<body><div><h2>Initiative 645</h2>As of November 6, Washington voters rejected Initiative 645 with a nearly 58% majority, according to the Associated Press.The initiative would have repealed the state’s new millionaires tax and prohibited state and local governments from creating individual income taxes.The tax, signed into law in March 2026, is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2028. It will apply a 9.9% tax rate to every household’s annual income after the first million dollars, meaning a household that makes $2 million a year would owe $99,000. Beginning in 2029, the tax is projected to generate around $3.5 billion dollars annually, according to the Washington State Democrats millionaires’ tax FAQ.Supporters of the tax like senior Isla Maron argued that the tax is justified, but also nuanced.“Anyone that’s making over a million dollars in a year can afford to have that tax,” Maron said. “However, there are exceptions. For example, people living in multi-generational households.”Maron voted against the initiative.<figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=3xUyL3_1H1o9qXf00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=3xUyL3_1H1o9qXf00" width="1185" height="912" ></figure>Senior Parker Hulse understands why some people agree with the tax in principle.“I can see why it does make sense to tax people who have more money, versus the more low income people,” Hulse said.Despite this, Hulse sees a potential unfairness in how the tax will affect millionaires.“I feel like a lot of people who support this aren’t actually being taxed themselves,” Hulse said. “They’re happy to do it because it only applies to a select few people.”Maron believes that UPrep students might support tax as a matter of fairness, but would reconsider if their own families had to pay it.“Most people at UPrep would ethically agree with that,” Maron said. “But if it actually affects people as a family, I think they’re more likely to vote to reverse.”One argument against the tax according to Hulse is that it could lead to wealthy people exiting Washington, eventually hurting the economy.“I don’t like the millionaires tax personally, just because I feel like it pushes away a lot of very successful people in Seattle,” Hulse said. “Which ultimately I feel is bad for our economy because the more money you have, probably the more money you’re spending and putting into the economy.”History teacher Kyle Bishop wonders what would happen if millionaires did leave.“But I would also kind of question if they did leave and they were a business owner, “ Bishop said. “Would there be other people from another state that are coming in to fill that gap that was made?”Bishop points out that there are only eight other states without an income tax, and that each household would have to weigh the potential tax savings with the things they value about Washington state.The possibility of wealthy residents leaving has evolved into a broader debate. Because of the tax, Washington could lose 1.9% of its millionaires, roughly 475 households, according to the Washington Retail Association.<h2>Initiative 638</h2>As of November 6, the initiative passed with support from nearly 57% of voters, according to the Associated Press. The measure bans transgender female high school athletes from playing girls’ sports and requires a doctor’s signature verifying a student’s biological sex.As part of the required sports physical, any student seeking to play in interscholastic female sports will now need a signed statement from a healthcare professional verifying their biological sex. This could be done by verifying genetic makeup, reproductive anatomy or naturally produced testosterone levels through a physical exam, cheek swab or blood test, according to the Washington State Standard and Washington State House Republicans.Before the election, Maron, a girls’ varsity soccer player, raised concerns about personal information she would have to disclose to the government. She ultimately voted against the initiative.“I do feel like that is invasive,” Maron said. “You’re handing personal information to the government. I don’t think that is exactly ethical.”Katie Hultquist, a mom of two UPrep alums, is the Director of Leadership for Outright International, a global organization that advocates for LGBTQ+ rights. Hultquist believes that this requirement could discourage girls from participating in sports.“Even if I didn’t know any trans people, I think that what this bill would expect of girls, all girls, is just ridiculous,” Hultquist said.<figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=1UvtkG_1H1o9qXf00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=1UvtkG_1H1o9qXf00" width="1185" height="1120" ></figure>The initiative has prompted debate over competitive fairness. Hulse, a senior tennis player, said he understands why athletes might be concerned about a competitor having a physical advantage.“I feel like I wouldn’t want other athletes to have an advantage over me that I didn’t have,” Hulse said. “But at the same time, I also want to respect everyone’s own choices.”Maron similarly acknowledged concerns about competitive fairness. She also voiced the importance of being able to play high school sports.“Everyone should have the option to be involved in sports in some way,” Maron said. “High school sports-it’s not Olympic level. I think everyone should have access to sports, and I think that does include transgender female athletes, even in physical sports like soccer.”The WIAA acknowledged that it was aware of “no more than approximately 10 transgender student-athletes participating across Washington each year,” according to Spokesman-Review.“It shows how people inflate the issue,” Maron said. “It shows that the scale of the issue is not as big as people make it out to be.”Washington electionResponse to Initative 638 On November 9, a coalition of Washington parents, educators and nonprofits filed a lawsuit challenging Initiative 638. The plaintiffs include TransFamilies, the Washington Education Association (WEA), and parents of students who participate in girls' school sports.The lawsuit argues that I-638 violates the Washington Constitution's protections for privacy, equal rights, and access to public education. The plaintiffs argue that requiring all girls to verify their biological sex before participating in girls' sports violates their privacy and treats girls differently from boys, who face no similar requirement.The coalition is seeking emergency relief to prevent the law from taking effect on December 3, 2026.Source: ACLU of Washington</div></body>

Block Source: uprepmedia.com

Misinformation

Clickbait

Old or repetitive news

Explicit content

Location not relevant

As of November 6, Washington voters rejected Initiative 645 with a nearly 58% majority, according to the Associated Press. The initiative would have repealed the state’s new millionaires tax and prohibited state and local governments from creating individual income taxes. The tax, signed into law in March 2026, is...

Local Election Initiatives Stir Debate

NewsBreak

As of November 6, Washington voters rejected Initiative 645 with a nearly 58% majority, according to the Associated Press. The initiative would have repeal

Local Election Initiatives Stir Debate

Comments