Parents’ bill of rights initiative I-001 still trails in early returns

Initial results show Initiative 001 still trailing Wednesday, with 52.72% of votes counted opposed and 47.28% in favor. The measure seeks to restore the original 2024 parents’ bill of rights by undoing changes made by the Washington Legislature last year.

Initiative 001, sponsored by Let’s Go Washington, the political committee founded by Brian Heywood, would have repealed the 2025 amendments to the statute listing parents’ and guardians’ rights and would have re-enacted the law as it was first passed.

If I-001 passed, several provisions would have been restored, including parents’ ability to obtain their child’s academic, medical, and mental health counseling records within 10 business days.

The current limit is 45 days, the federal maximum.

Schools would also have to notify parents before offering a child non-emergency medical services if I-001 passed, whereas the 2025 bill requires notice only in an emergency.

I-001 would also have given parents the ability to opt a child out of assignments and surveys that ask about sexual experiences or attractions, family beliefs, religion, or mental health, and would allow parents to examine textbooks, curriculum, and supplemental materials.

Under current state law, children 13 and older can consent to their own mental health care without parental knowledge.

How it got here

The original law, Initiative 2081, passed the legislature in 2024 with bipartisan, nearly unanimous support. In 2025, majority Democrats passed House Bill 1296, which rewrote parts of it, and the governor signed it May 20. Democrats said the changes brought the law in line with student privacy and civil rights protections. The state Supreme Court rejected Tim Eyman’s bid to force a referendum on the rewrite.

Let’s Go Washington then gathered signatures for I-001. When the initiative reached the legislature earlier this year, Democratic leaders declined to hold a hearing, so it went to the ballot.

Where the sides disagree

A central dispute is crime notification. The current law requires parents to be notified when a report indicates a crime has been committed against their child. I-001 would have instead required notice when a crime is “deemed” to have been committed. Let’s Go Washington stated its wording expressly guarantees immediate notice, with Heywood himself calling the objection “splitting hairs.”

Supporters of I-001 stated the measure would restore a simple standard. According to Heywood and Let’s Go Washington, parents are the “primary stakeholders in their child’s upbringing,” arguing that keeping information from them damages trust.

Governor Bob Ferguson, who came out against the measure in September, argued it weakens current law.

Couture, who drafted the notification language in the current law, rejected Ferguson’s argument outright, accusing the governor of using fear tactics to mislead voters.

“It’s pure sophistry. It’s a complete and utter lie,” Couture said. “Just read the initiative itself. It has a whole section in there that says immediate notification of parents if their child has been a part of any criminal action, including a sexual assault by staff in their school.”

The Seattle Times editorial board, which urged a no vote, wrote that “the question at the heart of the matter is student safety.”

LGBTQ+ advocates have been among groups that opposed the initiative, arguing it could out students to parents before they are ready, putting some at risk at home.

Let’s Go Washington said I-001 wouldn’t have required schools to notify parents of a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The measure would have expanded parents’ access to medical and mental health records, which could include information on gender identity.

“They have gotten themselves into a situation where they’re now saying, ‘We are your closest confidant. We’re speaking to you on a level that your parents can’t,'” KIRO host Jake Skorheim said in favor of I-001 in August. “If the school is not telling the parents what’s going on, they’re now creating a divide between the child and the parent. Do you think that’s going to be healthy for that relationship going forward?”

Jake’s co-host, Spike O’Neill, noted that there are times when withholding information from a parent is the right call for a child’s mental health.

“I say there are times when it’s in the kid’s mental health best interest to have a safe place to talk to somebody who’s trained and seek guidance and information,” Spike said. “Yeah, I think it’s a good thing. Oftentimes parents aren’t ready to deal with situations.”

When Jake questioned Spike on whether schools are inserting themselves between parents and children, Spike flipped the framing.

“If a kid is talking to a counselor and not their parents, the school’s not creating the divide,” Spike said. “The divide’s already there.”

This story was originally published on Nov. 3, 2026. It has been updated and republished since then.

Follow Frank Sumrall on X.