Voters in Washington and Colorado have approved ballot measures that restrict transgender athletes from participating in school-sanctioned sports designated for the gender they identify with.
Measure 638 in Washington, which passed with 56% of the vote, prohibits students assigned male at birth from competing in female-designated sports. The measure also requires athletes seeking to play in female sports to provide a statement from a health care provider verifying their gender. Proposition 134 in Colorado, supported by 52% of voters, mandates that educational institutions and athletic associations assign sports as male, female, or coed, with athletes restricted to the gender they were assigned at birth.
The votes mark the first time left-leaning states have enacted such restrictions through ballot initiatives, signaling a shift in how the issue is being addressed outside traditional legislative processes. The measures come amid a broader national debate over transgender rights in athletics, with similar policies already in place in several conservative-led states.
Immediate Impact on School Sports
The newly approved measures will take effect immediately, altering participation rules for students in both states. In Washington, schools and athletic associations must implement policies by the start of the next academic year to comply with Measure 638. Colorado’s Proposition 134 requires institutions to reclassify sports teams and update participation guidelines within 90 days of certification.
Athletes and families in both states are now navigating the practical implications of these changes. High school and college athletes who have transitioned or identify as female but were assigned male at birth may face restrictions on team eligibility. Advocacy groups on both sides of the issue have begun organizing informational sessions to clarify the new rules for students, parents, and school administrators.
Supporters Cite Fairness, Opponents Warn of Discrimination
Proponents of the measures argue that the policies are necessary to maintain competitive fairness in female sports. They contend that allowing athletes who were assigned male at birth to compete in female-designated categories could create an uneven playing field, citing physiological advantages such as muscle mass, bone density, and lung capacity. Some supporters point to anecdotal cases where they believe transgender athletes have outperformed cisgender female competitors in track and field events.
"This is about protecting the integrity of girls’ sports," said Ahnaleigh Wilson, a 17-year-old track athlete from Washington who has publicly advocated for the measure. Wilson has stated that she has competed against and placed behind transgender athletes in meets, and she argues that the new rules will ensure a level playing field for female athletes. "We deserve a fair chance to compete and win on our own terms."
Opponents of the measures, including LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations and civil rights groups, argue that the restrictions amount to discrimination against transgender students. They emphasize that the policies could force transgender athletes to compete in categories that do not align with their gender identity, potentially leading to exclusion or psychological harm. Some opponents also highlight concerns about the requirement for athletes to provide medical documentation of their gender, which they argue could be invasive or difficult to obtain.
"These measures send a harmful message to transgender youth that they are not welcome in sports or in society," said Doriane Lambelet Coleman, a professor at Duke Law School and a vocal critic of policies restricting transgender participation in sports. Coleman, who has written extensively on the topic, argues that the measures are based on outdated assumptions about gender and athletic performance.
Political and Cultural Context
The passage of these measures in Washington and Colorado reflects a broader trend in which transgender sports policies have become a bipartisan issue. While conservative states have historically led efforts to restrict transgender participation in sports, the approval of Measure 638 and Proposition 134 demonstrates that the issue has gained traction in politically progressive states as well.
Political analysts suggest that the measures’ success in left-leaning states may embolden advocates in other blue states to pursue similar ballot initiatives. The votes also come amid a national conversation about the role of direct democracy in shaping policy, particularly in areas where state legislatures have been slow to act.
In Washington, the measure was placed on the ballot after a coalition of advocacy groups and concerned parents gathered enough signatures to qualify it for a vote. Similarly, Proposition 134 in Colorado was driven by grassroots organizing, with supporters arguing that state lawmakers had failed to address their concerns about transgender participation in sports.
Reactions from Athletic Organizations
The new restrictions have prompted responses from athletic organizations in both states. The Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA), which oversees high school sports, has stated that it will work with schools to implement the measure while ensuring compliance with state and federal laws. The WIAA has also emphasized the importance of providing support for transgender students during the transition.
In Colorado, the Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA) has similarly pledged to assist schools in navigating the new requirements. Both organizations have indicated that they will monitor the implementation of the measures and address any unintended consequences that may arise.
Broader National Implications
The approval of Measure 638 and Proposition 134 adds to a growing patchwork of state-level policies governing transgender participation in sports. As of the 2026 election, at least 20 states have enacted laws or regulations restricting transgender athletes from competing in female-designated sports, according to tracking by advocacy groups.
The measures in Washington and Colorado may serve as a model for other states considering similar ballot initiatives. Political observers note that the success of these measures could influence future campaigns, particularly in states where legislative efforts to restrict transgender rights have stalled. Supporters of the measures have already signaled their intent to pursue similar ballot measures in other states, while opponents vow to challenge the policies in court.
Next Steps for Affected Students
For transgender students and their families, the passage of these measures raises immediate questions about participation and eligibility. Schools in both states are expected to provide guidance on how the new rules will be applied, including potential exemptions or alternative participation options for affected athletes.
Advocacy groups on both sides of the issue have announced plans to offer resources and legal support to students and families navigating the changes. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has stated that it is exploring legal challenges to the measures, arguing that they violate federal protections for transgender students. Meanwhile, groups supporting the measures have pledged to defend the policies in court, framing them as necessary protections for female athletes.