Skip to main content

The Initiatives 2026

Let’s fix what’s broken.

YES ON I-645

REPEAL THE INCOME TAX

511,409 Total Signatures Collected

Why do we need this initiative?

The income tax is not just a tax on “the rich”; it is a legal test case designed to open the door to a broader statewide income tax. Senator Jamie Pedersen communicated openly with the Attorney General’s Office about how to get the Washington Supreme Court to reconsider longstanding income-tax precedent, and sidestep voters to pass his unconstitutional tax.

• Legislators refused to put guardrails in the income tax to prevent the threshold from dropping lower than on people who earn $1 million, that means this is a tax that is coming for all Washingtonians.

• The tax is imposed on individuals, not on the largest and wealthiest corporations, meaning many of the richest corporate entities are left untouched while individuals, pass-through business owners, entrepreneurs, and households with one-time income events are targeted.

• The tax has already accelerated capital flight by encouraging high earners, founders, investors, and retirees to relocate before the tax begins in 2028.

Play VideoPlay Video

What Does it do?

IP26-645 Repeals Bob Ferguson’s unconstitutional 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1,000,000; prohibits taxes measured by individual income and taxes on individual income or the receipt of individual income; and defines “income.”

• Protects businesses, individuals, entrepreneurs and families in the state who shouldn’t be unfairly taxed.
• Requires Olympia to fund the expansion of the Working Families Tax Credit, preserving tax relief for eligible low- and moderate-income working families.
• Protects future exemptions for household necessities such as grooming and hygiene products, diapers, and over-the-counter drugs.
• Provides small-business B&O relief, including the increased small-business tax credit and higher filing-relief threshold.
• Leaves in place the bill’s future rollback of sales tax on certain services, including provisions tied to retail-sale definitions and technical corrections for services newly subject to sales tax.

This measure would repeal a 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1,000,000; prohibit state and local governments from imposing taxes on individual income or the receipt of individual income and taxes measured by an individual’s income; and define income as “any gain or benefit measured in money derived from an individual’s capital, labor, property, or other source.” It would also define “individual” as a natural person for purposes of excise taxes.

View Complete Text

Initiative-645 is an initiative to the people to repeal Washington’s new income tax and prohibit state and local governments from imposing any tax on individual income. Your paycheck and your income are your property. I-645 repeals the income tax framework enacted by SB 6346, but leaves the benefits for Washingtonians included in place.

  • THE INCOME TAX IS COMING FOR YOU.
    Leaked emails show the real plan: Jamie Pedersen and Bob Ferguson want an income tax on everyone.
    The tax was built to apply broadly, with only a million-dollar deduction and no cap to keep your income safe.
    The majority party is counting on you not paying attention.
  • YOU CAN’T TRUST THE INCOME TAX AUTHORS.
    They ignored constitutional limits.
    They bent the rules because they think the rules don’t apply to them.
    Phil Talmadge, a Democratic former State Senator and State Supreme Court Justice, has said the tax did not follow the rules.
    Rep. Larry Springer (D-Bellevue) and Sen. Adrian Cortes (D-Battle Ground) have warned that the legislature should not be trusted to keep the income tax on just incomes over one million.
  • MORE SPENDING. WORSE RESULTS.
    Every governor for the last 14 years has promised that more money would solve the problems they created.
    Budgets doubled, but homelessness got worse, schools fell behind, and roads deteriorated.
    Bob Ferguson has more money than any governor in state history, and the problems are still getting worse.
  • PEOPLE ARE LEAVING.
    Wealthy taxpayers, business owners, and major employers are leaving Washington.
    Those who cannot leave will be hurt most.
    When the people targeted by this tax leave, government will not spend less, they will come after everyone else.
  • WHO OWNS YOUR INCOME?
    Jamie Pedersen says government owns your income and lets you keep some.
    We believe your income belongs to you: vote YES if you agree.
Download Conversation Starters

  • Doesn't I-645 only impact millionaires?

    Lawmakers instituted this tax as an income tax with a million dollar deduction and refused to codify protections to keep the threshold from being lowered to include your income. That means that they can lower the threshold at any time to reach any income level – the million dollar deduction was just the framework to institute an income tax for all Washingtonians.

    Consider their recent actions:

    – Banned state and local income taxes in 2024 with I-2111

    – Introduced an income tax with no protections for lowering the threshold to all income levels in 2025

    – “Promised” they wouldn’t lower the threshold but affirm that the budget deficit will continue to exist even with the income tax revenue.

    Do you trust that they won’t lower the tax to include you too?

  • Will voting YES on I-645 eliminate other taxes or funding benefits?

    No, voting yes won’t impact any other taxes in Washington State. Additionally, voting yes will keep tax credits and exemptions for small businesses and cut the sales tax on diapers and feminine hygiene products.

YES ON I-638

PROTECT FAIRNESS IN GIRLS’ SPORTS

445,187 Total Signatures Collected

Why do we need this initiative?

“Biological men are competing in girls’ sports in Washington State, and it’s destroying fairness in girls’ sports. Title 9 created opportunities for women and girls to compete in sports, and those opportunities are being erased. As [two] female athletes who have been directly impacted by boys competing in girls’ sports, we are standing up for all 110,000 girls playing sports in Washington state middle and high schools. We’re too young to vote, but old enough to use our voice. We need moms, dads, grandparents, brothers and sisters to have the courage to stand up and protect fairness in girls’ sports.”

-Ahnaleigh Wilson and Frances Staudt

What Does it do?
I-638 will protect fairness in girls’ sports by prohibiting biological men from competing in female athletics.

This measure would uphold title IX by requiring the enforcement of policies prohibiting students it defines as “biologically male” from competing with or against female students in certain interschool athletic activities that are intended for female students only. These requirements would apply to individual or team athletic competitions.

Three important facts about the protecting fairness in girls sports initiative:
  1. Existing law requires athletes to have a physical exam that includes a declaration of their biological sex.
  2. There are no inspections at an event or competition, it’s already happened during the physical exam. (see above)
  3. No one is banned from playing sports, it simply restores fairness to athlete eligibility rules.

This measure would require policies prohibiting students it defines as “biologically male” from competing with or against female students in certain interschool athletic activities that are intended for female students only. Students who choose to participate in such activities must provide a statement from the student’s healthcare provider verifying the student’s biological sex, based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels. These requirements would apply to individual or team athletic competitions.

View Complete Text

I-638 would ban biological boys from competing in girls’ sports by requiring the student athlete’s doctor to note their gender during their routine sports physical. This initiative protects girls while still ensuring that transgender youth have avenues to compete on an appropriate playing field.

PROTECT FAIRNESS: Every female athlete in Washington deserves a fair playing field, yet more than 110,000 girls are increasingly required to compete against biological males.

PROTECT SAFETY: Girls continue to raise legitimate concerns about privacy and safety when required to share locker rooms with biological males under current law, but Governor Ferguson and State Superintendent Reykdal have turned a blind eye.

PROTECT PROGRESS: Title IX was designed to protect and expand opportunities for female athletes, and ignoring the law threatens to reverse decades of hard-won progress.

PROTECT THE FUTURE: Allowing biological males to compete in girls’ sports undermines competitive fairness and diminishes the integrity of female athletics statewide.

PROTECT OPPORTUNITY: Increased participation by biological males in girls’ sports limits scholarships, awards, records, and roster opportunities that Title IX guarantees to female athletes.

Download Conversation Starters

  • Does I-638 require genital exams for student athletes?

    No, the initiative language does not require, mandate, or authorize genital exams. A doctor will simply check a box on a physical form that already exists to confirm a child’s sex. They can use existing medical history knowledge, the existing medical history form, or any other method the doctor and patient deem is best to check the box on the sports physical form.

  • How many male athletes are currently competing in girls’ sports in Washington State?

    The WIAA does not track the number of boys in girls’ sports, as seen in the screenshot below. What is confirmed is a number of high school girl athletes sharing their stories about being forced to compete against boys.

    See some of their stories here:

    Sadie

     

  • Would I-638 ban transgender students from participating in school sports?

    No, I-638 simply confirms that athletes must play in leagues that align with their sex, no bans, just sex-based rules as Washington State and the nation have used for years. This is about fairness and protections for girls, not about limiting access to sports.

    Read I-638 for yourself here

Endorsed by

YES ON I-001

STRENGTHEN COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PARENTS AND SCHOOLS

416,201 Total Signatures Collected

Why do we need this initiative?

Earlier this year, Olympia stripped the right of parents to be informed about their children’s health care decisions. Defending that position, Jamie Pedersen, WA Democrat Senate Majority Leader said: “Parents don’t have a right to have notice, they don’t have a right to have consent about” their child’s health care decisions.

We couldn’t disagree more. We don’t co-parent with the government.

Hundreds of thousands of voters sent I-2081 to the legislature with a clear message that they don’t want schools to keep secrets from parents, but politicians in Olympia didn’t get the message. No government employee can care about or love your child like you do.

The legislature logrolled two additional laws:

  • They made it harder for parents to hold schools accountable that have harmed a child.
  • Mandated that OSPI can withhold funds if a district doesn’t follow State Superintendent Chris Reykdal’s dangerous and unlawful edicts.

What Does it do?

IL26-001 strengthens communication between parents and schools by re-enacting I-2081.

The re-enacted law would list certain rights of parents and guardians of public-school children, including rights to review materials and student records, receive certain notifications and opt students out of certain activities. It would repeal amendments to the statute, which modified school obligations and access to certain student records and added certain parental rights.

This measure would re-enact RCW 28A.605.005 as it was originally enacted in Initiative to the Legislature 2081. The re-enacted law would list certain rights of parents and guardians of public-school children, including rights to review materials and student records, receive certain notifications and opt students out of certain activities. It would repeal amendments to the statute, which modified school obligations and access to certain student records and added certain parental rights.

View Complete Text

Parents are inherently responsible for their children’s well-being. This initiative gives parents more control, oversight, and consent in their child’s education and healthcare at school. It emphasizes parental rights first, with schools required to keep parents informed.

PROTECTS PARENTS RIGHTS to view academic, medical, mental health and disciplinary records as well as lesson plans and teaching materials.

ENSURES IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION when medical services are offered or provided to their child, including any school-based health care that generates insurance charges, as well as notice when follow-up care is needed.

GUARANTEES PARENTAL ABILITY to opt their child out of invasive surveys on sex, gender, or political opinions.

PROTECTS PARENTS RIGHTS to information when their child is being removed from school without parental consent.

IMPLEMENTS SAFEGUARDS for children who are in abusive homes or situations.

Without these protections, teachers and administrators are mandated by the state to keep secrets from parents. When parents and teachers work together, children thrive.

Download Conversation Starters

  • What rights would voting YES on I-001 create?

    Faster access to records: Requires schools to provide requested records within 10 business days instead of up to 45 days.
    Broader record access: Expressly includes academic, medical, mental-health, vocational, disciplinary, attendance, IEP/504, and other student-specific records.
    Curriculum transparency: Parents can examine textbooks, curriculum, and supplemental classroom materials.
    – Notice before medical services: Requires prior parental notification when medical services are offered, except emergencies.
    – Notice after emergency treatment: Parents must be notified as soon as practicable after emergency treatment.
    – Insurance-cost notification: Requires notice when medical services or medications could affect a parent’s insurance payments or copays.
    – Follow-up care notification: Requires notice when a school arranges treatment requiring care beyond school hours.
    – Immediate crime notification: Parents are immediately notified if a criminal action is deemed committed against or by their child.
    – Immediate law-enforcement notification: Parents are notified if law enforcement questions their child, with an abuse/neglect exception.
    – Immediate removal notification: Parents are notified if their child is taken or removed from campus without parental permission, including to a youth shelter or host home.
    – Expanded survey opt-outs: Parents can opt children out of certain surveys/activities involving sexual experiences, political or religious beliefs, and mental-health issues like what is included in King County’s SBIRT.
    – Fee transparency: Parents receive a listing of required school fees and their purposes.
    – Abuse/neglect safeguard: Medical and mental-health records can be withheld when the parent is the target of an active abuse or neglect investigation.

  • Does I-001 require schools to “out” LGBTQIA+ students?

    No. I-001 does not require schools to notify parents simply because a student identifies as LGBTQ+. The initiative’s parental-notification provisions require notice for specified matters, such as changes to a student’s physical, emotional, or mental health or well-being, but they do not identify a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity as an independent notification trigger.

  • Does I-001 put children who are experiencing abuse or neglect at risk?

    No, I-001 expands protections for students in dangerous situations by removing the time and location notification requirement in existing law. Additionally, existing mandatory reporting requirements remain in law and statutory protections for students in abuse or neglect situations remain in law. Parents who are abusive or the subject of ongoing investigations will not be able to access information about their student records.

    Read I-001 for yourself here.

Endorsed by

Do you have a great idea or suggestion for a new Initiative?

We would love to hear from you, Please drop us a line on our contact page: