More States Banned Trans Kids From Sports This Week

Four different states put forward ballot measures on Tuesday that, if passed, would either strengthen or create new laws keeping trans children out of school sports. Though the night saw massive Democratic victories, even in typical Republican strongholds like Kansas, Texas, and South Carolina, the four initiatives on the ballot tell a different story.

In two states, Arizona and Nebraska, the language will strengthen bans that were already on the books. In the other two states, Washington and Colorado, voters were asked to create new bans where none existed. As of Thursday, ballot measures in Arizona, Nebraska, and Washington were all projected to pass. Colorado‘s was too close to call, but the numbers leaned toward passage. Per TransAthlete.com, the passage of all four would bring the number of bans in the country, through either law or policy, up to 31.

Here is how the four proposals break down:

Arizona Proposition 318 (Projected to pass)

In Arizona, voters saw a ballot measure that will require public and private youth sports teams to designate a team as male, female, or co-ed, and children will be required to play on a team based on the sex they were assigned at birth. Those assigned male at birth are explicitly banned from playing on girls’ teams.

The new law also prohibits schools and athletic associations from allowing anyone to use a private space—such as a bathroom or a locker room—that isn’t in line with the sex they were assigned at birth.

Arizona already had a ban on trans girls in sports for several years that then-Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, had signed, but a lawsuit kept it from taking effect until this year. That lawsuit was dropped after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in support of laws banning trans girls and women from playing in public school sports.

Later in 2022, Arizona elected Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who handily won re-election Tuesday night. Similar legislation regarding bathrooms and locker rooms had gone before Hobbs but, per Tempe’s KJZZ, she vetoed them in 2023, 2024, and 2025.

Colorado Proposition 134 (Too close to call)

A similar measure went before voters in Colorado. It asked them to define boys and girls based on their sex organs at birth, and it declared that all school sports teams be either male, female, or co-ed. Unless the team is expressly co-ed, every child born with male sex organs must play on a boys’ team, and every child born with female sex organs must be play on a girls’ team.

Like many bans, it does not explicitly outlaw trans children from playing youth sports, but that is what it will do. In Colorado, a trans child would only be able play on a co-ed sports team. However, the proposition only affects state statutes, not the state constitution. As The Colorado Sun reported, the legislature could “tweak or totally eliminate changes made by the initiative should it pass.”

Colorado is home to Jefferson County Public Schools, which have been attacked by Donald Trump’s Education Department for policies allowing trans students to participate in school sports. In July, the school district sued the Trump administration in response to its threat to pull $50 million in yearly funding, Colorado Newsline reported.  

Nebraska Initiative 442 (Projected to pass)

Nebraska already had a statewide law banning trans girls from participating in school sports. Signed into law in 2025, the legislation said that boys and girls had to participate in sports based on the sex they were assigned at birth. This year’s ballot initiative puts that language into the state constitution, making it harder to undo in the future. It also explicitly says that girls’ teams “shall not be open to students of the male sex.”

Washington Measure 638 (Projected to pass)

In Washington, voters saw a proposal that would ban “biologically male” students from competing in girls’ sports. Unlike other ballot measures, this one did not specifically define male or female. Instead, the ban would be achieved by adding language to state statutes requiring proof from a healthcare provider that a student is female before she participates in women’s sports. The law makes no mention of a similar test being required for boys.