Clark County residents will hear the outcome of Initiative 638 on Nov. 3, when Washington voters decide whether to require that girls’ athletic teams be limited to biological females. Let’s Go Washington gathered 445,187 signatures to place the measure on the ballot, and a recent poll indicates 56 percent of likely voters back the proposal.

WIAA says it must follow state law

When Clark County Today asked the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) how it would respond if I‑638 passes, the association’s Director of Communications, Sean Bessette, said the organization will do nothing until the state legislature amends the law or the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) issues new guidance.

“The WIAA Handbook provides the framework for schools, leagues, and districts to operate, including Rule 18.16.0, which states that school personnel will work collaboratively with the student to determine eligibility,” Bessette explained. “The WIAA remains committed to following Washington state law (RCW 28A.642.010) which permits student‑athletes to participate in sports consistent with the gender with which they identify.”

Rule 18.16.0 has been part of the handbook since the 2007‑08 school year, aligning with state law at that time. Bessette added that if the law changes, the WIAA Executive Board will revise its policies after a legal review by the state Attorney General’s office.

Proponents criticize the WIAA’s stance

Let’s Go Washington officials were quick to condemn the WIAA’s position. Hallie Halzberg, director of communications for the group, called the association’s refusal to act “egregious,” arguing that it fails to protect girls’ rights and would allow biological males to take roster spots from female athletes.

“The WIAA needs a reality check and to get on board with actually standing up for girls’ rights,” Halzberg said.

Potential legal battles loom

Even if voters approve I‑638, the path forward is uncertain. Legal challenges are expected, with proponents likely to sue and possibly take the case to the Washington State Supreme Court. The WIAA has long maintained that any change must come from the legislature or OSPI.

State Superintendent Chris Reykdahl has publicly opposed I‑638, and critics note that the Washington State Legislature, controlled by Democrats, has a history of ignoring voter initiatives. Some observers suggest the legislature might adopt the measure but could also “gut” it before signing.

Local voices weigh in

Rep. John Ley (18th District) expressed disappointment at the prospect of the WIAA or OSPI ignoring the will of the people, praising the courage of girls at Skyview, Battle Ground, and Camas high schools who have refused to compete against biological males.

In a related development, the Monroe, Michigan, public school board recently adopted a policy limiting girls’ sports participation to biological females as documented on a birth certificate. When asked whether Washington school boards could enact similar rules, the WIAA responded unequivocally, “No.”

Why the issue matters to families

For parents who value fair competition and the safety of their daughters, I‑638 represents a direct response to concerns that current policies allow biological males to compete in girls’ sports, potentially displacing female athletes. Supporters argue that the measure upholds the integrity of women’s athletics and aligns with traditional family values.

Opponents, however, contend that the existing WIAA rules already protect student rights and that any change should come through the legislative process rather than a ballot initiative.

What’s next?

Washington voters will decide on I‑638 this November. If it passes, the initiative will become law 30 days after certification, but the WIAA’s commitment to wait for a change in state law means that implementation could be delayed pending legal and regulatory review. The coming weeks are likely to see heightened political activity, media coverage, and possibly courtroom battles as both sides prepare for the outcome.

Original reporting: Clark County Today (Vancouver WA) — read the source article.