In the lead-up to the 2026 elections, voters in Colorado and Washington will decide on ballot measures that would prohibit transgender women and girls from competing in female sports categories, marking the first time such bans are being decided directly by the public in these reliably Democratic states. These initiatives come after state legislatures in both states rejected similar proposals, prompting activists to gather sufficient support to place the issue on the ballot.
The proposed bans aim to preserve what supporters describe as fair competition and separate spaces for female athletes. Advocates have expressed optimism that the measures will pass, potentially influencing similar efforts in other states where lawmakers have so far blocked such restrictions. Twenty-seven states, primarily those with Republican control of both legislative and executive branches, already enforce laws banning transgender athletes from female sports.
Public opinion polls indicate growing support for these restrictions nationwide. A Quinnipiac University survey conducted in June found that approximately 70% of registered voters oppose allowing transgender women and girls to participate on female sports teams, though Democrats remain divided on the issue. Experts note that the absence of polling data specific to Colorado’s ballot makes the outcome uncertain; some expect the measure to attract more support than certain Republican candidates running in the state.
The debate centers on whether transgender women and girls have an athletic advantage, with factors such as puberty, sport type, and hormone therapy duration playing roles. For some athletes, the issue is deeply personal. Seventeen-year-old Ahnaleigh Wilson, a high school junior from Eastmont High School near Seattle, has publicly spoken against allowing transgender girls to compete in girls' sports after finishing second to a transgender athlete in a 1,600-meter race last year. Wilson cited Title IX—the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education—to argue for preserving women’s competitive categories.
Opponents of the bans contend that excluding transgender athletes is discriminatory and harms young people. Nadine Bridges, executive director of One Colorado, which opposes the Colorado initiative, said the measures claim to protect children but instead discriminate against them.
Washington’s proposal would require a healthcare provider to verify an athlete’s “biological sex” based on reproductive anatomy, genetics, or natural testosterone levels. Supporters argue this verification is straightforward, relying on medical history and routine care. However, some healthcare professionals object, warning that the language could mandate invasive physical examinations or costly tests, potentially discouraging participation among all girls in sports.
Meanwhile, similar measures are on the ballots in Arizona and Nebraska, with Arizona seeking to extend an existing ban to private schools, and Nebraska proposing to enshrine transgender athlete restrictions in its state constitution.
These ballot initiatives emerge amid shifting national dynamics, as some Democratic leaders reconsider their approach to transgender policies, and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state sports bans. As voters in these states prepare to weigh in, the outcomes may signal the future trajectory of transgender rights and sports policies across the country.