Elections
Council voted 7–2 to support trans-identifying youth by opposing I-638 and I-001 after sharply divided public testimony.
King County Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, whose District 8 includes Burien, led the council Tuesday in formally opposing two citizen-led statewide ballot initiatives, saying King County should be “on the right side of history.”
The council voted 7–2 to support LGBTQIA2+ youth by formally opposing Initiative IL26-638, concerning girls’ school sports, and Initiative IL26-001, concerning parental access to student information.
Initiative IL26-638 concerns participation in K-12 athletics. According to the state’s official ballot description, the initiative would prohibit students it defines as “biologically male” from competing in certain school athletic activities designated for female students.
King County Motion 2026-0264 takes the opposite position.
Initiative IL26-001 concerns parental rights involving children in public schools. The initiative would restore provisions of the state’s earlier Parents’ Bill of Rights, including parents’ rights to review instructional materials, access their child’s school records, receive notification when certain medical services are provided and opt their child out of certain instruction.
King County Motion 2026-0265 takes the opposite position.
King County Motion 2026-0264 takes the opposite position.
Initiative IL26-001 concerns parental rights involving children in public schools. The initiative would restore provisions of the state’s earlier Parents’ Bill of Rights, including parents’ rights to review instructional materials, access their child’s school records, receive notification when certain medical services are provided and opt their child out of certain instruction.
King County Motion 2026-0265 takes the opposite position.
Councilmembers Reagan Dunn and Pete von Reichbauer cast the two no votes on both motions. Neither spoke during the discussion.
Mosqueda sponsored the motions with Councilmembers Jorge Barón and Claudia Balducci. She carried the bulk of the council’s argument for opposing the measures.
Mosqueda pressed the case
Mosqueda’s remarks stood out against the council’s usual day-to-day agenda items. She urged the council to take a visible stand in a statewide political fight.
Before the council considered I-638, she said it should be “full-throated” in condemning “hate speech and dehumanization” she said had been heard during public comment. She did not identify individual speakers.
On I-001, she challenged parents who support greater access to school information involving their children.
“For parents who are creating a safe and affirming home environment, you won’t be finding out confidential information about your children from their school counselors or teachers,” Mosqueda said. “Your child will feel safe to come to you directly. And if your child does not, perhaps consider why that would be.”
Supporters of I-001 argued that parents should have access to information involving their own children. Mosqueda and other opponents argued that disclosure can put some students at risk in unsafe homes.
Mosqueda said King County was joining other government bodies in opposition.
Speakers urged the council to stay neutral
Public comment was roughly divided. About six people supported the council’s motions, about six opposed them, and at least three urged the council to stay neutral and let voters decide.
Victoria Palmer, a member of the King County Republican Party executive board, said the council should not turn its meeting into a campaign platform.
“Please don’t contribute to this trend of elected councils weighing in on statewide initiatives,” Palmer said. “Don’t let the King County Council be turned into a tool for a political agenda.”
Brian Anderson, speaking for Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, supported I-638.
“For too many years, males who identify as girls have been taking state championships, podium positions, opportunities for competition and positions on girls’ teams,” Anderson said.
Supporters said I-638 would restore fairness in girls’ sports. Several disputed the council’s description of its medical-verification language, saying a student’s health-care provider could make the required certification during a sports physical.
Opponents saw danger in the measures
Chris Smith, who spoke against both initiatives, criticized I-638 in blunt terms.
“They don’t protect any children,” Smith said. “They’re just pandering to people who are so curious about inspecting minors to prove their sex.”
Audrey Wang Gosselin, who also urged opposition, focused on I-001.
“If a child is confiding in a counselor or a teacher but not their parent, there is a reason for it,” Wang Gosselin said. “It means their parent is not a safe person.”
At least two speakers proposed a separate transgender sports league as a possible compromise. The council did not take up the idea.
Why the council could take a side
According to the PDC, public commenters are generally not allowed to weigh in on ballot measures at public meetings. However, councils and boards are bound by a different set of rules.
The council said state law allows an elected body to take a position on a ballot measure at an open, properly noticed meeting when people on opposing sides have an approximately equal chance to speak.
Mosqueda cited a legal memo, and council staff said King County had met those requirements before the votes.
The motions do not decide either initiative. They put King County Council officially in opposition.
Washington voters will make the final decision in November.
FULL RECORDING King County Council Meeting - Sept 22, 2026.
Members Discussion
Highline Journal Comment Guidelines
We believe thoughtful conversation helps communities flourish. We welcome respectful, on-topic comments that engage ideas, not individuals. Personal attacks, harassment, hateful comments, directed profanity, false claims, spam, or sharing private information aren't allowed. Comments aren't edited and may be removed if they violate these guidelines.