Washington Initiative 1: Restore and expand parents’ rights in public schools
What it does. In 2024 the Legislature passed Initiative to the Legislature 2081, which listed rights of parents and guardians of public-school children; many of those rights already existed elsewhere in state or federal law. In 2025 the Legislature changed that list. Initiative 1 would undo the 2025 changes and restore the 2024 list. According to the Attorney General’s explanatory statement, that would, among other things, require schools to produce records within ten business days instead of up to 45 days, add rights to notice of medical services offered to a child, add topics that parents can opt their child out of, and remove several provisions that are in the current statute (see below). [1]
Official ballot question. Initiative Measure No. IL26-001 concerns parental rights relating to their children in public school. This measure would repeal amendments to a statute listing certain rights of parents and guardians of public-school children and re-enact the law as it was originally enacted by Initiative to the Legislature 2081. Should this measure be enacted into law? [1]
If you vote yes
A yes vote would repeal the 2025 amendments to the parents’ rights statute (RCW 28A.605.005) and re-enact the law as it was originally enacted in 2024. [1]
If you vote no
A no vote would leave the parents’ rights statute as the Legislature amended it in 2025. [1]
What it would cost
The Office of Financial Management’s fiscal impact statement says the initiative would have no fiscal impact on state government and would not affect state or local revenue. It says local school districts could incur minor costs to update policies and procedures, but that this impact is indeterminate. [2]
Both sides
Strongest case for
The official argument for says the measure would restore parents’ “access to their child’s instructional materials and student records, notice of medical services, opt-outs from certain activities and instruction, and immediate notification when law enforcement questions their child or their child is removed from campus without parental permission.” [4]
It says children at risk remain protected: “School staff remain mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse or neglect.” The rebuttal says the measure states that schools “shall not be required to release” mental health counseling records when a parent is the target of a child abuse or neglect investigation, and requires “immediate notification” if a criminal action is deemed committed against or by their child. [4]
It argues that “safeguards designed for children at risk should not become a default policy of withholding information from all parents,” and that current policies “allow schools to withhold critical information when a child expresses a new gender identity at school,” even though parents must give permission for medication, sunscreen or field trips. [4]
Strongest case against
The official argument against says there were “117,000 reports of child abuse or neglect in WA in 2024 alone” and that the measure endangers abuse victims by “requiring schools to hand over sensitive information to parents under criminal investigation for raping, abusing or otherwise harming their own child.” It says law enforcement and the Washington Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault oppose it. [4]
It says “An unintended consequence of IL26-001 is ending Washington’s legal requirement that schools immediately notify parents when the crime is reported.” The rebuttal adds that the measure “would eliminate key existing parental rights” and “ends commonsense protections for child abuse victims whose parents are accused of child abuse and rape.” [4]
It says school nurses and counselors believe the measure “discourages students facing domestic violence, sexual abuse, or bullying from seeking help from trusted teachers and school counselors” and puts LGBTQ+ students in danger “by outing them to potentially abusive families.” It says the Washington State Nurses Association and others oppose it. [4]
What neither side is saying
Context that bears on what this measure does or who it affects but that the arguments above do not address. These are sourced facts, not arguments for or against the measure.
- Parts of the 2025 law that the measure would remove. The Attorney General’s explanatory statement says the measure would remove the right to immediate notification when a child is alleged to be the victim of physical or sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, or assault by a school employee or contractor, and the right to file a harassment, intimidation and bullying complaint on a child’s behalf. It would also remove the statute’s non-discrimination provision and instead state a right to assurance that a child’s school will not discriminate based on the family’s sincerely held religious beliefs. The provisions on enrollment, language access and special education rights would be removed. [1]
- Parts that the measure would add or broaden. The explanatory statement says the measure would add a right to prior notification when medical services are offered to a child (except emergency treatment), remove the limit that crime notices apply only to events on school property during school hours, and require schools to notify parents if a child is removed from school without parental permission, including to stay at a youth shelter. Records would have to be produced within ten business days instead of the 45 days allowed by current law. [1]
Editorial context, not the opinion of We Elect. Each point is a fact we found in a source we opened and read; where sources disagree or data are missing, we say so. How we choose these.
Follow the money
Contributions reported by committees registered to support or oppose Initiative 1. Major donors are those who gave $100,000 or more; where fewer than three did, up to five of the largest listed donors giving $5,000 or more are shown.
Supporting (Yes)
Total raised $8,258,316
Committee
- Let's Go Washington $8,258,316
At least one of these committees also campaigns on Washington Initiative 638, Washington Initiative 645, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| Heywood Brian | $2,580,049 |
| Gordon Steve | $902,000 |
| Kelley DevCom LLC | $450,000 |
| Washington Rising Inc | $300,000 |
| Kemper Holdings LLC | $250,000 |
| Hughes Lawrence | $250,000 |
| Crow Robert | $245,000 |
| TDM Strategies | $189,532 |
| Gordon Virginia | $125,000 |
| Gordon Larry | $125,000 |
Opposing (No)
Total raised $5,290,000
Committees
- No Hate in WA State $4,702,769
- Defend Washington $578,791
- Permanent Defense PAC (Wrong for Washington) $8,440
At least one of these committees also campaigns on Washington Initiative 638, Washington Initiative 645, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| Inatai Foundation | $1,000,000 |
| SEIU 775 Ballot Fund | $750,500 |
| Washington Education Association | $629,092 |
| ACLU of Washington | $333,776 |
| National Education Association | $250,000 |
| No on 645 | $207,000 |
| SEIU Initiative Fund | $150,000 |
| Gender Justice League | $125,341 |
Reported contributions through Oct. 30, 2026, from itemized contributions filed with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission. Itemized contributions reported to each committee for the 2025 and 2026 election years. Each donor’s amount adds up their reported contributions to the committees above; names appear as filed. Figures may be updated as new reports are filed. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Official filings: Washington Public Disclosure Commission.
Sources
- Ballot title and explanatory statement, Initiative IL26-001 — Washington Attorney General’s Office (Official ballot title and explanatory statement, 2026-07-21)
- Fiscal Impact Statement for Initiative Measure No. IL26-001 — Washington Office of Financial Management (Official fiscal analysis, 2026-07)
- Washington Initiative 1, Parental Right to Review Education Materials, Receive Notifications, and Opt Out of Sexual-Health Education Initiative (2026) — Ballotpedia (Reference (quotes supporters and opponents), accessed 2026-10-28)
- Voters’ pamphlet arguments for and against, with rebuttals, Initiative IL26-001 — Washington Secretary of State (voters’ pamphlet) (Official voters’ pamphlet statements (written by committees named in the pamphlet), 2026-08)
Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Last reviewed 2026-10-28. How we write both sides.
We Elect is a Brunner Creative site. Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Each side is written to be the strongest case its supporters would recognize, and every claim is tied to a source we opened and read.