Nov 3, 2026 general election · U.S. House and 5 statewide races
Election results for Nov 3, 2026: official state sources →
General election: Tuesday, Nov 3, 2026. Dates below are for that election, from official state election sources; rules can change, so confirm with the linked source.
Suzan DelBene (D) vs. Mary Silva (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareRick Larsen (D) vs. Edwin H. Feller (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareMarie Gluesenkamp Perez (D) vs. John Braun (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareAmanda McKinney (R) vs. John Duresky (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareMichael Baumgartner (R) vs. Carmela Conroy (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareEmily Randall (D) vs. Teresa Fox (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
ComparePramila Jayapal (D) vs. Nirav Sheth (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareKim Schrier (D) vs. Spencer Meline (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareAdam Smith (D) vs. Doug Basler (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareMarilyn Strickland (D) vs. Chris D. Chung (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareColleen Melody (NP) vs. Scott Edwards (NP). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJaime Michelle Hawk (NP) vs. David Stevens (NP). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareSean O'Donnell (NP) vs. Ian Birk (NP). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareTheo Angelis (NP) vs. Dave Larson (NP). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareDebra L. Stephens (NP) vs. Todd A. Bloom (NP). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareAll 122 Washington legislative races on the Nov 3 ballot, from the official candidate list.
See the racesEvery candidate we list for Washington's statewide races, with background, positions and votes.
Local and district races: every Washington county.
Ballot titles (Statement of Subject and Concise Description) and Ballot Measure Summaries are quoted verbatim from the Washington Attorney General’s official Ballot Title Letters posted by the Washington Secretary of State. The Yes/No lines are an AI-written plain-language summary; rely on the official wording. Official Ballot Measure Summary (Washington Attorney General, RCW 29A.72.060): This measure would re-enact RCW 28A.605.005 as it was originally enacted in Initiative to the Legislature 2081. The re-enacted law would list certain rights of parents and guardians of public-school children, including rights to review materials and student records, receive certain notifications and opt students out of certain activities. It would repeal amendments to the statute, which modified school obligations and access to certain student records and added certain parental rights. Plain-language summary (AI-written; see official wording) A Yes vote means: Enacts Initiative IL26-001 into law, repealing recent statutory amendments and restoring RCW 28A.605.005 as originally enacted by Initiative 2081. A No vote means: Rejects Initiative IL26-001; current Washington law governing parental notifications, student records, and public school obligations remains in effect. Supporters say: Supporters argue voters should approve it so that the change takes effect: Enacts Initiative IL26-001 into law, repealing recent statutory amendments and restoring RCW 28A.605.005 as originally enacted by Initiative 2081. Opponents say: Opponents argue voters should reject it and keep current law: Rejects Initiative IL26-001; current Washington law governing parental notifications, student records, and public school obligations remains in effect. Arguments: Vote Book summary of the official Yes/No wording. Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Official Ballot Measure Summary (Washington Attorney General, RCW 29A.72.060): This measure would require policies prohibiting students it defines as “biologically male” from competing with or against female students in certain interschool athletic activities that are intended for female students only. Students who choose to participate in such activities must provide a statement from the student’s healthcare provider verifying the student’s biological sex, based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels. These requirements would apply to individual or team athletic competitions. Plain-language summary (AI-written; see official wording) A Yes vote means: Enacts Initiative IL26-638 into law, requiring K-12 interscholastic athletic policies to prohibit students defined as biologically male from competing in female-only school athletic activities and requiring healthcare provider verification. A No vote means: Rejects Initiative IL26-638; current Washington K-12 student athletic participation rules remain in effect. Supporters say: Supporters argue voters should approve it so that the change takes effect: Enacts Initiative IL26-638 into law, requiring K-12 interscholastic athletic policies to prohibit students defined as biologically male from competing in female-only school athletic activities and requiring healthcare provider verification. Opponents say: Opponents argue voters should reject it and keep current law: Rejects Initiative IL26-638; current Washington K-12 student athletic participation rules remain in effect. Arguments: Vote Book summary of the official Yes/No wording. Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Official Ballot Measure Summary (Washington Attorney General, RCW 29A.72.060): This measure would repeal a 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1,000,000; prohibit state and local governments from imposing taxes on individual income or the receipt of individual income and taxes measured by an individual’s income; and define income as “any gain or benefit measured in money derived from an individual’s capital, labor, property, or other source.” It would also define “individual” as a natural person for purposes of excise taxes. Plain-language summary (AI-written; see official wording) A Yes vote means: Enacts Initiative IP26-645 into law, repealing the 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1,000,000 and prohibiting state and local governments from imposing taxes on or measured by individual income. A No vote means: Rejects Initiative IP26-645; current state and local tax laws, including chapter 238, Laws of 2026, remain in effect. Supporters say: Supporters, including Brian Heywood, founder of Let's Go Washington, argue: “All retirement money [is now] subject to an income tax... If they change the numbers so now $50,000 qualifies you for the income tax, and you miss a $1,000 payment, they can actually come in and seize your retirement assets to pay that tax lien.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Larry Delaney, president of the Washington Education Association, argue: “Here’s the truth. Initiative 645 will blow a $13 billion hole in our state’s budget, resulting in devastating cuts to education, health care, and human services.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side.Initiative Measure No. IL26-001: Parental rights relating to children in public school (Initiative to the Legislature)
Official Ballot Measure Summary (Washington Attorney General, RCW 29A.72.060): This measure would re-enact RCW 28A.605.005 as it was originally enacted in In…Official ballot wording
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?
Initiative Measure No. IL26-638: Participation in athletics at K-12 schools (Initiative to the Legislature)
Official Ballot Measure Summary (Washington Attorney General, RCW 29A.72.060): This measure would require policies prohibiting students it defines as “biolog…Official ballot wording
Initiative Measure No. IL26-638 concerns participation in athletics at K-12 schools. This measure would prohibit students it defines as “biologically male” from competing in certain school athletic activities intended for female students only. It would require verification of biological sex by students’ healthcare providers. Should this measure be enacted into law?
Initiative Measure No. IP26-645: State and local taxes on individual income (Initiative to the People)
Official Ballot Measure Summary (Washington Attorney General, RCW 29A.72.060): This measure would repeal a 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1,000,0…Official ballot wording
Initiative Measure No. IP26-645 concerns state and local taxes. This measure would repeal a 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1,000,000; prohibit taxes measured by individual income and taxes on individual income or the receipt of individual income; and define “income.” Should this measure be enacted into law?
Know someone voting? Send them this page.