Voters in Colorado and Washington will decide ballot measures on transgender students in school sports on November 3, 2026, and Colorado voters will also weigh a ban on surgeries for minors. Ballotpedia calls Washington’s sports initiative the first such statewide measure to qualify nationally.
These measures sit within a larger national argument that our transgender history and education hub places in historical context. This report draws on Chalkbeat Colorado, Colorado Politics and Ballotpedia, describes proposals that voters have not yet decided, and is not legal or medical advice.
What will Colorado voters decide on transgender students in sports?
Colorado voters will decide Proposition 134, which would bar transgender students from school teams that match their gender identity.
According to Chalkbeat Colorado’s voter guide on Proposition 134, published October 2, 2026, the measure would require public and private K-12 schools and colleges to label every athletic team as male, female, or coeducational. Biological males could not join female teams, and biological females could not join male teams unless no female team exists in that sport. Any student could join coeducational teams. If approved, the measure would take effect January 1, 2027.
The reporting notes that the measure does not cover youth sports offered by private clubs or leagues. It also describes enforcement as uneven: the Colorado Department of Education would enforce it in public K-12 schools, while the measure contains no enforcement mechanism for colleges or private K-12 schools.
How would Proposition 134 determine a student’s sex?
The measure does not specify a method, and that gap is a focal point of the debate.
Chalkbeat reports that Proposition 134 defines biological males as people whose reproductive systems are organized around producing sperm cells and biological females as people whose systems are organized around producing egg cells, and leaves verification to schools. Erin Lee, a co-founder of Protect Kids Colorado, which supports the measure, said options could include a doctor’s note or a cheek swab. She also said that because everyone would have to establish biological sex, no one would be singled out.
Opponents see the same silence differently. They told Chalkbeat the lack of a method could lead to invasive gender checks, particularly for girls who are tall, strong, or athletically gifted. Nadine Bridges, executive director of One Colorado, called the measure government overreach and said it is “written so vaguely that there aren’t any boundaries, no parameters, no appeal process at all.”
What are the arguments for and against the sports measure?
Supporters frame the measure as protecting girls’ sports, while opponents describe it as an intrusion on privacy and family decisions. In a separate article, I argue it is a solution in search of a problem.
Lee said the measure protects girls’ safety, opportunity, and dignity, arguing that when transgender girls compete in girls’ sports, girls lose scholarships, trophies, records, and team spots. Protect Kids Colorado describes itself as a grassroots group, and Lee said it is not part of any national effort. Opposing the measure is Families Not Politics, a coalition that includes One Colorado, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, the Transgender Law Center and Rocky Mountain Equality.
One data point complicates both sides’ claims: Chalkbeat reports that no organization or state agency tracks how many transgender students play school sports in Colorado, and the number is generally thought to be very small. School policies vary: some districts allow participation based on gender identity, some decide on a case-by-case basis, and some conservative-leaning districts and charter schools disallow it.
What would Colorado’s Proposition 135 do?
Proposition 135 would prohibit surgeries on minors that alter biological sex characteristics as treatment for a minor’s perception of sex or gender, with certain exceptions. It would bar state and federal funds or insurance coverage from paying for them.
Colorado Politics’ guide to Proposition 135 reports that a yes vote enacts those prohibitions and a no vote keeps current Colorado law, which protects access to such surgeries and allows public and private insurance programs to pay for them. The guide says the measure has “certain exceptions” but does not list them, and this report does not characterize them. Readers should consult the official ballot text for the full wording.
Protect Kids Colorado, the measure’s backer, says on its website: “It’s too early. For something this serious and permanent, let’s wait until age 18.” Ballot arguments in favor say minors lack the maturity for permanent medical decisions and that more long-term data is needed. Opponents, including Rocky Mountain Equality, say the measure would limit transgender youth’s access to medical care. Arguments against also say a ban defined by the purpose of treatment could create uncertainty for patients, physicians and insurers and could affect both transgender and non-transgender minors.
What is on the ballot in Washington State?
Washington voters will see two initiatives, one on sports eligibility and one on parental rights in public schools.
According to Ballotpedia’s report on Washington’s initiatives, the sports initiative, IL26-638, would prohibit biologically male students from competing with and against female students. It would require a health care provider to verify a student’s sex based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenous testosterone levels. Ballotpedia says it is the first statewide ballot measure on sex-based school sports eligibility to qualify for the ballot in U.S. history.
The second initiative, IL26-001, would reenact the Washington Declaration of Parental and Legal Guardian Rights, which gives parents the right to review educational materials, receive certain notifications, and opt out of sexual health education. Ballotpedia notes that the Legislature approved the declaration in 2024, then partially repealed and amended it in May 2025, removing the right to prior notification before most medical services are offered to a child, with listed exceptions.
Both are initiatives to the Legislature, an indirect route in which lawmakers may adopt a measure, reject it, leave it alone, or offer an alternative. The Legislature did not act on either before its session adjourned on March 12, so both go to voters. Let’s Go Washington, a political action committee founded by Brian Heywood, gathered and submitted the signatures.
How do these measures fit the national picture?
They are part of a broader wave of state-level action. Chalkbeat notes that similar sports measures are on ballots in Washington, Arizona and Nebraska, and that a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allows states to impose such bans but does not require them. Our earlier coverage of the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding state sports bans explains that distinction, and our report on the Democrats’ internal split on transgender policy looks at the political stakes heading into the midterms.
Because a ballot measure moves the question from legislatures and courts to voters directly, outcomes can also invite legal challenges after the election. This report does not predict results. For definitions of the terms used here, see our politics guide and reference library FAQs.
What should readers keep in mind before November 3?
The measures are proposals; their texts are the controlling source, and the reporting reviewed here describes them as of early October 2026.
Several details were not stated in the sources reviewed, including vote thresholds and the full list of exceptions in Proposition 135, so they are omitted rather than assumed. This report excludes campaign finance, polling, and any court challenges. Readers who want to review the exact language can consult the official ballot materials published by each state.
Frequently asked questions
When will voters decide on these transgender ballot measures?
Colorado’s Proposition 134 appears on the November 3, 2026 ballot, according to Chalkbeat Colorado. Washington’s initiatives also go to voters this November, according to Ballotpedia.
What would Colorado’s Proposition 134 do?
It would label school and college teams as male, female, or coeducational and bar transgender students from teams that match their gender identity. If approved, it would take effect January 1, 2027, according to Chalkbeat Colorado.
What would Colorado’s Proposition 135 do?
It would prohibit surgeries on minors that alter biological sex characteristics as treatment for a minor’s perception of sex or gender, with certain exceptions, and bar state or federal funds and insurance coverage from paying for them, according to Colorado Politics.
What is Washington’s IL26-638?
It is an initiative that would prohibit biologically male students from competing with and against female students and require provider verification of sex. Ballotpedia calls it the first statewide measure of its kind to qualify for a ballot.
What is Washington’s IL26-001?
It is an initiative that would reenact the state’s Declaration of Parental and Legal Guardian Rights, including rights to review educational materials, receive certain notifications, and opt out of sexual health education, according to Ballotpedia.
Who supports and opposes the Colorado measures?
Protect Kids Colorado supports Propositions 134 and 135. Opponents include the Families Not Politics coalition and Rocky Mountain Equality, according to Chalkbeat Colorado and Colorado Politics.
Continue Exploring
More in Politics