🗳️ Covering anti-trans ballot measures this November
This election will mark the first test of a new strategy to limit trans rights through popular vote.
This November, voters in five states will get the opportunity to vote on issues related to trans rights. Four measures on state ballots could restrict trans students from sports teams, a type of policy the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled in support of. Two other measures are about youth gender care, and one relates to LGBTQ curricula and student privacy.
This election will mark the first test of a new strategy to limit trans rights through popular vote. In some places, like Arizona, the move could be a way for Republican legislators to get around a Democratic governor’s veto. In others, like Missouri, polling suggests that anti-trans policies might have enough support to help pass less popular anti-abortion measures.
Across the country, these votes could have serious consequences for young trans and queer people. Read on for information about the relevant ballot measures and tips on covering trans rights in an election context.
Arizona Proposition 318
Arizona Proposition 318, if passed, would expand existing state restrictions on trans athletes’ ability to play. Arizona’s current sports ban doesn’t apply to athletes who wish to play on men’s or boys’ teams, but this measure would expand the ban to cover all transgender students. The vast majority of existing state policies only apply to trans women and girls; Arizona would be the seventh state to restrict trans boys’ ability to play. Proposition 318 would also require athletes to use bathrooms and changing rooms that match their “original birth certificate.” Arizona is not one of the 21 states that already prevent trans students from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity. The policy technically applies to bathrooms and locker rooms that are “integral to athletic engagement,” but that vague wording could be used to limit the use of all school facilities.
Colorado Initiative 109
Colorado Initiative 109, also known as Colorado Proposition 134, is another proposed sports ban. If passed, Colorado would join the 27 other states with laws restricting trans athletes. (Two additional states have bans through state-level policies that aren’t legislation.) Colorado’s existing nondiscrimination policy allows trans students to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity, and Initiative 109 would not disrupt that. The policy would apply to both girls’ and boys’ teams, which, again, is not common in similar state laws.
Colorado Initiative 110
Colorado Initiative 110, also known as Proposition 135, would make it illegal for doctors to perform gender-affirming surgery on trans minors. (The existing data suggests that such procedures are already extremely rare.) If this initiative passes, it would disrupt Colorado’s status as one of the 16 states with a “shield law” protecting youth access to gender care, although non-surgical care would still be protected.
Missouri Amendment 3
Missouri Amendment 3 is also a proposed youth gender care ban, along with an abortion ban. The state’s current law against youth gender care is set to expire in 2027. Amendment 3 would supplant the current ban and remove an exemption allowing youth to continue puberty blockers or HRT if they were prescribed that medication before August 28, 2023. If this amendment passes, it would make Missouri the ninth state to ban youth gender care without any exceptions for existing patients. Currently, Missouri protects the right to abortion in its state constitution. Amendment 3 would change that, banning most abortions after 12 weeks.
Nebraska constitutional amendment
A Nebraska constitutional amendment would restrict school sports teams based on “biological sex.” Nebraska already has a sports ban in place that applies to both girls’ and boys’ teams, and this amendment — though targeted at transfeminine athletes — wouldn’t create any additional restrictions. The main change is that it would enshrine the policy in the state constitution, which is more difficult to change than state law. (Depending on the amendment process used, changing Nebraska’s constitution typically requires either three-fifths or four-fifths of the state legislature to agree, rather than a simple majority.)
Washington Initiative IL26-638
Washington Initiative IL26-638 is another proposed sports ban. If passed, Washington would join the 27 other states with laws restricting trans athletes. (Two additional states have bans through state-level policies that aren’t legislation.) Like most similar laws, this initiative only applies to girls’ sports teams. Notably, Initiative IL26-638 explicitly mentions genital exams. If passed, it would require students on girls’ teams to submit evidence of a doctor’s exam “that verifies the student's biological sex, relying only on… reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.” Only three other state sports bans — in Idaho, Kentucky, and Wyoming — refer to physical exams as a method for determining a student’s sex.
Washington Initiative IL26-001
Washington Initiative IL26-001 would allow parents to opt their children out of any school activities related to sexuality or sexual health. The measure would also permit parents to access all student counseling records, regardless of their child’s consent. If passed, Initiative IL26-001 would require schools to notify parents of any “student engagements” related to their child’s gender, sexuality, or “mental health or psychological problems.” This would make Washington the 16th state requiring the forced outing of trans (and queer) students in certain situations.
Reporting tips:
- Most states with anti-trans measures on the ballot have already passed certain restrictions on trans rights into law. Consider how each measure fits into the broader political landscape in your state. Don’t assume the sole purpose is to change the law, when other factors may be at play — like increasing conservative voter turnout.
- Some states have seen effective fundraising efforts against these measures. In Colorado, for example, the campaign supporting the anti-trans initiatives has raised less than $200,000, while the campaign in opposition has raised nearly $1 million. In other states, like Washington, individual conservative donors have spent millions trying to pass these laws. Look into the funding on both sides of ballot measures, using public campaign finance records.
- At least two other states, Maine and Nevada, came close to having similar initiatives on their ballots this year. If you live in a state without such ballot measures, you may want to research whether any local organizations are already exploring this strategy for future elections. It will also be useful to talk to trans rights groups in your state, to find out how they’re responding to this new trend.
- Remember that public opinion doesn’t dictate human rights, and a vote doesn’t change medical best practices or educators’ knowledge. Your reporting on these measures should include context from experts who work with trans kids. Make sure to also talk to trans youth themselves, who are experts on their own experiences.
