Colorado voters to decide school sports rules, surgery ban for minors

Colorado voters will decide Nov. 3 whether school sports teams must be sorted by biological sex and whether to ban surgeries on minors performed in response to a minor’s perception of sex or gender.

Propositions 134 and 135 come from the same group, Protect Kids Colorado. It turned in nearly 169,000 signatures for the sports measure and about 165,000 for the surgery measure, Colorado Politics and The Gazette reported. Each needed 124,238 valid signatures. Both would change state statute, not the constitution, and each passes with a simple majority.

“Across Colorado, citizens are stepping forward because they believe the legislature has failed to protect children and families,” Erin Lee, the group’s executive director, said in a statement reported by Colorado Newsline when the measures qualified in March.

Opponents, who have raised far more money, say the measures put government between families and their schools and doctors. “These proposals go too far,” Nadine Bridges, executive director of the LGBTQ advocacy group One Colorado, said in a statement reported by CBS Colorado.

Proposition 134 has a Cortez connection. The Montezuma-Cortez School District was one of eight plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit over the state rules the measure would override.

The descriptions of each measure below come from the 2026 State Ballot Information Booklet, known as the Blue Book, which the Legislature’s nonpartisan staff prepares for every statewide election.

What Proposition 134 would do

Every school-based team or sport, from elementary school through college, would have to be designated one of three ways: for biological males only, for biological females only, or coeducational.

Students would compete on a team matching their biological sex or on a coed team. A female student could join a male-designated team if the school offers no equivalent female team in that sport.

The measure defines sex by reproductive cells. A male is someone whose reproductive system is organized around producing sperm, and a female is someone whose system is organized around producing eggs. It does not say how a school must verify a student’s sex. Schools and districts “must determine their own verification procedures,” the Blue Book says.

The requirement reaches public, charter, private and religious K-12 schools and public and private colleges. It covers intramural and school-sponsored after-school programs as well as interscholastic teams. Youth leagues that operate separately from schools are not covered.

No government agency, accrediting body or athletic association could investigate or penalize a school for designating a team as female-only.

Enforcement falls to the state commissioner of education, and only for public K-12 districts. The measure sets no enforcement mechanism for private schools, colleges or athletic associations.

A yes vote means all school teams must be designated male, female or mixed, and schools must adopt sex-eligibility policies. A no vote means schools, districts and athletic associations keep setting their own policies under current state and federal law.

Current law and the Cortez connection

The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act bars discrimination based on gender identity. Under it, public schools and colleges may not exclude students from extracurricular activities that align with their gender identity, the Blue Book says. It adds that it is “unclear at this time” how the measure would affect that law.

The Colorado High School Activities Association recognizes a right for transgender athletes to participate. At the college level, NCAA rules already limit women’s sports to athletes assigned female at birth.

Federal policy has shifted. A February 2025 executive order directs agencies to read Title IX as barring biological males from female teams. In June 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title IX permits states to keep separate male and female sports based on biological sex, according to the Blue Book.

In 2025 the Montezuma-Cortez School District joined seven other districts and charter schools, most in the Colorado Springs area, in suing CHSAA and the state over how teams are classified by sex.

The plaintiffs settled with CHSAA in December 2025. The association agreed not to sanction them for keeping separate teams for biological males and females, and the plaintiffs agreed to pay CHSAA $60,000 for legal and operating costs, Chalkbeat Colorado reported.

Senior U.S. District Judge John Kane dismissed the rest of the case, against the state, on Aug. 26, ruling the districts lacked standing, Chalkbeat reported. District 49 Superintendent Peter Hilts said the district was considering how to proceed.

The case for and against Proposition 134

Supporters argue that female athletes should compete against other females. Allowing biological males on female teams, they say in the Blue Book, creates an unfair advantage that can cost female athletes wins, records, podium spots and scholarships. They also cite safety and privacy, pointing to physical differences between the sexes and to shared locker rooms.

“Prop 134 gives every girl a fair shot at a roster spot, a podium, and a scholarship,” said Paula Scanlan, a former NCAA Division I swimmer and co-founder of Athletes for Action, in a news release. The Oct. 1 release announced a statewide video ad campaign for the measure by the national group and Protect Kids Colorado.

Opponents argue the measure sets a statewide standard without a clear way to apply it. They say that leaves each district to write its own verification policy and could subject many athletes, not only transgender students, to invasive or expensive testing. They also note it applies at every age and ability level, including young children who are not competing for championships or scholarships.

Mardi Moore, CEO of Rocky Mountain Equality, called the measure “an attack on Colorado families modeled after national extremist efforts,” Colorado Politics reported.

The Cortez Current reached out to LP McKay, a nonbinary, openly gay KSJD journalist and local LGBTQ community advocate, for comment and received no response.

Legislative staff expect minimal costs for schools and districts to update their athletic policies. State costs are listed as indeterminate and would arise mainly if a district refuses to comply and the commissioner has to act.

What Proposition 135 would do

Proposition 135 would prohibit surgery on anyone under 18 that alters biological sex characteristics as a treatment in response to the minor’s perception of sex or gender. It would also bar state or federal money, Medicaid reimbursement and private health insurance from paying for those surgeries.

The measure does not list specific procedures. The ban turns on the reason a surgery is performed, the Blue Book says. It covers gender-affirming surgeries, and the booklet adds that it “may also limit other surgeries for minors, including non-transgender minors, if the treatment is interpreted as being in response to the minor’s sex or gender perception.”

Three things are exempt: male circumcision, treatment for medically verifiable disorders of sex development, and treatment for acquired physical or chemical abnormalities. Non-surgical care, such as counseling and social transition, is not restricted.

A yes vote prohibits these surgeries on minors and the use of government funds or health insurance to pay for them. A no vote keeps current Colorado law, which protects access to these surgeries and allows public and private insurance to cover them.

How common the surgeries are

No one knows how many minors receive surgeries the measure would prohibit, according to the Blue Book. It cites a Harvard University study of 2019 insurance claims that found about 2.1 of every 100,000 youths ages 15 to 17 had a gender-affirming surgery. For ages 13 and 14 the rate was 0.1 per 100,000, or one in a million. Researchers found no cases at age 12 or younger.

Colorado’s three large pediatric surgical providers, Children’s Hospital Colorado, Rocky Mountain Children’s and Denver Health, report that they do not perform gender- or sex-based surgeries on transgender patients under 18, the booklet says.

The case for and against Proposition 135

Supporters argue that minors lack the maturity to make permanent, life-altering medical decisions, and that surgery should wait until adulthood while less invasive care is used. They say in the Blue Book that more long-term data is needed and that some minors may come to regret irreversible procedures.

“We are preventing harm. We are preserving a child’s future, their reproductive future,” Lori Gimelshteyn, a Protect Kids Colorado board director, said, according to CPR News.

The measure has drawn support from some who usually resist government involvement in family decisions. “An adult possesses bodily autonomy. A child possesses bodily integrity,” Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, wrote in a Colorado Politics column.

Opponents argue the ban is overly broad. Because it depends on a minor’s purpose in seeking treatment and has narrow exceptions, they say it could lead insurers to cut coverage and doctors to limit care for transgender and non-transgender youths alike. They also say it delays medically recommended care even when parents, patients and doctors agree.

The Colorado Medical Society voted Sept. 18 to oppose the measure, the Colorado Times Recorder reported. “Our CMS members have diverse political views, but share one core principle, and that’s that medical decisions belong in the exam room,” Dr. Sean Pauzauskie, the society’s board president, said, according to Colorado Newsline.

Legislative staff expect the effect on state and local budgets to be minimal in both directions, with small added workload for regulators and small savings to Medicaid and government health plans.

The money

Opponents have far outraised supporters. Families Not Politics has raised nearly $1.4 million, according to campaign filings reported by The Gazette on Oct. 2.

Protect Kids Colorado has raised about $160,000. A second committee registered in support, Protect Our Children, had reported no fundraising.

What polls show

No public poll of Colorado voters on either measure turned up in a search of news coverage through Oct. 2. National surveys offer a rough guide, though they sample U.S. adults and do not ask about these measures’ wording.

On sports, a May 2025 Gallup poll found 69% of adults said transgender athletes should play only on teams matching their birth sex, including 90% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats. A February 2025 Pew Research Center survey found 66% in favor of requiring that and 15% opposed.

On medical care, the same Pew survey found 56% of adults favored banning health professionals from providing gender transition care for minors, including 79% of Republicans and 35% of Democrats. That question covered all transition care, which is broader than Proposition 135’s surgery-only ban.

How to vote

Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 3. County clerks began mailing ballots Oct. 2 and must send them to all active voters by Friday, Oct. 9, according to the Colorado Secretary of State. Oct. 26 is the last suggested day to return a ballot by mail. After that, voters should use a drop box or a voting center. Ballots must be in by 7 p.m. on Election Day, when voter service and polling centers are open 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Propositions 134 and 135 are two of 14 statewide measures on this year’s ballot. The Blue Book analysis of Proposition 134 starts on page 55 and Proposition 135 on page 59. The booklet is available on the Cortez Current site and from the Colorado General Assembly. Contact information for the committees on each side is on the Secretary of State’s website.

Montezuma County drop box and voting center locations are in the Cortez Current’s voter guide.