Colorado Proposition 134 (2026): What it would require, who backed it, and what happened at the polls

Election results

Colorado Proposition 134 (2026)

Overview: what the measure would change in practice

The measure would replace Colorado’s current approach to transgender participation in high school and college sports with a birth-sex eligibility rule. Under current Colorado practice described by major coverage, transgender students must disclose their status to the school so the district can conduct a confidential evaluation to determine gender assignment for athletic eligibility. That evaluation typically includes written statements from the student, parents, teachers, friends, and doctors. Prop 134 would end that confidential evaluation and require that transgender athletes play on teams corresponding to the sex assigned at birth.

Important practical context: the Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA) does not track how many transgender athletes are currently participating in Colorado schools, according to reporting cited by Colorado Sun via NBC News. Prop 134’s passage would shift eligibility decisions away from a discretionary evaluation process and toward a birth-sex designation established at birth. The ballot language itself, however, does not spell out an appeals process for students or families, and there is ongoing debate about enforcement and implementation.

What this means in practice is a move from a two-step process—disclosure plus a confidential evaluation—to a framework where teams are assigned strictly by the birth sex of the student. The measure’s supporters argue it preserves fairness in girls’ sports, while opponents warn of vagueness and potential privacy concerns. As coverage notes, the debate hinges on how the rule would interact with existing protections and how schools would implement it in real classrooms and gyms.

What this changes in practice: existing practice involves a confidential evaluation built on disclosures and written statements; Prop 134 replaces this approach with a birth-sex framework. This distinction matters because it defines which students might be affected, how teams are determined, and who enforces the rule. The enforcement authority identified in reporting is the state education commissioner, though the ballot language itself does not establish an explicit appeals process for students or families. For readers seeking a concrete baseline, Colorado Sun/NBC News summarize the current CHSAA process and note that no data on how many transgender athletes currently compete is publicly tracked.

Legal context and potential conflicts

Colorado’s political and legal landscape includes the Gender Identity Expression Anti-discrimination Act (HB21-1108), signed in 2021, which amended Colorado law to include gender identity and gender expression as protected classes in places of public accommodation. The act explicitly includes educational institutions and sporting or recreational areas and facilities as examples in the definition of a place of public accommodation, which creates a potential legal tension with Prop 134’s birth-sex eligibility requirement.

In 2026, the national backdrop included a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J., decided 6-3. The majority held that Title IX permits schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, a position framed as protecting safety and competitive fairness. The dissent argued the equal-protection challenge remained unresolved in its reasoning. This ruling is widely cited as a major precedent shaping debates over state laws and school policies on sex-based sports eligibility.

At the state level, Ballotpedia notes that as of July 2026, 29 states had laws, regulations, or interscholastic association rules limiting participation in female sports to those designated as female by various criteria. Twenty-seven states enacted these requirements through statutes; Alaska’s rule came from a state board regulation, while Virginia’s came from the Virginia High School League’s regulation. Idaho launched the wave in 2020, with subsequent adoption in many other states. These mechanisms illustrate how Prop 134 sits within a broader, multi-state context.

Colorado’s legal landscape also includes the interaction of Prop 134 with other statewide and local measures and with court and agency actions reconciling different statutory frameworks. For readers evaluating enforcement risk and the potential for litigation, the dynamic between birth-sex-based eligibility and anti-discrimination protections will be a central area to watch as courts interpret and apply both statutes.

National landscape: how Colorado fits into a broader wave

Across 2026, several states considered or enacted measures related to sex-based sports eligibility. Notably, 27 states enacted statutes requiring sex-based eligibility, while 29 states had laws, regulations, or interscholastic association rules on point by mid-2026. Alaska operates via a state board regulation, and Virginia through the Virginia High School League’s rules. Idaho’s 2020 act began the trend, followed by multiple states in 2021–2025, with many governors and legislatures shaping how high school sports regulate participation by sex. This broader context helps readers understand that Prop 134 is part of a national pattern rather than an isolated Colorado issue.

In addition to Colorado, other states held or considered measures in 2026, including Arizona Proposition 318, Nebraska’s Sex Requirement for School and College Sports Initiative, and Washington’s Initiative 638. These measures share a common aim of restricting participation to athletes based on biological sex, though the exact mechanisms and pathways differ by state.

The national debate also touches on Title IX interpretations and the evolving understanding of gender identity in public policy. The B.P.J. decision, the ongoing statute-versus-regulation dynamics, and the cross-state comparisons offer readers a lens to evaluate Prop 134 within a wider legal and political framework.

Ballot language readability and how it’s debated

Ballotpedia reports a high readability burden for the ballot title of Prop 134. Using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), the ballot title scored FKGL 23 and FRE 2, with a total of 162 words. These scores indicate a graduate-level reading requirement for understanding the ballot language, which fuels arguments about vagueness and clarity surrounding the measure. Ballotpedia notes these scores and uses them to contextualize the criticism that the ballot language is difficult to interpret for the average reader.

Path to the ballot and signature drive

The process in Colorado for an initiated state statute requires signatures equal to 5% of the votes cast for the Secretary of State in the previous general election. For the 2026 ballot, 124,238 valid signatures were required, with an August 3, 2026 deadline. Prop 134 was filed on July 25, 2025, and cleared for signature gathering on August 25, 2025, with signatures due by February 20, 2026.

Protect Kids Colorado reported submitting over 164,000 signatures on February 20, 2026. On March 16, 2026, Secretary of State Jena Griswold announced a 5% random sample projected more than 110% of the required valid signatures, thereby qualifying the measure for the ballot. The campaign hired Morning in America to collect signatures, and a total of $206,000 was spent to gather the required signatures, resulting in a cost per required signature (CPRS) of $1.66.

Campaign finance: who paid for and against Prop 134

As of late October 2026, the Ballotpedia overview reported about $4.63 million raised in total for and against Prop 134. The leading group supporting the measure was Protect Kids Colorado, which raised roughly $215,613, while Families Not Politics, the principal opposition, raised about $4.41 million. The detailed campaign-finance tables, however, show a broader set of totals across seven opposition committees and a separate support committee, with the following totals:

Within the “Support” side, the committee Protect Kids Colorado raised $302,065.03 in cash contributions and $4,429.08 in kind, for total contributions of $306,494.11, with expenditures of $271,540.11.

Within the “Oppose” side, seven committees reported a combined $4,693,382.67 in cash contributions and $458,518.84 in kind, for total contributions of $5,151,901.51. Expenditures by opposed committees totaled $4,927,981.92. The model shows an expenditure ratio of roughly 18:1 in favor of the opposition when comparing total expenditures by opposition to total expenditures by supporters.

Largest donors to the supporters included Atheles for Action ($50,250 in cash) and Protect Kids Colorado (through PAC activity) with $39,731.39 in cash and $2,031.70 in kind, among others. The top donors to the opposition included Conservation Colorado ($659,907.79 total), Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood ($480,000.00), Cobalt Advocates ($379,000.00), One Colorado Education Fund ($334,170.86), and the ACLU ($304,273.48). These figures illustrate how donor magnitudes shape the money landscape behind Prop 134.

Largest donors (highlights)

Support side highlights: Atheles for Action — $50,250.00; Protect Kids Colorado — $41,763.09 total; Church for All Nations — $35,000.00; Pikes Peak Citizens For Life — $17,000.00.

Opposition side highlights: Conservation Colorado — $659,907.79; Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood — $480,000.00; Cobalt Advocates — $379,000.00; One Colorado Education Fund — $334,170.86; American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. — $304,273.48.

Note: Donor tables show both cash and in-kind contributions across all campaigns. The headline totals for overall support and opposition reflect the most recently processed reporting, which may differ from earlier figures due to reporting periods and last-minute filings.

Media editorials

Editorial boards from various outlets published opinions on Prop 134, with some expressing support and others opposition. The section reflects the broader media landscape in Ballotpedia’s coverage but does not assign editorial influence to the vote outcome.

Prediction markets and polls

Prediction markets exist to price outcomes relative to bettors’ expectations, with contracts reflecting market-implied probabilities. Ballotpedia presents data from Kalshi and other platforms for informational purposes, but these markets do not guarantee election outcomes.

Poll data prior to the election included a University of Colorado Boulder / YouGov survey conducted October 9–20, 2026, among 800 likely voters, with a margin of error of ±4.23 percentage points. The poll found 55% support, 34% oppose, and 10% undecided, illustrating a margin of lead that narrowed by election day in post-poll reporting.

Background: related laws and rules beyond Colorado

As of July 2026, 29 states had laws, regulations, or interscholastic association rules that limited participation on female school sports teams to those identified as female based on specified criteria. Twenty-seven of these enacted the requirements through statutes; Alaska’s policy came through a state board regulation, while Virginia’s was adopted by the statewide interscholastic association. Idaho’s 2020 act started the wave, with subsequent adoption in many states. The West Virginia v. B.P.J. decision and related state actions shape the evolving legal framework for sex-based sports eligibility.

Measures similar to Prop 134 appeared on the 2026 ballot in other states, including Arizona Proposition 318, Nebraska’s measure, and Washington Initiative 638, which proposed restricting participation based on sex in school sports. Ballotpedia’s compilation places Prop 134 in a broader national context of state-level debates about sex-based eligibility in athletics.

Path to the ballot: what got Prop 134 on the ballot

The Colorado process for an initiated state statute requires signatures equal to 5% of the votes cast for the Secretary of State in the preceding general election. For 2026, 124,238 valid signatures were required. The initiative was filed on July 25, 2025, cleared for signature gathering on August 25, 2025, with signatures due by February 20, 2026. Protect Kids Colorado submitted over 164,000 signatures on February 20, 2026, and the Secretary of State announced on March 16, 2026 that a 5% random sample projected more than 110% of the required valid signatures, qualifying the measure for the ballot. A signature-gathering contract with Morning in America produced a reported total of $206,000 spent to obtain the required signatures, resulting in a cost per required signature of $1.66.

Notes on implementation, enforcement, and related Colorado law

Prop 134 designates enforcement by the state education commissioner for schools that violate the policy, but the ballot language does not specify an appeals process for students or families. The measure exists alongside Colorado’s Gender Identity Expression Anti-discrimination Act (HB21-1108, 2021), which amended Colorado law to protect gender identity and gender expression in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and sporting facilities. Courts and state agencies may need to reconcile these statutes if conflicts arise, particularly as CHSAA’s role in Colorado high school sports intersects with both the birth-sex rule and anti-discrimination protections.

Additional context at the state level includes the fact that Alaska’s and Virginia’s mechanisms operate through different structures (state board regulation and interscholastic association rule, respectively). The enforcement and interpretation of these mechanisms vary by jurisdiction and would likely be central in any disputes arising after Prop 134’s implementation.

How to cast a vote

For information about voter registration, ballot access, and polling locations, refer to Colorado’s official voting resources.

See also

External links and related Ballotpedia pages provide additional context on ballot measures, campaign finance, and the national landscape of sex-based sports eligibility rules.

External links

• Colorado Secretary of State Initiatives Filings
• Initiative 109 Full Text

Footnotes

Note: This article compiles information from Ballotpedia, NBC News, Colorado Sun, and other reporting sources available as of the publication date. Links and citations are embedded within the text where applicable.