Washington initiatives and Oregon local measures: what the November 3 votes would change

Washington voters face three statewide initiatives on November 3: an income-tax repeal, a restoration of an earlier parental-rights statute and restrictions on participation in girls’ school sports. Oregon presents a different picture: its Secretary of State says there are no statewide measures this election, a finding also stated by Benton County’s election office. Significant Oregon measures are local, and appear only on ballots in the relevant jurisdictions. This guide selects consequential decisions rather than claiming to list every local measure in either state.

Washington IP26-645: repeal a future income tax

Yes would repeal the 9.9% tax on covered annual income above $1 million before its planned 2028 start and impose broader prohibitions on state and local taxes measured by individual income. No would leave the enacted tax in place. The Attorney General’s explanation says married couples and domestic partners share the $1 million deduction. The measure explicitly repeals that income tax; it should not be casually described as a repeal of every Washington tax.

The Office of Financial Management estimates roughly $11.4 billion less revenue over state fiscal years 2027–2031, alongside about $150.5 million in net agency savings. The largest lost collections occur after the tax’s planned start. These are projections under stated assumptions, not money already missing from the treasury or a list of automatic service cuts.

In the official pamphlet’s campaign arguments, supporters warn that the tax could later expand; opponents warn about funding for schools, health care and child care. Those are advocacy positions. The Attorney General says accompanying non-income-tax credits, exemptions and deductions would remain in law after repeal. Claims that those breaks automatically disappear should not be confused with arguments that future lawmakers might change them to address a revenue gap.

Washington IL26-001: which parental-rights statute?

Yes would undo the Legislature’s 2025 revisions and restore the parental-rights list enacted through Initiative 2081 in 2024. No would retain the revised law. The Attorney General’s explanation describes changes including a ten-business-day records deadline instead of up to 45 days, broader school-record access and additional medical-service notifications. It also explains that many rights already exist elsewhere in state or federal law; this is not a vote on whether parents have any rights at all.

Supporters’ pamphlet argument emphasizes family involvement and safeguards for vulnerable children. Opponents dispute the adequacy of those safeguards and warn about disclosure and notification changes. Their competing assurances are not interchangeable with the operative statute. Voters should compare the specific provisions and remaining protections, rather than rely on either side’s slogan.

Washington IL26-638: girls’ interschool sports eligibility

Yes would generally bar transgender girls from girls’ interschool teams and events, and require a health-care-provider-signed form verifying the sex of students entering female-only competition. No would retain the current rules. The Attorney General’s explanation says the proposal covers public K–12 schools and private schools participating in the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association or similar organizations. Verification would be based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup or naturally produced testosterone levels.

The campaign arguments reveal a material disagreement. Supporters describe routine medical verification and protection of female competition; opponents warn of intrusive examinations and barriers affecting girls generally. The official explanation establishes a medical-verification requirement, but it does not establish that every student would receive the same examination. Neither campaign’s most categorical description should be reported as an independently observed outcome.

Oregon: Portland Measure 26-267 and control of city spending

In Portland, Yes on Measure 26-267 would require a participatory-budgeting program in which residents select projects through a binding process. The funding obligation would equal at least 2% of adopted General Fund discretionary ongoing expenses, with the council able to identify funding elsewhere in the city budget. The official ballot summary estimates $16.4 million in fiscal 2027–28 and $17 million in 2028–29 under the cited forecast, with the program operating in July 2027. No would retain the existing budget process. This is a city decision, not an Oregon-wide spending rule.

Oregon: Troutdale Measure 26-265 and emergency-service funding

Troutdale’s Measure 26-265 asks for a five-year levy of $1.60 per $1,000 of assessed property value for police, fire and 911 operations. The city’s explanation says approval would accompany removal of the current $25 monthly public-safety fee. Its example of a home assessed at $267,800 produces a $428.48 annual levy, offset by eliminating $300 in annual fees: a $128.48 net increase. That is the city’s assessed-value example, not every household’s bill or a calculation based on market value.

No would reject the proposed levy; it would not establish that public-safety costs disappear or freeze future fees. A separate Measure 26-266 asks an advisory question about creating a municipal police department. An advisory preference is not itself the same as financing, establishing and operating a new department.

Editorial Opinion

The Northwest ballot is a reminder that government reaches well beyond the presidential argument. A tax due in a future year, a school’s duty to provide records and a city’s method of allocating money can have lasting consequences even when national campaign coverage barely mentions them.

A conservative reading should insist on limits that are clear and costs that are candid. Opposing a new tax does not absolve lawmakers from explaining what they would fund instead. Supporting parental involvement does not eliminate the need for safeguards when a child faces abuse. Protecting female competition deserves a workable rule whose verification burden is examined honestly.

Portland voters should ask whether the proposed spending process improves accountability enough to justify a permanent charter obligation. Troutdale voters should compare the levy with the fee it would replace, rather than treating gross tax cost as the entire change. Direct resident participation and dependable emergency services are attractive objectives; neither makes the financing questions disappear.

There is no need to manufacture an Oregon statewide proposition to make this ballot important. The local decisions are consequential on their own. Read the jurisdiction, read the actual change, and distinguish a campaign’s prediction from a requirement in law.

References

Have a factual correction or website problem? Contact PartialMedia with the article link, disputed passage and supporting source.

Discussion

Comments load automatically through Disqus. This connects to Disqus and its partners, which may use cookies and process your IP address and browser information. Disqus privacy policy.