Colorado Voters Pass Prop 134 Banning Trans Athletes From School Sports

53%. That is the number that settled the debate on Thursday afternoon. At 4:12 p.m., the Associated Press called the race, confirming that Proposition 134 had cleared the 50% threshold by a six-point margin. For the next few hours, the Western Slope held its breath, waiting for the final tally to confirm what the early returns suggested: the legislature’s attempt to keep this issue out of the hands of the electorate had failed.

The question every neighbor in the valley is asking right now is simple: Who exactly is banned from playing?

The answer is more specific — and more bureaucratic — than most people expected. This measure does not ban transgender athletes based on identity alone. It bans them based on anatomy. The proposition defines "girls" as people with female reproductive organs and "boys" as those with male reproductive organs. In practice, this means a student assigned male at birth can only compete on boys’ teams or co-ed teams. A student assigned female at birth is restricted to girls’ or co-ed squads. If a school offers a boys’ team but no corresponding girls’ team for a specific sport, the measure allows female participants to join the boys’ squad. But the moment a dedicated girls’ team exists, the door closes to anyone the proposition classifies as male.

This distinction matters because it shifts the burden of proof onto the schools. Every educational institution receiving state funding, from kindergarten classrooms to university athletic departments - must now adopt a written policy classifying its teams as male, female, or co-ed. That classification triggers the eligibility rules. If your local high school has a varsity soccer program, they now have to decide: are we offering a girls’ team? If yes, a transgender girl with male reproductive organs cannot play. If no, she can.

Erin Lee, the Wellington mother who spearheaded the campaign for Protect Kids Colorado, framed the victory as a rejection of what she called "gender ideology." Her 12-year-old daughter was invited to a gender and sexuality awareness art club at her middle school, an experience Lee said led her child to believe she was transgender for about a year. "The results send a powerful political message that pushing gender ideology on children is a losing issue," Lee said. "Voters are not in favor of men in women’s sports, and protecting kids is a great unifier."

The financial backing behind the campaign tells its own story. Protect Kids Colorado raised approximately $300,000 to support Proposition 134, along with two other measures on the ballot. Among the major donors were the Church for All Nations, Pikes Peak Citizens for Life in Colorado Springs, and Jeff Coors of the Coors brewing family. The group also received $100,000 from Athletes for Action, a nonprofit focused on protecting girls and women in sports. On the other side of the aisle, LGBTQ rights organizations including Families Not Politics, Hands Off Colorado, One Colorado, and Bread and Roses Legal Center fought the measure, arguing it would lead to invasive genital checks of students.

There is a technicality that keeps this from being permanent. Because Proposition 134 changes state law rather than the state constitution, the legislature retains the power to rewrite or eliminate it entirely. A future majority in Denver could repeal the ban with a simple statute. Until then, however, the rule stands.

The practical bottom line for locals is immediate. If your child plays organized sports, check with the school district or athletic association about their new team classification policies. If a team is designated "male" or "female," the anatomical restrictions apply. If it is "co-ed," the door is open to all. The measure takes effect upon passage, meaning the 2026-2027 school year starts under these new rules. There is no grace period mentioned in the text. Schools have to be ready. If yours isn’t, expect confusion at tryouts. The vote was clear. Now the administration begins.