Four states face a pivotal decision on Tuesday as voters weigh in on ballot measures that could fundamentally reshape eligibility rules for female athletes. In Arizona and Nebraska, residents are voting to expand or entrench existing bans on transgender girls in school sports, while Washington and Colorado consider establishing new, statewide restrictions where none currently exist. The outcome in these four states will determine whether biological sex, verified through medical documentation, becomes the sole criterion for participation in girls’ and women’s K-12 and collegiate athletics, or if gender identity standards remain in place.
Arizona and Nebraska Seek to Entrench Existing Bans
Arizona and Nebraska already have laws restricting biological males from competing in female sports, but Tuesday’s votes aim to widen the scope of those restrictions. In Arizona, a “yes” vote would expand the current law to apply to private schools, a significant shift from its previous focus on public institutions. The measure would also require all schools to ensure bathrooms and locker rooms are accessible only to athletes whose birth certificate matches the gender associated with the facility. This provision directly addresses concerns about privacy and safety in shared changing areas, placing the burden of verification on school administrators and healthcare providers.
Nebraska’s approach is constitutional in nature. The measure there would codify the ban in the state constitution, making it significantly harder for future lawmakers to reverse the policy through simple legislative action. By elevating the restriction to the highest level of state law, proponents argue they are ensuring long-term stability for girls’ sports programs. For voters in both states, the choice is between strengthening the current legal framework or leaving it unchanged, with the former option locking in stricter eligibility standards that align with biological sex definitions rather than gender identity.
Washington and Colorado Face New Statewide Restrictions
Washington and Colorado present a different scenario, as neither state currently has statewide sex-based restrictions for school sports. In Washington, current eligibility rules allow students to compete based on their gender identity. This policy was tested earlier this year in Camas, where a boy switched to the girls’ team mid-season under existing guidelines. The proposed initiative, I-638, would prohibit students defined as biologically male from competing in girls’ K-12 interscholastic sports. To participate, girls seeking to join these teams would need to provide documentation from a healthcare professional verifying their biological sex based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.
Colorado’s Proposition 134 takes a broader approach, establishing statewide sex-based participation requirements for school sports from K-12 through the college level. Unlike Washington’s measure, which specifies medical verification, Colorado’s proposal defines females as “a person whose biological reproductive system is organized around the production of ova” and males as “a person whose biological reproductive system is organized around the production of sperm.” The measure covers public, charter, and private schools, as well as colleges and universities, applying to interscholastic, intramural, and school-sponsored club sports. However, it does not specify a particular verification method, leaving schools to establish their own eligibility policies. This lack of standardized verification distinguishes it from the more prescriptive approach in Washington, potentially leading to varied implementation across the state’s educational institutions.
Opponents Warn of Discrimination and Invasive Exams
Opponents of the measures argue that the initiatives discriminate against transgender students and expose athletes to unnecessary medical scrutiny. Organizations such as No Hate in Washington State contend that the requirement for biological sex verification could subject girls to invasive genital examinations. They argue that such procedures are not standard in sports physicals and that the initiative’s language creates a pathway for discriminatory practices against transgender youth. Critics emphasize that the measures effectively bar transgender girls from participating in sports that align with their gender identity, isolating them from their peers and limiting their access to athletic opportunities.
The debate has intensified as Republican candidates highlight the issue on the campaign trail, following President Donald Trump’s attacks on transgender rights in 2024. Political strategists have credited these attacks with helping Trump secure victory, and the current ballot measures serve as a public test of support for his administration’s priorities regarding transgender athletes. Opponents frame the votes as a referendum on the rights of transgender students, arguing that the measures prioritize biological determinism over individual identity and inclusion. They warn that the potential for invasive exams and discriminatory enforcement could chill participation among transgender youth, who may fear medical scrutiny or exclusion from their school communities.
Proponents Argue Measures Protect Biological Females
Proponents of the measures argue that they are necessary to protect biological females from unfair competition in sports. They contend that biological sex, particularly regarding reproductive anatomy and genetic makeup, confers physiological advantages that cannot be negated by gender identity. Supporters point to the importance of maintaining fair and equitable competition for girls and women, asserting that the current gender identity standards in states like Washington undermine the integrity of female sports. They argue that the measures are not about discrimination but about safeguarding the opportunities and safety of biological females in athletic settings.
In response to concerns about invasive examinations, proponents describe the “invasive exam” argument as fearmongering. They state that biological sex can be verified as part of a routine sports physical, a process high school athletes have undergone for years. Additionally, proponents point to simple cheek swabs, which collect DNA from inside the mouth, as a non-invasive alternative for verifying biological sex. They argue that these methods are standard in medical and athletic contexts and do not require the invasive procedures opponents fear. By framing verification as a routine, low-stakes process, supporters aim to alleviate concerns about medical overreach while reinforcing their position that biological sex is the appropriate basis for sports eligibility.
Voters Decide on Locker Room Access and Verification Standards
The ballot measures also touch on the practical implications of locker room access and healthcare verification standards. In Arizona, the requirement for birth certificate matching in bathrooms and locker rooms adds a layer of administrative complexity for schools, which must ensure compliance with the new facility access rules. This aspect of the measure highlights the intersection of sports eligibility and daily school life, raising questions about how schools will manage privacy and inclusion for all students. In Washington, the specific mandate for healthcare provider documentation sets a clear standard for eligibility, requiring students to engage with medical professionals to verify their biological sex before competing.
Colorado’s approach, by contrast, leaves the details of verification to individual schools, which could lead to inconsistent policies across the state. This variability may result in some schools adopting strict medical verification while others rely on self-identification or other methods, creating a patchwork of eligibility rules. Voters in these states are effectively deciding whether to impose a uniform, state-mandated standard for biological sex verification or to allow local institutions to define their own approaches. The outcome will shape the future of school sports in these states, influencing how athletes are categorized, how facilities are accessed, and how medical documentation is used in athletic eligibility. As polls close, the focus shifts to the tallying of votes, with predictions suggesting a close race in some states, particularly in Washington where the market-implied probability of the initiative passing was 64% at the time of writing.
Sources
- Four states vote Tuesday on ballot measures that could reshape girls' and women's sports nationwide
- Trump’s agenda meets the ballot box as states vote on abortion, redistricting and voter ID mandates
- The crucial local votes on abortion, wealth taxes, and election rules
- Abortion, transgender rights and voter ID: These are the major 2026 midterms ballot measures voters will decide tomorrow
- Abortion, transgender rights and voter ID: These are the major 2026 midterms ballot measures voters will decide tomorrow
Photo: luthfi alfarizi / Unsplash (Unsplash License)
