inclusive policies no matter what, she said.
Rather than pulling back if the initiative passes, there should be "a reckoning by Washington Democrats and a call to action, said Scott and Danni Askini, the executive director of the Gender Justice League.
“Very serious questions should be asked about what is happening in the state,” Askini said. “Why has the support for trans people been so lackluster, and how are we going to fix that?”
If I-638 passes, it will likely be challenged in court, said Villeneuve, arguing the measure could be struck down under the state constitution for subjecting girls to different requirements than boys would be.
When voters approve an initiative, the new law can’t be modified by lawmakers for two years. After that, they can make changes.
If voters reject I-638, Democrats will be able to breathe a sigh of relief, but the result probably won’t make waves nationally, Nielsen and Schipper said.
Even if I-638 loses, Scott predicts conservatives will soon launch additional culture war campaigns in Washington.
Miloscia, who as a lawmaker switched from Democrat to Republican, thinks the debate about transgender people's rights will carry on until the Supreme Court settles the matter, he said.
Askini agreed the debate will stretch past next week’s election. “We’re going to continue to see in 2028 this is going to continue to be an issue,” she said.
© 2026 The Seattle Times. Visit www.seattletimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
