John TytusColorado 2026 ballot

Proposition 134: School sports teams by biological sex

Statute, citizen initiative. Needs a majority to pass.

What it does

Every school-based team from elementary school through college (public, charter, private, religious, intramural, after-school) would have to be designated male, female, or coed, based on biological sex, defined by whether the reproductive system is organized to produce sperm or eggs. Students play on the team matching their biological sex or on a coed team; girls may join a boys' team if there's no girls' team. Each school or district writes its own policy and decides its own method of verifying sex. No government body or athletic association may investigate or penalize a school for keeping a female-only team. The state Commissioner of Education enforces it for public K-12; there's no enforcement mechanism for private schools, colleges, or athletic associations. The Blue Book says its effect on the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act is unclear, and notes a June 2026 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Title IX permits states to adopt laws keeping separate male and female sports by biological sex.

Blue Book arguments

For: Females should compete against females, because biological males on female teams have an unfair advantage that costs female athletes wins, records, and scholarships; physical differences create safety and locker-room privacy concerns; a statewide standard replaces uneven local rules.

Against: It turns eligibility into a body inspection without saying how, so schools will set inconsistent rules and some athletes will face invasive or costly testing, or be targeted for being strong or successful; school sports should be a place of belonging, and requiring an at-risk group to play on teams that don't match their gender identity leads to harassment and isolation.

What it costs

Indeterminate. Some added Department of Education workload and legal costs if a district refuses to comply; colleges pay policy-update costs from their own revenue; school district costs expected to be minimal.

Who is paying

Money as of the Sept 28, 2026 filing. The yes-side committees are registered for Propositions 133, 134, and 135, and every no-side committee is also registered against 135; none reports a per-measure split.

For: about $174,000

Committee Raised Spent
Protect Kids Colorado – Issue Committee (backs 133, 134, 135) $173,839 $91,814
Protect Our Children $0 $0

98% in-state.

Against: about $1.2 million plus $284,000 in-kind, not counting Vote Common Sense

Committee Raised Spent
Families Not Politics (opposes 134 and 135) $1,391,126 $365,937
The People’s No (opposes 81, 132, 134, 135) $100,000 $0
No on 109 and 110 (files in TRACER as No on 134 and 135) $10,529 $4,389
Protect Trans Kids $0 $0
Vote Common Sense (registered against nine measures) $495,000 $81,367

Families Not Politics: Cobalt Advocates (abortion-rights group), $254,000; One Colorado and its education fund (LGBTQ advocacy), $326,836 together; Rose Community Foundation, $100,000; Planned Parenthood Action Fund (New York), $100,000, plus $50,000 from Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood; Merle Chambers, Denver, $100,000; the ACLU and its Colorado affiliate, about $162,000 together; two individuals at $50,000 (Boulder and San Francisco). 76% in-state. The People's No: $100,000 from COLOR Action Fund, a Latina reproductive-rights group.

Vote Common Sense ($495,000, nine measures) also opposes.

No-side committees, not counting Vote Common Sense, have raised about nine times the yes side.

Where the parties stand

Democrats: the Colorado Democratic Party opposes Proposition 134 (its State Central Committee positions, announced Sept 8, 2026).

Republicans: no position from the Colorado Republican Party found as of Sept 30, 2026. The Weld County Republican Party, a county party, recommends a yes vote (its Resolution WCRCC-2026-09, adopted Sept 15, 2026).

No minor-party position found as of Sept 30, 2026.

What isn't known

Who funds Protect Kids Colorado's 501(c)(4).

Sources