Colorado Proposition 134 Tightens as Vote Count Reaches Midnight Threshold
As midnight approached on election night, a contentious ballot measure seeking to restrict school sports participation based on biological sex stood on a razor-thin margin. According to coloradosun.com, 52.2% of tallied votes favored Proposition 134 while 47.8% were opposed, with approximately 73% of ballots counted across Colorado. Meanwhile, coloradopolitics.com reported slightly adjusted figures at 52.04% in favor and 47.96% opposed as the count continued to shift. The initiative requires a simple majority of 50% to pass.
Because the proposal targets state statute rather than the Colorado state constitution, any eventual enactment leaves room for the state legislature to subsequently rewrite or repeal the provision. The measure applies to every school or sports association receiving state funding, spanning athletic competition from kindergarten through college.
Proposition 134 Classifies Teams by Biological Parameters
Proposition 134 mandates that every participating school adopt an official policy classifying its athletic teams into one of three categories: male, female, or co-ed. Under the proposed rules, students assigned male at birth must play exclusively on boys or co-ed teams, while students assigned female at birth must participate on girls or co-ed teams.
The text of the initiative establishes strict biological definitions. It defines females as individuals whose biological reproductive system is organized around the production of ova, and males as those whose system produces sperm. Consequently, girls’ teams would be barred from including anyone classified as male under these criteria. Boys’ teams would likewise exclude female participants unless the school offers no corresponding female team for that specific sport.
Under current regulations set by the Colorado High School Activities Association, transgender students must disclose their status to their school. This triggers a confidential evaluation process involving written statements from the student, parents, teachers, and medical professionals to determine appropriate team placement. Proposition 134 would dismantle this evaluation framework entirely, placing enforcement responsibility in the hands of the state education commissioner to penalize non-compliant schools.
Protect Kids Colorado Backs the Ballot Measure
The ballot measure emerged as part of a three-pronged legislative push by Protect Kids Colorado, an issue committee campaigning against what it terms the sexualization of children and in favor of parental rights. Alongside Proposition 134, the group backed Proposition 135, which targets gender-affirming surgeries for minors, and Proposition 133, which increases penalties for child sex trafficking. Erin Lee, a Wellington mother who leads Protect Kids Colorado, became the public face of the campaign.
Financial disclosures show Protect Kids Colorado raised approximately $300,000. Major contributors included the nonprofit Athletes for Action, which contributed $100,000, alongside the Church for All Nations, Pikes Peak Citizens for Life, Jeff Coors of the Coors brewing family, and the group’s own nonprofit arm.
Opposing committees mobilized substantial resources against propositions 134 and 135. Families Not Politics spearheaded the opposition, raising roughly $3.5 million with backing from Planned Parenthood, Cobalt Advocates, the ACLU, and One Colorado. Additional opposition came from The People’s No, which raised about $365,000, and Vote Common Sense, which raised $1.1 million with contributions from the Green Advocacy Project, Denver philanthropist Merle Chambers, and the Colorado Fund for Children and Public Education.
Opponents Argue the Policy Invites Invasive Policing
Opponents of the measure, including LGBTQ+ advocacy and anti-discrimination groups such as Hands Off Colorado and the Bread and Roses Legal Center, argued the policy would invite invasive policing of children’s bodies, including potential challenges based on athletic performance or physical appearance.
Voters expressed starkly differing views at the ballot box. Anita Williams, an 80-year-old voter in Denver, voiced strong opposition to the enforcement mechanisms implied by the measure.
Testing kids for what sex, what gender they are? I think that’s invasive. You don’t stick a needle in my kid because you want to know if they’re male or female. You’re not going to do that. No. You know, you can report it, and if you find out I lied about it, then you can take their medal away or whatever. But you’re not going to be doing that to my kid. I just think that’s an awful thing.
Conversely, supporters maintained that the initiative is necessary to safeguard competitive fairness and protect athletic opportunities for female athletes. With late returns continuing to fluctuate, the final outcome remains unsettled as local election officials process the remaining ballots.
