There are multiple ways to understand why, as a blue wave washed across the U.S. in Tuesday’s midterm elections, Washington voters passed an initiative that the state’s Democratic Party opposed.
A clear majority of voters said yes to Initiative 638, a ban on transgender girls competing in girls school sports, while at the same time they helped Democratic candidates make gains in state government.
Supporters say the measure succeeded because voters see it as a commonsense, nonpartisan solution to recent concerns about fairness in girls sports.
Opponents say voters were persuaded at least partly because the initiative and its boosters exploited deep-seated prejudices and misunderstandings about transgender people to erode their rights.
It’s likely that various factors combined to seal the result, including a national clamor over trans athletes, how the campaigns for and against the initiative messaged voters and how much money they had to spend.
The outcome meant mixed feelings for many Washington progressives on a night where they otherwise would have been exultant, and gave conservatives a glimmer to hold onto.
Similar measures passed in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska.
“This is an issue where all Democrats are not aligned,” said Dean Nielsen, a Seattle-based political consultant, adding, “There were a number of these initiatives (that passed) all over the country. So this is not unique to Washington.”
The Washington measure was advanced by a conservative political action committee alongside two other initiatives that voters rejected. But I-638’s 56% victory suggests it won votes not only from hardcore Republicans but also from some Democrats and centrists, even in the liberal Puget Sound region.
Supporters and opponents of the initiative agree on that much, they said last week. What they don’t agree on is why the results swung that way, what they mean and what should happen next.
Tuesday’s election was preceded by months of bitter debate about I-638, which is designed to end a longstanding Washington policy that has allowed transgender students to compete on teams that align with their gender identity.
When the nonprofit that oversees Washington’s middle and high school sports established the policy nearly 20 years ago, it was the first of its kind.
Now things are poised to change for all girls who want to compete in girls sports at public schools and some private schools, because I-638 says they must provide medical documentation confirming their “biological sex.” The definition of “biological sex” is disputed, and how exactly that requirement will play out in practice is unclear, with some opponents alarmed it could force some girls to undergo pelvic exams.
The ballot measure’s changes are supposed to take effect Dec. 3. Legal experts have said it will almost certainly attract a challenge in court.
Glen Morgan, a Republican activist from Thurston County, thinks the GOP-backed initiative succeeded in Democrat-dominated Washington because most voters instinctively aligned with its premise: That allowing transgender girls to compete with cisgender girls is unfair.
“I don’t think it was particularly political,” despite being bankrolled by hedge fund manager Brian Heywood’s Republican-allied political action committee, said Morgan, whose daughters recently graduated from high school and were student athletes.
Democrats like Gov. Bob Ferguson, U.S. Sen. Patty Murray and U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal were arguing against the grain on I-638, he said: “You can try to tell somebody the sky is green, but they’re not going to believe it.”
There is no serious scientific evidence that trans girls or women are better athletes than cisgender girls or women. A few transgender girls have won at the high school level, but across the U.S., just a few trans women have competed at elite college or professional levels, and none have dominated their sport.
Still, polling before Tuesday’s election indicated Democratic leaders might be out of step with voters, and election results in other states also jibed with Morgan’s fairness explanation.
I-638 performed well in polls, especially when voters were presented only with the basic language that appeared on the ballot. That language said the initiative would prohibit “biologically male” students from competing in school sports “intended for female students only.”
There were similar results on this issue across red and blue states, noted Kim Jones, co-founder of the Independent Council on Women’s Sports.
That lends credence to the idea that voters separated the issue from the political dynamic that catapulted Democrats into control of Congress. It wasn’t right versus left, said Jones, whose group assists lawsuits against trans-inclusive sports policies.
In congressional races, many conservative voters joined liberal voters in punishing President Donald Trump’s GOP for its shortcomings, said Keith Schipper, a Republican consultant from Washington who now works in Nevada.
But that anger didn’t carry over into “culture war” ballot measures like I-638, or at least not enough to defeat them, he said. On the contrary, some liberal voters probably went the other way on the issue.
“This doesn’t win by the margin it has unless it gets significant Democratic votes,” Schipper asserted.
One such voter was Dick Burkhart from Rainier Valley in Seattle, a longtime Democrat who said he checked yes on I-638 because he doesn’t believe it’s fair for trans girls and women to play in girls and women’s sports.
“I voted blue on everything else,” said Burkhart, 79.
Burkhart said he was bothered by opponents of the initiative who accused supporters of espousing hate for trans people.
Lanae Erickson, a senior vice president at the centrist think tank Third Way, said the initiative’s results make sense because most voters of all stripes “absolutely want” some rules for transgender athletes.
“They feel like the status quo is chaotic,” Erickson said.
Although the fairness argument for I-638 prevailed Tuesday, opponents say that happened because it drew on longstanding biases and a well-funded national effort by conservatives to generate fear about trans people.
For example, the WNBA was roiled over the summer as players and demonstrators debated how trans girls and women should be treated in sports, attracting major media attention. There are no openly transgender players in the WNBA.
Similar scenes played out on a smaller scale in Washington weeks before the election after social media posts turned a spotlight on a transgender cross-country runner participating on the girls team at Camas High School. That led to adults attending her track meets to yell transphobic messages at her.
Heather Weiner, a veteran political consultant who served as a spokesperson for the No Hate in Washington State campaign against I-638, said those sorts of controversies poisoned the public discourse on the issue.
“MAGA may have lost the candidate elections,” but Trump’s Make America Great Again movement “succeeded in convincing even Washington voters that it’s OK to be prejudiced against trans people,” Weiner said, describing I-638 as the hardest campaign she’s ever worked on.
In reality, trans girl athletes aren’t undermining fairness in any sweeping way, considering how few there are, how much their athletic abilities can vary and what school sports are supposed to be about, besides winning, said Frank Field, a former middle school track coach in Seattle who has coached a trans athlete. Officials with the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association have said they’re aware of no more than 10 transgender athletes competing at Washington schools, although disclosure isn’t required.
“We’re talking about preparing athletes to be good teammates, good citizens, good leaders,” said Field, who opposed the initiative.
Perhaps more voters would have opposed the initiative if more knew a trans girl personally, said Democratic state House Speaker Laurie Jinkins, thinking back to her previous advocacy on gay rights.
The “no” campaign also could have benefited from more time and money to reach voters, especially about I-638’s sex-verification requirement, some opponents said. When voters heard about the possibility that the initiative could force girls to get pelvic exams, that rattled them, opponents said.
Pam Stuart, a Sammamish City Council member who worked with the No Hate campaign, wonders whether more emphasis on upholding civil rights for transgender people could have helped.
“Like, this law is about exclusion,” she said.
Despite I-638 passing, some opponents see cause for hope with regard to voters and transgender rights generally. Washington voters rejected Initiative 001, an arguably anti-trans parental rights measure that critics said would force schools to out queer kids. And several transgender people were elected to public office here and across the nation, said Ari Drennen, the founder of consulting firm Pink and Blue Strategies.
“I don’t think it means that Washington voters hate trans people or that Washington will not continue to be one of the safest places in the country for trans people,” Drennen said about I-638.
Other opponents of the initiative are more worried about its consequences.
It could undermine transgender rights broadly, despite being focused on school sports specifically, said Jaelynn Scott, who on Tuesday became the first trans person elected to Washington’s Legislature.
Scott praised the No Hate coalition, which included doctors, labor unions and other partners. At the same time, she said she thinks Democrats are sometimes too calculated and timid in standing up for transgender rights.
“No level of codifying discrimination into law is OK,” Scott said.
That’s why community members rallied Thursday night in downtown Seattle to denounce I-638, and why Washington Democrats said last week they have no plans to surrender on the issue.
Supporters of the measure say its opponents should admit they were wrong and allow new rules to be implemented for student athletes.
But legal experts have told The Seattle Times that I-638’s passage will almost certainly lead to a court challenge for potentially infringing on the state’s constitution or antidiscrimination law, because its requirements apply only to girls and not to boys.
A spokesperson for Let’s Go Washington, the campaign behind I-638, said that she expects the attorney general’s office to defend the initiative as state law in the event of a legal challenge.
Collins Saint, a civil rights attorney in Seattle, said a challenge could cite a variety of provisions in the constitution, such as its Equal Rights Amendment or privacy protections. Shasti Conrad, chair of the Washington Democrats, said the party supports organizations planning to sue.
“The fight over I-638 is just beginning,” she said.
