Washington voters have once again been asked to make their voices heard through the initiative process. This time, the issue is the future of girls' sports and whether female athletes should have the right to compete in athletic programs designated for them.
Initiative 638 has brought an important question to the forefront: Are girls' sports in Washington being protected, and what happens if the will of the voters is once again challenged, changed, or overturned?
The early election results suggest that a majority of Washington voters support Initiative 638. That should mean something. It represents thousands upon thousands of Washingtonians who took the time to sign petitions, consider the issue, and cast their ballots.
But there is another question Washington residents have reason to ask: How much confidence should voters have that their decisions will actually stand?
The initiative process: A voice for the people, or a temporary victory?
Washington has a long history of voters using initiatives to challenge decisions made by the Legislature. The initiative process was established to give ordinary citizens a direct voice in government and provide a check on elected officials.
Yet Washington's history also demonstrates that passing an initiative does not necessarily guarantee that the law will survive.
Consider Initiative 695, passed by voters in 1999. It sought to limit vehicle license fees to $30. The Washington Supreme Court ultimately invalidated it. Other voter-approved tax-limitation initiatives have also faced constitutional challenges.
There is a difference between a court determining that a measure violates the Constitution and lawmakers subsequently changing a law that voters supported. But from the perspective of a voter, the result can feel remarkably similar: The decision made at the ballot box does not remain intact.
Initiative 2081, Washington's parental rights initiative, provides a more recent example. It was passed by the Legislature in 2024 after being submitted through the initiative process. Lawmakers subsequently amended the law in 2025. In 2026, voters were asked whether to restore its original provisions through Initiative 001.
This raises a legitimate question about the strength of the initiative process: If citizens go through the effort of gathering signatures and securing voter approval, what protections exist to ensure their decision is respected?
What about the girls?
The debate over Initiative 638 is about more than politics. It is about athletic opportunities, fairness, privacy, and the experiences of young female athletes.
Girls deserve opportunities to compete, develop their athletic abilities, earn recognition, and experience the rewards of sports. Their participation should be taken seriously, and their concerns deserve to be heard.
Supporters of Initiative 638 argue that sex-based eligibility rules are necessary to preserve competitive fairness in girls' athletics. Opponents raise concerns about discrimination against transgender students, medical privacy, and the consequences of requiring sex verification for all female athletes.
These are real issues that deserve careful consideration.
Initiative 638 would establish restrictions on participation in certain K-12 girls' athletic competitions and require healthcare-provider documentation verifying biological sex. Importantly, the measure affects more than the small number of transgender students who participate in school athletics; its verification requirements apply to girls seeking to participate in covered competitions.
That means implementation matters just as much as the language voters approved.
Will schools protect students' privacy? Will the verification process be handled consistently? Will girls be able to participate without unnecessary barriers? And will the state provide clear guidance to schools, families, and athletic organizations?
Passing an initiative does not automatically answer these questions.
The bigger issue is trust in government
Regardless of where someone stands on Initiative 638, there is a larger issue that Washington voters should not overlook.
People are increasingly being asked to take matters into their own hands because they feel their elected representatives are not listening. They organize, collect signatures, campaign, donate, and vote.
But when voter-approved initiatives are subsequently challenged in court, amended by lawmakers, or otherwise prevented from taking effect, it can create frustration and distrust.
A court has a constitutional responsibility to determine whether a law is legally valid. A Legislature has constitutional responsibilities of its own. Neither should be expected to abandon those responsibilities simply because an initiative passes.
However, voters also deserve transparency and accountability when their decisions are changed.
If lawmakers believe an initiative is flawed, they should explain why. If a court overturns one, the constitutional reasoning should be made clear to the public. And if a law is changed, voters should be able to understand exactly what happened and who was responsible.
Washington voters deserve more than election-night celebrations
The early results for Initiative 638 suggest that Washington voters want a change in how girls' school sports are governed.
But the real test will not be election night. It will be what happens afterward.
Will the initiative be implemented as voters approved it? Will it withstand legal challenges? Will lawmakers respect the result? And will girls and their families have confidence that the rules are clear, consistent, and fair?
These questions deserve answers.
The initiative process is supposed to give citizens a voice when they believe government is not responding to their concerns. That voice should not be dismissed simply because elected officials disagree with the outcome.
Washington can disagree about the policies. People can debate the science, fairness, legal questions, and consequences. That is part of democracy.
But one principle should remain constant: When Washington voters make a decision, they deserve to know that their voices have been taken seriously, that the law will be implemented lawfully, and that any effort to change their decision will be transparent and accountable.
Because the question isn't just whether girls' sports are safe in Washington.
It is whether the voices of Washington voters are safe from being ignored after they leave the voting booth.
1. Initiatives invalidated entirely by the courts
These are the clearest examples because the courts declared the entire initiative unconstitutional.
Initiative | Year | What voters approved | What happened |
|---|---|---|---|
I-695 | 1999 | $30 vehicle tabs and voter approval for tax increases | Struck down entirely in 2000 |
I-722 | 2000 | Limits on property-tax increases | Struck down entirely in 2001 |
I-747 | 2001 | Limited annual property-tax levy increases to 1% | Struck down entirely in 2007, then reinstated by the Legislature |
I-1366 | 2015 | Tax-reduction measure tied to a proposed constitutional amendment | Struck down entirely in 2016 |
I-976 | 2019 | $30 vehicle registration fees and limits on vehicle taxes | Struck down in 2020 |
2. Initiatives partially invalidated by the courts
These are also important because voters approved them, but portions of what they voted for did not survive.
Initiative | Year | What voters approved | What happened |
|---|---|---|---|
I-776 | 2002 | Vehicle-tab tax reductions | Partially upheld and partially struck down |
I-960 | 2007 | Two-thirds legislative vote for tax increases, plus other requirements | Tax supermajority requirement later struck down |
I-1053 | 2010 | Reinstated two-thirds legislative vote for tax increases | Supermajority requirement struck down in 2013 |
I-1185 | 2012 | Reinstated tax and fee restrictions | Supermajority requirement struck down in 2013 |
4. One more important example: I-601 (1993)
I would include this in the partial-invalidations category.
- I-601 (1993): Established restrictions on state spending growth and a two-thirds legislative voting requirement for tax increases. The tax supermajority requirement was ultimately invalidated under the 2013 Supreme Court ruling
No comments:
Post a Comment