Washington Bathroom Restricted to Biological Sex Initiative (2016)
| Washington Bathroom Restricted to Biological Sex Initiative (ITP) | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic LGBT issues | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
| Not on Ballot |
|---|
 |
| This measure was not put on an election ballot |
The Bathroom Restricted to Biological Sex Initiative was a initiated state statute proposed for the Washington ballot on November 8, 2016. Supporters did not submit signatures by the July 8, 2016, deadline.
The initiative would have repealed protections against gender-identity discrimination in certain public-accommodation facilities, required that public schools restrict access to specific facilities based on anatomical or chromosomal sex, and allowed related lawsuits against schools.[1]
This measure had multiple versions that vied for a spot on the ballot.
Measure No. 1504
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[1]
| “ | Initiative Measure No. 1504 concerns gender-segregated facilities and civil liability.
This measure would repeal protections against gender-identity discrimination in certain public-accommodation facilities, require that public schools restrict use of specific facilities based on anatomy or chromosomal sex, and allow related lawsuits against schools. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ][2] |
” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[1]
| “ | This measure would repeal Human Rights Commission rules interpreting the Law Against Discrimination as allowing people to use gender-segregated facilities based on gender-identity, restrict similar local laws, and state that, with exceptions, the law does not require allowing use of “private facilities” based on gender-identity. It requires that use of public-school facilities be restricted based on birth anatomy or chromosomes, and authorizes lawsuits against schools granting students access to those facilities based on gender-identity.[2] | ” |
Full text
The full text can be found here.
Measure No. 1505
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[1]
| “ | Initiative Measure No. 1504 concerns gender-segregated facilities and civil liability.
This measure would repeal protections against gender-identity discrimination in certain public-accommodation facilities, require that public schools restrict use of specific facilities based on anatomy or chromosomal sex, and allow related lawsuits against schools. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ][2] |
” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[1]
| “ | This measure would repeal Human Rights Commission rules interpreting the Law Against Discrimination as allowing people to use gender-segregated facilities based on gender-identity, restrict similar local laws, and state that, with exceptions, the law does not require allowing use of “private facilities” based on gender-identity. It requires that use of public-school facilities be restricted based on birth anatomy or chromosomes, and authorizes lawsuits against schools granting students access to those facilities based on gender-identity.[2] | ” |
Full text
The full text can be found here.
Measure No. 1506
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[1]
| “ | Initiative Measure No. 1504 concerns gender-segregated facilities and civil liability.
This measure would repeal protections against gender-identity discrimination in certain public-accommodation facilities, require that public schools restrict use of specific facilities based on anatomy or chromosomal sex, and allow related lawsuits against schools. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ][2] |
” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[1]
| “ | This measure would repeal Human Rights Commission rules interpreting the Law Against Discrimination as allowing people to use gender-segregated facilities based on gender-identity, restrict similar local laws, and state that, with exceptions, the law does not require allowing use of “private facilities” based on gender-identity. It requires that use of public-school facilities be restricted based on birth anatomy or chromosomes, and authorizes lawsuits against schools granting students access to those facilities based on gender-identity.[2] | ” |
Full text
The full text can be found here.
Measure No. 1507
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[1]
| “ | Initiative Measure No. 1504 concerns gender-segregated facilities and civil liability.
This measure would repeal protections against gender-identity discrimination in certain public-accommodation facilities, require that public schools restrict use of specific facilities based on anatomy or chromosomal sex, and allow related lawsuits against schools. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ][2] |
” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[1]
| “ | This measure would repeal Human Rights Commission rules interpreting the Law Against Discrimination as allowing people to use gender-segregated facilities based on gender-identity, restrict similar local laws, and state that, with exceptions, the law does not require allowing use of “private facilities” based on gender-identity. It requires that use of public-school facilities be restricted based on birth anatomy or chromosomes, and authorizes lawsuits against schools granting students access to those facilities based on gender-identity.[2] | ” |
Full text
The full text can be found here.
Measure No. 1508
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[1]
| “ | Initiative Measure No. 1504 concerns gender-segregated facilities and civil liability.
This measure would repeal protections against gender-identity discrimination in certain public-accommodation facilities, require that public schools restrict use of specific facilities based on anatomy or chromosomal sex, and allow related lawsuits against schools. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ][2] |
” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[1]
| “ | This measure would repeal Human Rights Commission rules interpreting the Law Against Discrimination as allowing people to use gender-segregated facilities based on gender-identity, restrict similar local laws, and state that, with exceptions, the law does not require allowing use of “private facilities” based on gender-identity. It requires that use of public-school facilities be restricted based on birth anatomy or chromosomes, and authorizes lawsuits against schools granting students access to those facilities based on gender-identity.[2] | ” |
Full text
The full text can be found here.
Measure No. 1515
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[1]
| “ | Initiative Measure No. 1515 concerns gender-segregated facilities and civil liability.
This measure would override state/local prohibitions against gender-identity discrimination in certain public-accommodation facilities, require that public schools restrict access to specific facilities based on sex at birth, and allow related lawsuits against schools. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ][2] |
” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[1]
| “ | This measure would amend the Law Against Discrimination to state that, with exceptions, covered public and private entities may restrict access to "private facilities" to "biologically" male or female individuals regardless of their gender identity and limit state and local regulations governing gender-identity discrimination. It requires that public-school bathrooms and locker rooms open to multiple people. be sex segregated, and authorizes lawsuits against schools that grant students access to those facilities based on gender identity.[2] | ” |
Full text
The full text can be found here.
Support
Just Want Privacy led the campaign for this initiative.[3]
Arguments in favor
Angela Connelly, a leading supporter of the initiative, said,[4]
| “ | We want to protect transgender kids. ... We want to protect boys. We want to protect girls. It feels like that overly broad [Human Rights Commission] mandate does not do that.[2] | ” |
Opposition
Washington Won't Discriminate has led the opposition to the initiative.[3]
Arguments against
Seth Kirby, chair of Washington Won't Discriminate, said,[3]
| “ | The fact is that Initiative 1515 will not only encourage more discrimination and harassment and harm transgender people in our community, but it will also have serious financial and legal consequences for our state’s economy, businesses, schools and taxpayers.[2] | ” |
Jeremy Wekell, a gay Tacoma resident, said,[4]
| “ | If we do start taking these rights, is it not OK for the other gay rights? ... This is sort of a slight retaliation to start whittling away at those rights and those benefits of all the people in our community that don’t match some perfect little ideal.[2] | ” |
Media editorials
Support
The Seattle Times printed an editorial on May 9, 2016, saying:[5]
| “ | As if those aren’t enough reasons to turn and run from I-1515 signature gatherers, this measure would endanger an estimated $4.45 billion in federal funding for state schools and public universities, according to an analysis by the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute.
... Should this initiative make the ballot this fall, it would add to an already divisive political campaign season. It sends a clear message to teenagers and young people who are wrestling with their gender identity that they are not just unwelcome, but shunned. Washington voters were among the first in the country to affirm the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry. That was a proud moment for this state. In contrast, I-1515 would be an utter embarrassment, an economic disaster and an immoral endorsement of blatant discrimination.[2] |
” |
Opposition
If you know of any opposing media editorials, please contact editor@ballotpedia.org.
Path to the ballot
- Supporters filed the petition with the secretary of state on March 2, 2016.[1]
- 246,372 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
- Supporters had until July 8, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
State profile
| Demographic data for Washington | ||
|---|---|---|
| Washington | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 7,160,290 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 66,456 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 77.8% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 3.6% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 7.7% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 1.3% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.6% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 5.2% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 12% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 90.4% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 32.9% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $61,062 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 14.4% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Washington. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in Washington
Washington voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
Pivot Counties (2016)
Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, five are located in Washington, accounting for 2.43 percent of the total pivot counties.[6]
Pivot Counties (2020)
In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Washington had four Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 2.21 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.
More Washington coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in Washington
- United States congressional delegations from Washington
- Public policy in Washington
- Endorsers in Washington
- Washington fact checks
- More...
- Supporters did not submit signatures on July 8, disqualifying the measure for the November 8, 2016, ballot.[7]
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 Washington Secretary of State, "Proposed Initiatives to the Legislature - 2016," accessed March 28, 2016
- ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Northwest Public Radio, "Anti gender-neutral bathroom campaign initiative comes to Washington," April 28, 2016
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 News Tribune, "Transgender bathroom initiative already a hot debate in Washington state," July 1, 2016
- ↑ Seattle Times, "Transgender law would be an utter embarrassment for Washington," May 9, 2016
- ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.
- ↑ KOMO News, "Bathroom initiative won't make ballot," July 7, 2016
 |
State of Washington Olympia (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
