Voters in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska and Washington will decide transgender sports ballot measures on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, in a set of contests that could reshape who may compete on girls' and women's school sports teams in those states. The four measures are among more than 140 statewide ballot questions across 39 states on Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and they arrive after a June Supreme Court ruling allowed West Virginia to enforce its law preventing students classified as male at birth from competing in female sports.

Key Points

• Arizona Proposition 318 would extend a sports and facilities ban to private schools and athletic associations and define sex by the original birth certificate.
• Colorado Proposition 134 would require school and college teams to be designated male, female or coeducational, based on biological sex.
• Nebraska Initiative Measure 442 would put a sex-based team designation rule into the state constitution.
• Washington Initiative 638 would bar biologically male students from female school sports and require health-care provider verification.
• Supporters say the measures protect fairness and opportunity for girls and women; opponents say they exclude transgender students and raise privacy concerns.

What Happened

The measures reached the ballot through different routes — legislative referrals and citizen initiatives — but they share a central question: whether eligibility for girls' and women's teams should be decided by biological sex, and, if so, how schools should verify it. In Arizona and Nebraska, voters are being asked to go further than laws already on the books. In Colorado and Washington, the proposals would create new statewide rules for school and, in Colorado's case, college sports.

The debate has become a prominent campaign issue in the midterm elections. Reuters has reported that Republican candidates have sought to highlight the issue after political strategists credited President Donald Trump's attacks on transgender rights in 2024 with helping him to victory. Proponents of the limits say they protect girls and women, while critics say they discriminate against transgender students.

The measures do not all work the same way. Some would change ordinary law, which a later legislature could amend. Nebraska's proposal would amend the state constitution, making it harder for lawmakers to reverse. Washington's proposal is distinctive because it would require documentation from a health-care provider before a student could take part in female school sports.

Background: How Each State Got Here

Arizona already prohibits schools from allowing students of the male sex to participate on teams designated for girls or females. Proposition 318 would expand that ban to all schools and athletic associations, rather than only public or private schools that compete against public schools. It would define sex as the “biological status as male or female as recorded at birth on the individual's original birth certificate.” It would also prohibit schools and athletic associations from allowing a student, employee, athlete or other individual to use a restroom, shower room, locker room or private space not designated for their sex.

Colorado's Proposition 134, also known as Initiative 109, would require student athletes to participate on women's or men's school and collegiate teams that match their sex. The proposal defines sex by biological reproductive systems, describing females as those “whose reproductive system is organized around the production of ova” and males as those “whose biological reproductive system is organized around the production of sperm.” Teams would be classified as males, men or boys; females, women or girls; or coeducational or mixed. A team designated for women, girls or females would not be open to male participants, and vice versa, while coeducational teams would have no such limit. Each school's governing body would adopt a policy implementing the measure.

Nebraska's legislature enacted a law in 2025 requiring students in kindergarten through grade 12 and collegiate sports to compete on teams designated for their sex, defined by reproductive systems. That law also required students to provide a school with a document, signed by or under the authority of a doctor, confirming their sex. Initiative Measure 442 would amend the state constitution to require public schools to designate male, female and coed teams based on what the measure calls “biological sex,” and to bar students of the male sex from teams designed for females. It would apply to teams sponsored by public schools and to private schools that compete against public-school teams.

Washington's Initiative 638 reached the ballot after the political action committee Let's Go Washington gathered around 445,000 signatures in support. It would prohibit “biologically male students from competing with and against female students” in school sports with separate teams, or in individual competitions for male and female students. A student seeking to participate in activities designated for female students would have to provide documentation from a health-care provider verifying “the student's biological sex based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.”

Transgender Sports Ballot Measures: The Arguments on Both Sides

In Arizona, a supporter said in August: “As a father and a former softball coach for my daughter, I know how important it is to Protect Girls' Sports. Arizonans must vote YES on Prop. 318.” A candidate for the US House, JoAnna Mendoza, opposed the measure alongside Attorney General Kris Mayes, saying: “As a mom, I know that parents just want to protect their kids — on the playing fields and across Arizona. Rules about keeping sports fair and safe for young people should be made by the people who know the most — parents, coaches, and sports associations — not politicians.”

In Colorado, Protect Kids Colorado, which backs Proposition 134, said: “It's not fair — It's not safe. Bigger, stronger biological males are invading girls' sports in Colorado, taking away our girls' dignity, safety, and opportunity.” One Colorado executive director Nadine Bridges, whose organisation leads the campaign against the initiative, said the proposition is “vague, poorly written, and leave[s] critical questions unanswered.” Bridges asked: “Who decides who gets questioned, who gets inspected, and which kids are going to be singled out? When laws are written this vaguely, they open the door to unintended consequences that can cause serious harm to all of our kids.”

In Nebraska, Fairness for Girls, the campaign sponsoring the measure, said: “Nebraskans support preserving opportunities for young girls, protecting female athletes' safety, and keeping the process fair. Biological males competing in girls' sports pose a physical safety risk to young girls while also taking away opportunities for medals, tournament advancement and scholarships.” The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which opposes the amendment, said: “Ballot measures that target trans people including youth are an attack on fundamental freedoms and an attempt to write discrimination into law. Voters deserve policies that protect people’s dignity, not political tactics that single out vulnerable communities.” Rainbow Parents of Nebraska argued the amendment “does NOT protect women as they like to claim,” calling it “another distraction and an attempt to increase conservative voter turnout,” and noted that transgender people make up less than 1% of the state's population. Advocate ranked Nebraska as the state with the sixth-highest percentage of transgender people in 2025, finding that 1.04% of adults in Nebraska are trans, totalling 15,700 people.

In Washington, supporters Ahnaleigh Wilson and Frances Staudt, two high-school athletes, said in a statement with Let's Go Washington: “As [two] female athletes who have been directly impacted by boys competing in girls' sports, we are standing up for all 110,000 girls playing sports in Washington state middle and high schools.” No Hate in WA State countered: “This poorly written initiative will subject many girls to invasive, medically unnecessary and harmful genital exams to verify their sex.” The group added: “It's true some people have a difficult time understanding what it means to be transgender, and we all want fairness and safety in sports. Only a handful of transgender girls play afterschool sports in Washington, yet [Initiative 638] will rollback Washington's successful sports policy in place since 2007 and institute a statewide blanket ban.”

Why It Matters

The results will matter beyond the four states because the measures test different ways of writing the same policy into law: a broader statutory ban in Arizona, a three-category team system in Colorado, a constitutional rule in Nebraska, and a verification requirement in Washington. A constitutional change is the hardest to undo; a verification rule raises the most detailed questions about implementation, including which students are asked for documentation, what documentation is accepted, and how schools store it.

The measures also sit alongside other ballot questions on transgender policy. Colorado Proposition 135 would prevent health-care professionals from performing surgery on minors with the intention of altering their sex characteristics. In Missouri, voters will decide on a measure that would repeal a state constitutional right to reproductive freedom and prohibit certain medical or surgical procedures for transgender minors. Those questions are separate from the sports measures, but they show how broadly the issue appears on 2026 ballots.

For schools, the practical stakes are immediate: coaches, athletic directors and district lawyers would need to translate a winning measure into eligibility rules, forms and appeals processes before the next sports seasons. For students, the stakes are about access to teams, locker rooms and competitions — and, in Washington's case, about medical documentation. For voters, the measures are a rare chance to decide a contested social policy directly, rather than through a legislature alone.

What Happens Next

Voting takes place on Tuesday, November 3, and results will be counted state by state, with some races potentially taking days to call if margins are close or mail ballots arrive under state deadlines. If a measure passes, the next steps will be implementation guidance from state education and athletic authorities, followed by the school-level policies each proposal requires. If a measure fails, existing state law remains in place, and supporters or opponents could return to the legislature or to a future ballot.

Legal challenges are a realistic next chapter to watch, given the history of litigation over school sports eligibility and the June Supreme Court ruling on West Virginia's law. Courts, not ballot wording alone, will ultimately shape how far any winning measure reaches. US News Pulse will follow the results in all four states and the implementation decisions that follow.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which four states are voting on transgender sports measures?

Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska and Washington. Arizona votes on Proposition 318, Colorado on Proposition 134, Nebraska on Initiative Measure 442, and Washington on Initiative 638.

What would Arizona Proposition 318 do?

It would expand the existing ban to private schools and athletic associations, define sex by the original birth certificate, and restrict restrooms, shower rooms, locker rooms and private spaces by sex.

What is different about Washington Initiative 638?

It would require a student seeking to join female school sports to provide health-care provider documentation verifying biological sex, based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or testosterone levels.

Would Nebraska's measure be harder to reverse than the others?

Yes, in one important respect: Initiative Measure 442 would amend the state constitution, while the other three measures would change ordinary law or create a new statutory rule.

When will voters know the results?

Voting is on November 3, 2026. Some results may be clear on election night, while close contests or late-counted mail ballots could take longer to call.

Related coverage: Trump says he will become 'Mr Veto' if Democrats win Congress, Ohio sets early-voting record with 1.7 million ballots cast, and NAACP asks court to block federal agents as election monitors.