Washington Poll Shows Support for Initiative Restricting Girls’ School Sports Eligibility
A poll commissioned by supporters of Washington state’s Initiative 638 indicates that more respondents favor the proposed restrictions on eligibility for girls’ school sports than oppose them, bringing renewed attention to a contentious ballot measure ahead of the November 3, 2026, election.
The survey, released by Let’s Go Washington, asked 7,500 likely voters about the initiative, which would restrict students classified as biologically male from competing in K-12 athletic activities designated for female students. The group reported that 56% supported the proposal, 24% opposed it and 22% were undecided.
The figures indicate support across party affiliations in the survey. Let’s Go Washington reported backing from 73% of Republican respondents, 48% of Democrats and 52% of independents.
However, the organization is also campaigning for the initiative, and the full polling methodology and margin of error have not been publicly disclosed. The results should therefore be viewed as a measure of responses in this particular survey, not a definitive forecast of the election outcome. The reported percentages also total more than 100%, an inconsistency that warrants clarification from the poll’s sponsor.
What Initiative 638 Would Change
Initiative 638 is listed among Washington’s 2026 ballot measures as an initiated state statute. If enacted, it would require school districts and organizations regulating interscholastic activities to restrict participation in sports that maintain separate classifications for male and female students based on biological sex.
The measure also proposes requiring documentation from a health care provider to verify a student’s biological sex. Its text refers to reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels as relevant criteria. Supporters say existing sports physicals could provide the necessary documentation, although implementation would depend on the measure’s provisions and applicable procedures.
The proposal would not prohibit all coeducational athletic activities. According to the initiative’s description, activities open to students regardless of sex classification could continue.
How the Proposal Compares With Current Policy
Under the current policy of the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association, students may participate in school sports consistent with their gender identity or the gender they most consistently express.
Initiative 638 would replace that approach for covered female-designated athletic categories with eligibility rules based on biological sex, as defined by the measure.
Supporters argue that sex-based restrictions are necessary to protect competitive fairness and opportunities for female athletes. Opponents raise concerns about the effects on transgender students, privacy and the practical consequences of requiring medical documentation to establish eligibility.
The debate reflects a broader national dispute over transgender participation in school sports, with states adopting different legal and administrative approaches.
Poll Results Show Differences by Party
The survey figures released by Let’s Go Washington suggest that support for Initiative 638 is not confined to Republican respondents.
| Political affiliation | Reported support |
|---|---|
| Republicans | 73% |
| Democrats | 48% |
| Independents | 52% |
| All respondents | 56% |
Source: Let’s Go Washington, as reported by Fox News and KUOW. Full methodology and margin of error were not publicly disclosed.
The reported support among Democrats and independents indicates that the issue may not align neatly with party identification. Still, without the full questionnaire, sampling details and margin of error, the figures cannot establish the level of support among all Washington voters with certainty.
KUOW also reported that polling on the initiative has been limited. The Northwest Progressive Institute, which opposes the measure, has conducted its own polling but had not publicly released its results in the reporting available at the time.
Washington Voters Will Decide in November
Initiative 638 is scheduled to appear on Washington’s November 3 general election ballot. Its outcome will determine whether the state changes its rules for participation in covered K-12 girls’ sports.
The proposal has drawn attention because Washington currently permits participation based on gender identity under its interscholastic athletics policy. If voters approve the initiative, the state would adopt a different eligibility framework for sports with separate male and female classifications.
The poll provides one indication of how surveyed likely voters view the proposal, but the measure’s final prospects will depend on the views of voters who cast ballots, as well as the campaign debate over fairness, inclusion, student privacy and implementation.
With Election Day approaching, further polling and the release of additional methodological details could help clarify the level of public support for Initiative 638.
READ MORE: Democratic Lawmaker Resigns Amid Ongoing Federal Legal Proceedings
Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20) has formally resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives, with her resignation taking effect Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. EDT. Her departure comes amid an ongoing federal case and a congressional ethics review that has placed renewed attention on campaign finance rules, the use of federal relief funds, and accountability among elected officials. The resignation also adds to a series of recent departures from Congress involving lawmakers facing legal proceedings or ethics-related scrutiny.
As my colleague Frank Bruno reported late last month, an eight-member bipartisan subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee worked late into the night reviewing Cherfilus-McCormick’s conduct. The congresswoman faced allegations involving more than $5 million in federal disaster relief funds connected to a family business, with prosecutors alleging that a significant portion of the money was directed toward her 2022 congressional campaign. The case has drawn attention to the legal requirements governing federal assistance programs, campaign contributions, and financial disclosures by candidates seeking public office.
On Friday, the House Ethics Committee announced that, following approximately seven hours of deliberations, the subcommittee found “clear and convincing” evidence supporting 25 of the 27 allegations under review. Those findings could have moved the matter closer to a potential expulsion vote in the House of Representatives. Although the ethics proceedings represent a significant development, the committee’s conclusions should be distinguished from the separate federal criminal case, and allegations must be described in accordance with the relevant legal proceedings.
Throughout the controversy, Cherfilus-McCormick challenged the allegations and raised concerns about the treatment of her case, including claims of racial and gender bias. The dispute has highlighted broader questions about how congressional ethics investigations are conducted, how lawmakers respond to allegations of misconduct, and what standards should apply when elected officials face serious legal challenges. Her resignation now shifts attention toward the next steps in the federal case and the possible consequences for her political future.
Following the ethics subcommittee’s findings, Cherfilus-McCormick may also have faced the prospect of a difficult vote among House members if proceedings toward expulsion continued. Under House rules, expelling a member requires a two-thirds vote, making bipartisan support essential to such a decision. Rather than wait for the process to advance further, she submitted her formal resignation letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) ahead of a possible expulsion vote. Her departure leaves questions about the broader political implications of the case and how Congress will address other pending ethics matters.
READ MORE:
Her resignation comes amid a series of departures involving three lawmakers: Cherfilus-McCormick, former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, and Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas. Their exits have intensified discussion about congressional oversight, political accountability, and the standards expected of elected representatives. Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Corey Mills of Florida is also facing calls for disciplinary action, potentially extending the recent period of uncertainty surrounding the House’s membership and internal proceedings.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) introduced a resolution seeking Mills’ expulsion following allegations involving domestic violence, sexual misconduct, claims concerning his military service, and the handling of federal contracts. Mills’ situation remains a separate matter, and the allegations should not be treated as established facts without appropriate findings or legal determinations. Whether the resolution receives sufficient Republican support remains uncertain. The developments nevertheless underscore the importance of transparent investigations, due process, and consistent ethical standards for public officials, regardless of party affiliation.
READ ALSO : Michigan Senate Race Tightens: New Poll Reveals Neck-and-Neck Contest
Ilhan Omar Accuses Trump Administration of Political Intimidation After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Rep. Ilhan Omar condemned President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home as part of an ongoing criminal investigation, accusing the government of weaponizing law enforcement against political opponents.
The Minnesota Democrat responded on X after agents from Homeland Security Investigations arrived at her residence early Monday morning. The Justice Department confirmed that investigators had executed a court-authorized search warrant but did not disclose details about the investigation.
“I’m ok. Make no mistake: this is an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement,” Omar wrote. She also accused Trump of directing years of attacks against her and declared, “I will not be silenced.”
The search, conducted weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, has intensified political tensions in Washington as Omar seeks reelection to the House. Federal authorities have not publicly outlined the specific allegations under investigation. (Associated Press; CBS News)
Justice Department Confirms Court-Authorized Search
Homeland Security Investigations agents arrived at Omar’s Washington-area residence at approximately 6 a.m., according to reports from Fox News and other outlets.
A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed that investigators carried out a search warrant obtained through the department, describing the operation as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.
Authorities have not publicly specified what evidence they sought, what materials were seized or whether any charges are being considered. The execution of a search warrant does not, by itself, establish that a crime occurred.
Reports Link Investigation to Immigration Paperwork
Fox News Digital reported that the investigation concerns alleged fraud involving immigration paperwork completed by Omar’s late father when she was a child. The Justice Department has not publicly confirmed those details or provided a full account of the allegations.
The search follows public comments by administration officials about an investigation involving Omar. In September, border czar Tom Homan acknowledged that a criminal investigation was underway.
Omar has denied wrongdoing and previously said she had not been contacted by federal authorities about an investigation. The precise scope of the inquiry remains unclear based on the information publicly released by the Justice Department. (CBS News; The Washington Post)
Omar Says Search Is Part of a Political Campaign Against Her
In her social media statement, Omar framed the search as the latest escalation in what she described as a prolonged effort by Trump to intimidate her.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” she wrote, adding that she would continue speaking out despite the search.
Omar, a prominent progressive Democrat who represents Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, has frequently clashed with Trump and other Republican leaders. Her immigration background and political positions have repeatedly made her a target of criticism from the president and his allies.
Her allegation that the search was politically motivated has not been established as fact. Federal officials have described the operation as part of an ongoing criminal investigation but have not publicly explained its timing or provided detailed evidence supporting the reported focus of the probe.
Search Draws Scrutiny Ahead of Midterm Elections
The timing of the search has raised questions among Democrats because it occurred shortly before the midterm elections, when Omar is campaigning for another term in Congress.
Senior Democrats criticized the action and questioned whether the timing was consistent with longstanding Justice Department practices intended to avoid investigative steps that could improperly influence elections. Such concerns do not, on their own, establish that the search was politically directed.
Republicans and administration officials have previously called for scrutiny of Omar’s background, while Omar has consistently rejected allegations of immigration fraud.
The investigation’s next steps remain uncertain. The Justice Department has not publicly released further details about the evidence sought during Monday’s search or announced criminal charges in connection with the reported allegations.
For now, the search has placed Omar at the center of a new political and legal dispute just weeks before voters head to the polls, with key questions about the investigation still unanswered.
Benjamin Harris is a RapidReports front page contributor and editor,proud father of four.
