| State | Measure | Type | What a yes vote does |
|---|
| Arizona | Prop 318 | Legislative referral (statute) | Extends the sex-based sports rule to all schools and athletic groups; adds limits on restrooms and locker rooms |
| Colorado | Prop 134 | Citizen initiative (statute) | Limits female K-12 and college teams to students defined as female by biology |
| Colorado | Prop 135 | Citizen initiative (statute) | Bans surgeries on minors done in response to their sense of sex or gender |
| Nebraska | Initiative 442 | Citizen initiative (constitution) | Puts the existing sex-based sports rule into the state constitution |
| Washington | Initiative 638 | Initiative to the Legislature (statute) | Bars students it defines as biologically male from girls' sports; requires a provider's sex statement |
","layout":"text"},{"role":"body","format":"markdown","text":"Sources: [Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_318,_Require_All_Schools_and_Athletic_Associations_to_Restrict_Sports_Participation_and_Access_to_Private_Spaces_Based_on_Sex_Measure_\\(2026\\)) measure pages for each state and the official texts linked below.\n\nBallotpedia counts six statewide measures this year on sex-based sports or medical care for transgender minors. Four deal with sports. Two deal with medical care: Colorado's Proposition 135 and Missouri's Amendment 3. As of July 2026, 29 states had rules limiting girls' teams by sex, 27 of them set by statute, according to Ballotpedia.\n\n## Arizona: Proposition 318\n\nArizona lawmakers sent Proposition 318 to the ballot themselves, which let them skip Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. Hobbs has vetoed several bills that would have limited transgender students' use of school bathrooms and locker rooms, the [Arizona Mirror reported](https://azmirror.com/2026/08/10/prop-318-top-republicans-embrace-anti-trans-measure-as-a-wedge-in-november-races/). The measure, House Concurrent Resolution 2003, was sponsored by Republican Rep. Selina Bliss. It passed the House 32-25 on Feb. 23 and the Senate 16-12 on June 12, according to Ballotpedia.\n\nArizona already bars transgender girls from girls' school teams under a 2022 law signed by then-Gov. Doug Ducey. That law covers public schools and private schools that compete against them. A federal court blocked it in 2023 after two transgender girls sued, and an appeals court kept the block in place in 2024. After the Supreme Court's B.P.J. ruling, the remaining plaintiff dropped the case in July, [KTAR reported](https://ktar.com/arizona-education/prop-318-ballot-transgender-sports). The Arizona Interscholastic Association told KTAR that no transgender athletes have played in the state under its rules since the law was signed. Between 2017 and 2022, the association approved 16 applications from transgender students to play on teams that matched their gender identity, according to the Mirror. About half came from transgender girls. The association oversees more than 170,000 athletes.\n\nProposition 318 would go further in four ways, according to the official ballot summary:\n\n* It would cover all private schools and athletic associations, not only public schools and the schools they play.\n* It would bar schools and athletic groups from allowing anyone to use restrooms, locker rooms or showers designated for the other sex.\n* It would define sex as a person's biological status \"as recorded at birth on the individual's original birth certificate.\"\n* It would let athletes sue schools and athletic groups that knowingly break the rules.\n\nBecause the measure would be voter-approved, Arizona's constitution would limit how lawmakers could change it. Any change would need a three-fourths vote of the legislature and would have to further the measure's purpose, the Mirror noted.\n\nOpponents argue that the existing ban already does what supporters want. State Sen. Analise Ortiz, a Phoenix Democrat, put it this way in her [voter guide](https://www.ortizforaz.com/_files/ugd/80b473_0f3d3706c09543c388eae8c03cd9bcd3.pdf): \"Arizona already bans transgender girls from participating on girls' school sports teams under a 2022 law. A NO vote would not change that existing ban.\" She wrote that a no vote \"rejects expanding these restrictions\" and new lawsuits against schools and coaches.\n\nRepublicans running statewide have made the measure part of their closing pitch. At an August news conference, U.S. Rep. [Andy Biggs](https://567politics.com/politicians/andy-biggs), the Republican nominee for governor, called it \"an 80-20 issue.\" State Sen. Warren Petersen, the Republican nominee for attorney general, criticized Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes for declining to defend the 2022 law in court. Mayes' campaign manager, Delaney Corcoran, said the attacks were \"designed to divide and distract Arizonans from the issues that matter most.\" The governor's race itself is covered in our [Arizona final polls story](https://567politics.com/news/arizona-final-polls-hobbs-biggs-fontes-mayes-yee-november-2026).\n\nMoney in Arizona runs heavily against the measure. The main opposition committee, Will of the People, raised about $871,000, according to state filings summarized by Ballotpedia. Its largest donors included Progress Arizona ($281,000), Future Freedoms ($150,000), the Arizona Education Association ($75,000) and UFCW Local 99 ($75,000). The main supporting committee, Protect Girls' Sports in AZ, had reported raising about $3,600.\n\nThe campaign has also produced a fight over websites. The yes campaign uses protectgirlssportsinaz.vote. In August, a group opposing the measure set up a near-copy at protectgirlssportsaz.vote. Timothy La Sota, a Republican election lawyer and a chair of the yes campaign, asked Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to refer the site for legal action. He said it was \"a clear attempt to trick and defraud voters,\" the Mirror reported.\n\n## Colorado: Propositions 134 and 135\n\nColorado's two measures come from a single group, Protect Kids Colorado. The group also backs Proposition 133, which sets a life sentence without parole for buying or selling a minor for sex. Protect Kids Colorado says more than 170,000 people signed its petitions.\n\nProposition 134 would require every K-12 and college team to be labeled male, female or coed. It defines a female as a \"person whose biological reproductive system is organized around the production of ova.\" Students defined as male could not play on female teams. Girls could play on boys' teams when no girls' team exists. The commissioner of education would enforce the rules for school districts.\n\nToday, Colorado's 2021 anti-discrimination law, [HB21-1108](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb21-1108), covers gender identity and expression. Under it, transgender students may play on teams that match their gender identity. In 2025, a Colorado Springs school district sued the state's high school sports association over the policy. The association and several districts settled in December 2025, and the case continued against the state, [KUNC reported](https://www.kunc.org/news/2025-12-07/in-colorado-transgender-athlete-lawsuit-chsaa-and-districts-settle-case-continues-with-state).\n\nProposition 135 would bar surgeries on anyone under 18 \"for treatment in response to a minor's perception of sex or gender.\" It would also bar public money and insurance from paying for them. It lists exceptions, including for children born with differences of sex development. Ballotpedia counts 27 states with bans on these surgeries for minors as of August 2026.\n\nThe two sides describe Proposition 135 in very different terms. Protect Kids Colorado calls it \"The Protect Kids From Irreversible Sex-Change Surgery Act.\" Its opponents call it an attack on families' private health decisions. The Colorado Academy of Family Physicians says it could block needed care for children who are not transgender.\n\nDemocratic Gov. [Jared Polis](https://567politics.com/politicians/jared-polis) opposes both measures. On Proposition 134, he said: \"Obviously we need to prevent cheating, and I'm confident that the schools and CHSAA can do that without a blanket prohibition that prevents kids from participating in sports.\" Nadine Bridges, executive director of One Colorado, leads the Families Not Politics campaign against both measures. She has called Proposition 134 \"vague, poorly written,\" and asked: \"Who decides who gets questioned, who gets inspected, and which kids are going to be singled out?\"\n\nThe Colorado Republican Party, the Colorado Catholic Conference, Focus on the Family and the Independence Institute back the measures. So does the Colorado Springs Gazette's editorial board. The Denver Post's editorial board urged a no vote on Proposition 134. It argued that the measure's verification standard would fall hardest on girls whose looks or skills draw scrutiny.\n\nThe money gap is wide. Families Not Politics had raised about $4.41 million as of October, according to state filings summarized by Ballotpedia. Protect Kids Colorado had raised about $216,000 across its three measures.\n\n## Nebraska: Initiative 442\n\nNebraska's measure would amend the state constitution. Schools would have to label each team male, female or coed \"based on biological sex,\" and female teams \"shall not be open to students of the male sex.\" It covers public K-12 schools, public colleges and private schools that compete against them.\n\nNebraska lawmakers already passed this rule as a statute in 2025. That law, the Stand With Women Act, was introduced by state Sen. Kathleen Kauth and signed by Republican Gov. Jim Pillen. It defines sex by the reproductive system a person has or would have. The ballot measure does not define sex itself and relies on the statute's definition, the [Nebraska Examiner reported](https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2026/08/28/sex-based-constitutional-restriction-on-nebraska-k-12-collegiate-sports-qualifies-for-ballot/).\n\nThe point of the amendment, supporters say, is permanence. The Nebraska Family Alliance, which launched the Fairness for Girls campaign, says current law \"can be modified or repealed, as opponents are promising to do.\" Sen. Pete Ricketts, Rep. Don Bacon, Rep. Mike Flood and Rep. Adrian Smith back the measure. Ricketts is on Tuesday's ballot himself, as covered in our [Nebraska Senate final polls story](https://567politics.com/news/nebraska-senate-ricketts-osborn-final-polls-november-2026).\n\nSecretary of State Bob Evnen certified at least 138,613 valid signatures on Aug. 28. The Examiner reported that the petition is one of four statewide petitions that the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office was investigating for possible fraud. To pass, the measure needs a majority of votes on the question, and its yes votes must also equal more than 35% of all ballots cast in the election.\n\nFairness for Girls reported $3.25 million in cash contributions, according to state filings summarized by Ballotpedia. The opposition campaign, Fairness for All, reported about $109,000 in in-kind support and no cash. Fairness for All says the $3.1 million that funded the petition drive came in \"a single donation\" from what it calls a \"dark money PAC,\" citing Nebraska Public Media. It also says fewer than 10 transgender students sought to play middle or high school sports in Nebraska between 2015 and 2025.\n\nNo public poll of Initiative 442 has been released.\n\n## Washington: Initiative 638\n\nWashington's measure began as an initiative to the Legislature from Let's Go Washington, a group funded largely by hedge fund manager Brian Heywood. Lawmakers did not pass it, so it went to voters. It would bar students it defines as \"biologically male\" from girls' school sports. Girls who want to play would need a signed statement from a health care provider. The statement would verify their sex based on \"reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.\"\n\nSince 2007, the state's school sports association, the WIAA, has let students play on teams that match their gender identity. The WIAA estimates fewer than 10 transgender athletes compete statewide, according to Ballotpedia.\n\nWashington's Democratic leaders oppose the measure, including Gov. [Bob Ferguson](https://567politics.com/politicians/bob-ferguson), Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Pramila Jayapal. The Washington State PTA also opposes it, saying it [makes \"a clinically unnecessary intimate examination the practical price of playing sports for many girls.\"](https://www.wastatepta.org/focus-areas/advocacy/2026-ballot-measures/) The state Republican Party, Moms for Liberty and the Washington State Catholic Conference support it. Do No Harm, a medical advocacy group that has written in support of the Arizona, Colorado and Washington measures, [says](https://donoharmmedicine.org/2026/10/22/washingtonians-consider-gender-initiatives/) male athletic advantage \"is a physiological finding, not a matter of opinion.\"\n\nSupporters have outspent opponents. Let's Go Washington's committee had raised about $7.74 million for its three initiatives, with Heywood giving about $2.23 million, according to Ballotpedia. Opponents had raised about $2.16 million. Their largest donors were the Washington Education Association (about $269,000), the National Education Association ($250,000), the Inatai Foundation ($250,000) and the ACLU of Washington (about $171,000).\n\nWashington votes by mail. Ballots count if they are postmarked by Election Day or placed in a drop box by 8 p.m.\n\n## What the polls show\n\nPublic polling on these measures is thin. Arizona and Colorado each have at least one independent poll. Nebraska has none. Washington has only a campaign's own poll.\n\n**Independent polls on sports and care measures for transgender minors**\n\nPercent of registered (Arizona) or likely (Colorado) voters. Undecided voters not shown. Colorado Prop 135 asked in two randomly assigned wordings; the first version is shown. Washington's only poll is a campaign internal and is not shown.","textStyle":"body","layout":"text"},{"role":"htmltable","html":"