FactHub

FactHub dataset table

Quoted statements

Every checkable claim and prediction in the 2026 voters' pamphlet arguments for and against IL26-638, verbatim.

Coverage: 2026-09-17

Node: dataset:wa-i638-campaign-statements:1:table:statements

Contained in Initiative 638: the campaigns' claims in their own words.

Send feedback on this dataset

What this dataset measures

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

Quoted statements

Every checkable claim and prediction in the 2026 voters' pamphlet arguments for and against IL26-638, verbatim.

Unit of observation: One quoted statement

wa_i638_campaign_statements.csv text/csv · 6.2 KB (6,350 bytes)

All 27 rows 6 columns Download the file

statement_id side pamphlet_section quote claim_type source_id
yes-currently-allows yes
Vote yes to protect fairness in girls' sports.
Washington currently allows males to compete against girls, undermining opportunities generations before them fought to secure.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
yes-world-policies yes
Approving IL26-638 would align Washington with world sports policies.
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.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
yes-ioc-quote yes
Approving IL26-638 would align Washington with world sports policies.
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."
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
yes-clearance-required yes
Voting yes gives all students the opportunity to participate in interscholastic sports.
Medical clearance is already required to participate safely.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
yes-routine-care-aap yes
Voting yes gives all students the opportunity to participate in 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.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
yes-birth-records yes
Voting yes gives all students the opportunity to participate in interscholastic sports.
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.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
yes-rebuttal-no-invasive yes
Rebuttal of argument against
IL26-638 doesn't require invasive or expensive exams.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
yes-rebuttal-record yes
Rebuttal of argument against
Standard primary pediatric care already verifies sex; transferring that record to sports is sufficient.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
yes-rebuttal-advantage yes
Rebuttal of argument against
Male athletic advantage is well established.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
yes-rebuttal-269 yes
Rebuttal of argument against
Washington competition results document at least 269 placements by male athletes competing in girls' interscholastic categories, including 74 firsts and 156 top-three finishes.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
yes-rebuttal-no-ban yes
Rebuttal of argument against
The initiative doesn't ban anyone from sports. It simply requires participation consistent with one's sex.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-age-8 no
Vote No To Protect All Girls
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.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-birth-certificates no
Vote No To Protect All Girls
It bans parents from using birth certificates.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-section-2 no
Vote No To Protect All Girls
Section 2 says doctors must subject girls to invasive examinations of their "reproductive organs," or expensive genetic or hormone tests.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-boys-exempt no
Vote No To Protect All Girls
These requirements apply to girls only, boys are exempt.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-most-extreme no
Vote No Because It's the Most Extreme Proposal of Its Kind In The U.S
Vote No Because It's the Most Extreme Proposal of Its Kind In The U.S
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-megadonor no
Vote No Because It's the Most Extreme Proposal of Its Kind In The U.S
This initiative is bankrolled by an ultra-conservative mega-donor to distract from rising costs, foster hate, and divide our communities.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-requires-exams no
Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams On Girls
Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams On Girls
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-groups-warn no
Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams On Girls
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.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-fully-clothed no
Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams On Girls
Today, students remain fully clothed during sports physicals.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-147500 no
Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams On Girls
Many of Washington's 147,500 girls without a regular family doctor would be subject to genital examinations by total strangers.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-discourages no
Vote No Because It Discourages Girls From Playing Sports
Vote No Because It Discourages Girls From Playing Sports
 prediction vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-5-10 no
Vote No Because It Discourages Girls From Playing Sports
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.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-rebuttal-opposed no
Rebuttal of argument for
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.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-rebuttal-clothed no
Rebuttal of argument for
Today girls in elementary, middle, and high school remain fully clothed during sports physicals.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-rebuttal-doctors no
Rebuttal of argument for
Doctors say this poorly written measure will subject girls to new invasive genital examinations.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
no-rebuttal-extreme no
Rebuttal of argument for
This measure - the most extreme in the nation - exempts boys, and bans parents from using birth certificates.
 assertion vp-2026-il26-638-p22
6 field definitions
FieldTypeMeaningUnitsValue type
statement_id string Stable id; matches the id in this dataset's statements. — observed
side string yes (argument for IL26-638) or no (argument against). — derived
pamphlet_section string The bold heading the sentence appears under, or the rebuttal name. — observed
quote string The sentence, passage or heading, verbatim. — observed
claim_type string assertion or prediction, as defined for FactHub statements. — derived
source_id string The id of the entry in sources. — observed

Supporting files

Source snapshots, manifests, quality reports, documentation, and other materials used to produce or review this release.

  • wa_i638_campaign_statements_records.json Documentation · application/json · 19.9 KB (20,422 bytes)

    The same statements as structured records (speaker, role, date, venue, quote, context, claim type, source), as stored in this dataset's statements.

  • build_statements.js Transformation manifest · text/javascript · 9.9 KB (10,159 bytes)

    Node.js script that writes the CSV and JSON files from the quoted statements.

Sources

  1. Washington Secretary of State, 2026 General Election voters' pamphlet (statewide edition) Primary source for every statement: the official arguments and rebuttals for and against Initiative Measure IL26-638, page 22.

    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.

Publications using this dataset

Version details

The exact citing versions, and the version of this dataset each cites.

  • Article wa-i638-yes-campaign-claims — version 2 (published) cites version 1
  • Article wa-i638-media-coverage-omissions — version 6 (published) cites version 1
  • Article girls-sports-participation-after-state-laws — version 6 (published) cites version 1
  • Article wa-i638-campaign-funding — version 5 (published) cites version 1
  • Article wa-i638-genital-exam-claim — version 9 (published) cites version 1
  • Article wa-i638-genital-exam-claim — version 8 (published) cites version 1
  • Article wa-i638-officials-exam-claims — version 3 (published) cites version 1
  • Article sex-verification-test-costs — version 2 (published) cites version 1
  • Article wa-i638-most-extreme — version 4 (published) cites version 1
  • Article wa-i638-exam-claim-persuasion — version 1 (published) cites version 1
  • Article wa-i638-pediatric-care-verifies-sex — version 4 (published) cites version 1
  • Article wa-i638-world-sports-policies — version 4 (published) cites version 1
  • Article wa-i638-girls-event-placements — version 5 (published) cites version 1
  • Article wa-i638-birth-certificates — version 4 (published) cites version 1
  • Article wa-i638-current-rules — version 4 (published) cites version 1
  • Briefing wa-i-638 — version 5 (published) cites version 1
  • Briefing wa-i-638 — version 4 (published) cites version 1