Why Parents Are Saying No to Seattle's Legal Fight Against I-638

Seattle's school board has decided the ballot box should not be the last word. On Monday, Nov. 9, the seven-member board voted 7-0 to authorize Superintendent Ben Shuldiner to take legal action over Initiative 638, the measure Washington voters approved the week before to keep boys out of girls' school sports, OutKick reported ^[1]. The vote did not itself suspend the law, and district leaders had not announced a filing or a timetable ^[1].

The same night, a separate coalition went to court. Five families with daughters in school sports, two of them transgender girls, joined the Washington Education Association and the nonprofit TransFamilies in suing the state, represented by the ACLU of Washington, Legal Voice and Pacifica Law Group, KUOW reported ^[3]. They are asking for an emergency injunction that would keep the law from taking effect Dec. 3 while the case proceeds ^[3].

What the Board and the ACLU Argue

Board member Joe Mizrahi, who said he opposed I-638 as the father of three daughters who play sports, argued the decision was about legal duties, not personal votes, and warned, "We can't say we're respecting democracy" if the newest vote simply overrides other laws ^[1]. He cited equal protection, student privacy and barriers for female athletes ^[1]. Director Liza Rankin said the initiative asks 295 districts to work out compliance on their own and described the move as seeking legal guidance, not overturning the vote ^[1].

The lawsuit contends that I-638 violates the state constitution's Equal Rights Amendment by requiring sex verification for girls but not boys, and that it infringes student privacy rights protected by Article 1, Section 7, The Post Millennial reported ^[2]. An ACLU of Washington attorney also argued the measure amends the Washington Law Against Discrimination without saying so in its text ^[3].

The Facts Don't Back Up the Legal Fight

Start with the voters. I-638 passed by 11 points statewide, with some counties topping 70 percent support, according to The Post Millennial, which noted that King County, home to Seattle, voted against it ^[2]. The Associated Press put the statewide yes vote above 56 percent and reported that Colorado voters approved a similar measure, Proposition 134, with 52 percent ^[4]. The AP described both states as left-leaning and reported that well over half the country now has a ban of some kind ^[4]. This is not a fringe position.

Then the science. In March, the International Olympic Committee announced that only biological females may compete in female events at its Games, beginning with Los Angeles in 2028 ^[6]. Its working group concluded that male sex provides a performance advantage in sports that rely on strength, power and endurance, and that eligibility by sex is needed for fairness and to protect safety, particularly in contact sports ^[6]. IOC President Kirsty Coventry said it "would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category" ^[6].

Then the law. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that neither the Equal Protection Clause nor Title IX requires schools to base eligibility for girls' sports on gender identity, JURIST reported ^[5]. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh called safety and competitive fairness important government interests that are substantially served by keeping girls' and women's sports for biological females ^[5]. Amy Sousa, a supporter of the measure, framed I-638 as preserving the promise of Title IX, OutKick reported ^[1]. The Supreme Court has now said protecting girls' teams is consistent with that law.

The privacy objection deserves an answer, too. OutKick reported that the initiative's text does not require a genital examination; students submit a signed statement from their health care provider as part of the routine sports physical ^[1]. Darren Littell, executive director of Let's Go Washington, told KUOW that schools need only a yes-or-no answer on eligibility, which he said has nothing to do with releasing private information ^[3].

Related Sanders Wants Medicare at 55 After the Midterms. The Facts Tell a Harder Story

Who Is Pushing Back, and What Comes Next

Parents and athletes are not staying quiet. Supporter Dawn Land asked why the board was not willing to support the will of the voters, OutKick reported ^[1]. Female student athletes helped lead the initiative campaign, according to The Post Millennial ^[2]. Let's Go Washington founder Brian Heywood said a solution for transgender athletes "shouldn't come at the cost of every girl that wants to compete" ^[2]. His group told KUOW it expects state officials to implement the law, OutKick reported ^[1].

The state is obligated to do exactly that. The Washington Attorney General's Office will defend the initiative in court, KUOW reported ^[3]. State Democrats have said they back outside challenges but will not sue themselves ^[1]. The next markers are a ruling on the emergency injunction request before Dec. 3 and whether Seattle files its own case; none of the reports cited here listed a hearing date ^[1][3].

Every student, including those who identify as transgender, deserves kindness and respect, and nothing about this debate changes that. But a school board's job is to serve the families who elected it, not to line up in court against them. Voters, the Supreme Court and the Olympic movement have reached the same conclusion. Seattle's girls deserve a board that defends their teams.