Initiative 638: the campaigns' claims in their own words
Every factual claim and prediction in the official arguments for and against Washington Initiative IL26-638 in the 2026 state voters' pamphlet, quoted verbatim with its heading. FactHub fact checks cite these statements so each rating rests on the campaign's exact words.
The voters' pamphlet is the one place each campaign stated its case in its own words, at equal length, on the same page, mailed to every voter. Every sentence or heading in either statement that makes a checkable claim of fact or a prediction is included, so the set is fixed by what the campaigns wrote rather than by FactHub's choice. Statements of value or exhortation (for example 'Vote yes' or 'Vote No to protect girls') are left out. The No side made more checkable claims than the Yes side (16 vs 11); the counts reflect what each campaign wrote, not a judgment of either side.
Geography
Washington, United States
Unit of observation
One quoted statement: a sentence, passage or heading from a campaign's voters' pamphlet argument or rebuttal.
Update cadence
One-time release for the November 3, 2026 election; new versions may add statements from ads and officials as FactHub checks them.
Curator
FactHub Research Team
Curated data tables
These related tables form this versioned dataset release. Each
table has its own downloadable file and field definitions.
Quoted statements
Every checkable claim and prediction in the 2026 voters' pamphlet arguments for and against IL26-638, verbatim.
Node.js script that writes the CSV and JSON files from the quoted statements.
Statements on record
Exact quotes, unaltered, with what surrounded them, the primary
source, and an archived copy of it.
“Washington currently allows males to compete against girls, undermining opportunities generations before them fought to secure.”
Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Vote yes to protect fairness in girls' sports." ·
·
Assertion
Context: The Yes argument's statement of the problem the measure addresses: current Washington rules on who may enter girls' events.
“Federal law, the Women's Tennis Association, World Athletics, and the International Olympic Committee have all adopted policies to protect eligibility for the female category.”
Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Approving IL26-638 would align Washington with world sports policies." ·
·
Assertion
Context: Offered to show that sex-based eligibility rules are already common at the national and international level.
“In March 2026, the IOC president stated, "It is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category."”
Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Approving IL26-638 would align Washington with world sports policies." ·
·
Assertion
Context: A quotation the Yes argument attributes to the president of the International Olympic Committee.
“Medical clearance is already required to participate safely.”
Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Voting yes gives all students the opportunity to participate in interscholastic sports." ·
·
Assertion
Context: Refers to the sports physical Washington students already need before playing interscholastic sports.
“Students would compete in the category that aligns with their sex, verified during routine, medically necessary primary care recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.”
Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Voting yes gives all students the opportunity to participate in interscholastic sports." ·
·
Assertion
Context: Describes how the Yes side says verification would work; the American Academy of Pediatrics objected to being cited.
“During a private, consented visit, a licensed medical professional would verify sex based on the student's birth records, medical history and/or a standard, non-invasive physical examination.”
Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Voting yes gives all students the opportunity to participate in interscholastic sports." ·
·
Assertion
Context: The Yes side's account of what a provider would rely on; compare the three bases the measure's Section 3(2) lists.
“IL26-638 doesn't require invasive or expensive exams.”
Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Rebuttal of argument against" ·
·
Assertion
Context: The Yes reply to the No argument that the measure requires genital examinations.
“Standard primary pediatric care already verifies sex; transferring that record to sports is sufficient.”
Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Rebuttal of argument against" ·
·
Assertion
Context: The Yes reply on how verification would work in practice.
Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Rebuttal of argument against" ·
·
Assertion
Context: The Yes rebuttal's case for separate female categories.
“Washington competition results document at least 269 placements by male athletes competing in girls' interscholastic categories, including 74 firsts and 156 top-three finishes.”
Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Rebuttal of argument against" ·
·
Assertion
Context: The Yes rebuttal's count of how often male athletes have placed in Washington girls' events; compare the No side's 5 - 10 athletes.
“The initiative doesn't ban anyone from sports. It simply requires participation consistent with one's sex.”
Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Rebuttal of argument against" ·
·
Assertion
Context: The Yes answer to the No description of the measure as a ban.
“We all want fairness and safety in sports, but this poorly written measure would require girls as young as 8 to undergo intrusive medical sex certification as a new part of sports physicals.”
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No To Protect All Girls" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Opens the No argument with who would have to be verified and at what age.
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No To Protect All Girls" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Refers to the measure's list of the only bases a provider may rely on; birth certificates are not on it.
“Section 2 says doctors must subject girls to invasive examinations of their "reproductive organs," or expensive genetic or hormone tests.”
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No To Protect All Girls" ·
·
Assertion
Context: The No argument's reading of the verification rule, which appears in Section 3(2) of the measure.
“These requirements apply to girls only, boys are exempt.”
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No To Protect All Girls" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Notes that only students entering female-only competition must provide the verification.
“Vote No Because It's the Most Extreme Proposal of Its Kind In The U.S”
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because It's the Most Extreme Proposal of Its Kind In The U.S" ·
·
Assertion
Context: A heading of the No argument comparing the measure with similar laws in other states.
“This initiative is bankrolled by an ultra-conservative mega-donor to distract from rising costs, foster hate, and divide our communities.”
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because It's the Most Extreme Proposal of Its Kind In The U.S" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Refers to the Yes campaign's funding by Let's Go Washington and its founder; the stated motives are the No campaign's characterization.
“Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams On Girls”
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams On Girls" ·
·
Assertion
Context: A heading of the No argument on what verification would involve.
“The WA State Nurses Association, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, and doctors warn this measure would subject girls to medically unnecessary, embarrassing, and potentially harmful genital exams.”
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams On Girls" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Names the organizations warning about genital exams.
“Today, students remain fully clothed during sports physicals.”
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams On Girls" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Describes current sports physicals, to contrast them with verification under the measure.
“Many of Washington's 147,500 girls without a regular family doctor would be subject to genital examinations by total strangers.”
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams On Girls" ·
·
Assertion
Context: A count of Washington girls without a regular doctor, used to argue many would be examined by unfamiliar providers.
“Vote No Because It Discourages Girls From Playing Sports”
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because It Discourages Girls From Playing Sports" ·
·
Prediction
Context: A heading of the No argument predicting the measure's effect on girls' participation.
“This statewide blanket ban to kick 5 - 10 trans girls off school teams will negatively impact all girls, leaving no room for case by case decisions.”
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because It Discourages Girls From Playing Sports" ·
·
Assertion
Context: The No side's estimate of how many transgender girls the measure would affect; compare the Yes side's 269 placements.
“IL26-638 is opposed by pediatricians, nurses, parents, and sexual assault prevention groups because it discriminates against girls and puts them at risk of harm.”
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Rebuttal of argument for" ·
·
Assertion
Context: The No rebuttal's list of opponents, answering the Yes argument's citation of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
“Today girls in elementary, middle, and high school remain fully clothed during sports physicals.”
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Rebuttal of argument for" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Repeats the fully-clothed point and extends it to elementary school.
“Doctors say this poorly written measure will subject girls to new invasive genital examinations.”
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Rebuttal of argument for" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Repeats the genital-examination warning in the No rebuttal.
“This measure - the most extreme in the nation - exempts boys, and bans parents from using birth certificates.”
Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Rebuttal of argument for" ·
·
Assertion
Context: Repeats three claims from the No argument in one sentence.
Retrieved October 23, 2026. Washington state public record; excerpts quoted for commentary. Short excerpts quoted verbatim; the full pamphlet is available from the Secretary of State.
Reliability:
Government.
The Secretary of State prints each side's argument as submitted by its committee and states that it is not responsible for their content. The arguments themselves are advocacy by the two campaigns.
Limitations and reproducibility
Reproducible: Each quote was copied from the text layer of the Secretary of State's PDF of the statewide 2026 voters' pamphlet, page 22, and checked by script against that page's text. build_statements.js regenerates the CSV and JSON files from the quotes it lists.
Selection of which sentences count as checkable claims is FactHub's judgment; sentences that are pure appeals or statements of value were left out.
Quotes are copied from the PDF text layer, which uses straight apostrophes and quotation marks. In the No argument, 'mega-donor' is printed with a hyphen at a line break; we keep the hyphen as printed.
Three No-side entries are bold headings (most extreme, requires genital exams, discourages girls); they are recorded as statements because each heads a paragraph that argues it.
The pamphlet does not name an individual speaker for each sentence. Each statement is credited to the committee that wrote that argument; the pamphlet lists six authors for each side.
Statements are not rated in this dataset. Ratings appear in the FactHub articles that cite each statement.
wa_i638_campaign_statements.csv
text/csv · 6.2 KB (6,350 bytes)
