Democratic officials in Colorado and Washington are facing accusations of hypocrisy from Republican critics after signaling intentions to overturn or amend voter-approved ballot measures restricting transgender participation in girls' sports. The backlash centers on the officials' prior support for the "No Kings" movement, which protests what organizers describe as authoritarian overreach by President Donald Trump. Voters in both states approved the measures last week, with Colorado Democrats sweeping other races and Washington remaining a reliably blue state.
What the Right Is Saying
Republicans in suburban Denver dubbed Weiser "King Phil I," arguing his response showed he "know[s] better than Colorado voters in a healthy democracy." The Adams County Republican Party stated, "But before the ink on the ballots is even dry, Governor-elect Phil Weiser is already signaling that the vote of the people is merely a ‘suggestion.'" They argued that while Coloradans approved measures to crack down on fentanyl and protect youth sports, Weiser effectively declared that the majority's will "needs to pass his personal vibe check first."
The Colorado House Republican caucus echoed these sentiments, stating, "If the Democrats truly believe there should be ‘No Kings’ in America, it is time they take their own advice." Critics also pointed to a November 2025 social media post by Jayapal, in which she wrote, "We have democracy for a reason. America doesn’t belong to kings it belongs to the people and we're going to keep it that way." One critic highlighted this quote to question the consistency of her current stance on overriding voter-approved initiatives.
What the Left Is Saying
Colorado Governor-elect Philip Weiser, a Democrat, stated at his first post-election news conference that the legislature has a "natural and appropriate role" to determine "what are the adjustments that need to be added" to the statutory measures. According to the Denver Post, Weiser expressed concern about privacy, noting, "I don’t believe it would be acceptable to Colorado to have every student athlete to have to go through full-body examinations or other invasions of privacy." He criticized a separate measure restricting gender-related surgeries for minors.
In Washington, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., condemned Initiative 638, which prohibits students defined as "biologically male" from competing in girls' K-12 school sports. Jayapal pledged to "take our state back" and said, "We're going to start planning for how we overturn these bad initiatives and how we go back to loving everyone with gender inclusivity the way we have for decades." Washington Democratic Party Chair Shasti Conrad called the measure "unconstitutional on its face" and indicated support for organizations planning legal challenges.
What the Numbers Show
In Colorado, voters approved ballot measures increasing penalties for fentanyl-related offenses, restricting transgender athletes from competing in sports designated for the opposite biological sex, and prohibiting gender-related surgeries for minors. These measures passed even as Democrats won other statewide offices.
In Washington, Initiative 638 passed with approximately 56% support in a state that typically votes Democratic. Under Washington's Constitution, lawmakers cannot repeal a voter-approved initiative during its first two years but can amend it with a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber. After two years, the legislature can amend or repeal the measure with a simple majority.
The Bottom Line
The controversy highlights a strategic and rhetorical challenge for Democrats in states where ballot initiatives on social issues pass despite broader Democratic electoral success. Republican critics are leveraging the "No Kings" slogan to frame Democratic attempts to amend or challenge these measures as undemocratic. In Washington, the constitutional timeline means any legislative repeal cannot occur for at least two years, though legal challenges or amendments with supermajority support could happen sooner. In Colorado, the legislature's ability to adjust statutory measures remains a point of contention, with Republicans arguing for the sanctity of the direct vote and Democrats emphasizing legislative flexibility and privacy concerns.