Even before the polls closed on election night, it was clear that a ballot initiative banning biological boys in girls’ sports was passing comfortably amid a “blue-nami” in one of the most liberal states in the country.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a progressive who represents most of the city of Seattle, spoke at a campaign event hosted by the initiative’s opponents and wasted no time in pledging to overturn what she cast as “these bad initiatives.” Washington state voters might beg to differ with that characterization: The measure passed decisively on a vote of 56% to 44%.
On an otherwise victorious election night for Democrats, Colorado Gov.-Elect Phil Weiser appeared rattled by a solid win on a similar ban on biological boys in girls’ sports in his state. He was planning to research and consider how it might be blunted.
“Anytime you have a ballot measure, it is natural, and I believe an appropriate role for the legislature to say, ‘What are the adjustments that need to be added?’” Weiser told reporters. The final vote on the Colorado proposal was 52.2% in favor and 47.8% opposed.
The Seattle Public Schools Board of Directors followed up Monday night by holding an emergency meeting and authorizing legal action against the measure, which is known as Initiative 638 and becomes law on Dec. 3. It requires all athletes who want to play on girls’ K-12 sports to provide medical proof of their sex.
Opponents have argued that it would require girls to undergo invasive procedures, such as a hormone test for testosterone levels or a chromosome test. Some attack ads suggested athletes would have to undergo a genital check even as those supporting the ban countered that it would only require a quick cheek swab verification.
Board President Gina Topp rationalized the quick move to overturn the people’s vote by saying the law governing the issue needs clarifying, so she felt an obligation to launch a court battle. The board’s resolution would give Superintendent Ben Shuldiner and the district’s legal counsel the green light to file suit.
“There’s some confusion here about how and if the law is legal,” Topp told a Seattle media outlet. “When that happens, I think we have a duty as a school board to seek the clarification we need in order to govern.”
After the Monday night vote, supporters of the measure who showed up to the meeting erupted in anger.
“King County doesn’t get to veto the rest of the 35 counties!” one advocate called out.
“This is about the promise of Title IX on the basis of sex,” the supporter argued. “Why do you think you’re so important to overrule the voices of those girls?”
The same day as the school board vote, several Washington state transgender activist groups filed suit against the new law calling it discriminatory against athletes identifying as transgender. The ACLU and Legal Voice are representing TransFamilies and the parents of several individual athletes in the suit while Pacifica Law Group is working on behalf of the Washington Education Association, the largest union representing public school employees in the state.
The lawsuit argues that the ban violates the Washington state constitution in several ways. They say the sex verification intrudes on students’ privacy rights and violates the Equal Rights amendment of the state constitution by requiring sex verification only for athletes claiming to be girls while not imposing the same test for boys.
“Sports give young people a place to make friends and be part of a team, but Initiative 638 seeks to deny transgender girls those opportunities,” Adrien Leavitt, staff attorney for the ACLU of Washington, said in a statement. “Washington has long had strong protections against discrimination. We will fight to stop this law from taking effect and prevent this needless attack on youth in our state.”
Let’s Go Washington founder Brian Heywood, who sponsored the ballot measure, counters that its passage is a big win for girls “who have been told time and again by the majority party that their voices and opportunities don’t matter.”
The ballot measure “becomes law on Dec. 3 whether the Seattle School District wants it to or not,” Hallie Herzberg, a spokeswoman for the group, told RealClearPolitics. “Voters made their opinion on boys in girls’ sports loud and clear.”
Herzberg said her group now expects the state superintendent of schools and the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association, or WIAA, which governs high school sports, “to do everything in their power to ensure that the rights and opportunities of girls in their sports are protected.”
Matt Sharp, vice president of public policy for Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative civil rights group, delivered a blunter assessment of the brewing legal battles.
“Colorado, Washington, even Arizona … where you’ve now got the real risk of these legislators ignoring the clear rebuke of gender ideology that the public gave and is sort of spitting into the face of it,” he told RCP. “It won in Washington state by 12 points. If there’s ever a mandate, it’s the mandate of leave this alone.”
The swing state of Arizona last week notched the biggest victory margins for an even broader ban on biological boys in girls’ sports. The measure, which passed 55.6% to 42.5%, nearly the mirror reflection of Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs’ win over GOP challenger Rep. Andy Biggs, requires both private and public schools, as well as athletic associations, to designate sports teams as male, female, or co-ed based on “biological sex.” It also adds rules on access to school bathrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-designated facilities.
In Arizona, opponents will likely face a tough time trying to poke legal holes in new ban. The Arizona Constitution bars the legislature from repealing any voter-approved measure; only voters can alter it. An amendment needs at least a three-fourths vote in each legislative chamber, and it must further the purpose of the original measure. So even a large majority couldn’t pass a change that weakens or reverses the law, because that wouldn’t further its purpose.
Just as in Washington state and Colorado, courts are still an option for opponents, but that path is narrower now. In June the Supreme Court ruled that states can lawfully bar trans student athletes from competing in line with their gender identity.
Lawyers for the WIAA on Monday used approval of the new ban to appeal to the high court to put off consideration of a high-profile federal lawsuit and its demands for an injunction. Any delay could buy the WIAA time for state officials to tweak the new law, so it doesn’t apply to legal arguments laid out in the suit.
The lawsuit, brought by a Washington state high school wrestler identified by her initials, and her mother, Stephanie Brown, alleges that a transgender opponent sexually assaulted K.M.K. during a December 2025 girls’ wrestling match. Pierce County prosecutors reviewed the incident and declined to file charges. The family sued on June 10, 2026, in federal court in Tacoma, with Alliance Defending Freedom representing them. The defendants are the WIAA, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Superintendent Chris Reykdal, and the Puyallup School District.
The lawsuit makes two main points. First, it argues that Washington violates Title IX by letting biological boys identifying as girls or transgender compete on girls’ teams. Second, Brown asserts that officials interfered with her parental rights over her daughter’s health and safety, including through a district rule that kept staff from warning the family about the matchup. The WIAA says it follows Washington law, which allows students to compete consistent with their stated gender identity.
The family has lost at every level so far. A federal district judge denied a preliminary injunction on August 23, finding a factual dispute over whether biological boy athletes playing in girls’ sports pose a safety risk or competitive disadvantage. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied emergency relief on September 25. It said that shielding K.M.K. from every transgender competitor would require collecting invasive new information about many students, and that there was no emergency because the season didn’t start until November.
The case is now pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. In early October the family filed an emergency application asking the high court to bar officials from making K.M.K. wrestle a male opponent while the appeal continues, or at least to require advance notice and a no-penalty opt-out. The state called the emergency “manufactured,” and WIAA told the court it receives no federal funding, which matters because Title IX applies only to federally funded programs. The court has been fully briefed since October 15 with no ruling yet.
In the letter to the Supreme Court, WIAA’s attorneys say that the group follows Washington law, so if Initiative 638 is certified and no court blocks it, the WIAA will change its girls’ eligibility rules to comply once the initiative takes effect. That change would land right as the wrestling season K.M.K. wants to compete in begins.
On that basis, the WIAA asks the high court to hold off and let the state law process play out. It argues the initiative is likely to change, and might fully resolve, the policy K.M.K. is challenging.
If the initiative is certified, it “will amend its rules governing participation in girls’ athletic competitions to comply with the initiative upon its effective date,” the lawyers wrote.
In Maine, supporters of efforts to bar biological boys in girls’ sports are already on the march again after failing to qualify for their planned ballot measure this year. The Protect Girls Sports in Maine ballot committee submitted nearly 5,000 new signatures for its citizen initiative, aiming for the 2027 ballot.
This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
