Voters in eight states will voting in this year’s Nov. 3 election on two issues important to conservative Christian activists: abortion and transgender restrictions. Voters in scattered states across the country have voted in recent years on abortion proposals ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, but this will be the first time that voters in any statewide election have had their say on laws affecting transgender persons.
The two measures that have drawn the most attention, partly because of campaign spending totaling millions of dollars, are an initiative in Washington state that would prevent biological males from participating in female-only sports, potentially enforced through medical exams, and an initiative in Idaho that would replace that state’s strict abortion ban with a law allowing abortions up until the age of viability.
In both cases, backers of the initiatives are hoping to get voting support beyond their regular political bases: Backers of the trans ban in blue Washington are hoping that even liberal voters will see as extreme the participation of biological males in female sports, while backers of the Idaho abortion measure are aware that they could be fighting an uphill battle in a religiously and politically conservative state.
Colorado’s initiative has goals similar to Washington’s, while voters in Missouri and Arizona will be voting on trans measures with less impact.
According to Ballotpedia, as of April there were 27 states that had passed laws requiring limiting participation based on sex for gender-specific sports teams, and another two states have similar requirements mandated by state regulatory agencies. Some of the requirements have been struck down by courts. The remaining 21 states have no laws or other legal requirements limiting such participation.
Like the measure in Idaho, measures in Nevada and Virginia would recognize the right to an abortion. A measure in Missouri takes the opposite approach, proposing to ban most abortions.
Here’s a closer look at what the eight states will be deciding:
Arizona: Proposition 318 targets restrooms and similar facilities
Arizona already has a law preventing biological males (as defined) from participating on female sports teams, but it does allow females to compete on male teams. Proposition 318 would change that latter provision, keeping females off male teams.
But the main purpose of the measure would be to prohibit schools from authorizing a student, athlete, employee or any other individual to use a restroom, locker room, shower room or other private space that is not designated for that person’s sex. Sex is defined as the “biological status as male or female as recorded at birth on the individual’s original birth certificate.”
Campaigning on the measure has been low-key. According to the most recent reports, supporters have raised only about $3,600, while opponents have raised about $206,000.
Colorado: Proposition 134 would affect student athletes through college age
Colorado Proposition 134, known formally as the Sex Requirement for School and College Sports Initiative, is designed to regulate school sports for kindergarten age through college. It would allow the creation of male, female and coed teams; only males as defined could participate in male sports, and only females in female sports.
The proposed law defines a female as someone “whose biological reproductive system is organized around the production of ova” and a male as someone “whose biological reproductive system is organized around the production of sperm.” The proposal does not state how the determination would be made, leaving it up individual schools or school districts to decide that.
At last report, supporters had raised about $216,000 for their campaign. They are far outmatched by opponents, who have raised about $4.6 million.
Idaho: Proposition 1 aims to guarantee reproductive freedom
Idaho has one of the strictest abortion laws in the country, allowing abortion only to save the life of a pregnant woman or in cases of rape or incest. Supporters of the proposition claim that the law has made it difficult for the largely rural state to attract OB-GYN doctors and other health professionals who deal with pregnancy. They also claim that not allowing abortions to protect the mother’s health or in cases of severe fetal defects puts women in danger.
The proposed law says that its purpose is to establish a “right to make private reproductive health care decisions, including abortion up to fetal viability and in medical emergencies.”
Religious groups that are formally opposing the initiative include the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. The LDS church donated $1 million to the main group fighting the initiative, Too Extreme for Idaho.
At last report, supporters of the proposition had raised $4.3 million, and opponents had raised $3.4 million, making this one of the most expensive non-candidate campaigns among the less populated states.
Missouri: Amendment 3 tackles both abortion and gender transition
Amendment 3, which was approved by an overwhelming majority of the state House and Senate last year, would amend the state’s Constitution to prohibit abortions except in “medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest” and bar gender transition surgeries for minors. It also would ban the prescription or administration of cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs to minors, with an exception for treatments “unrelated to the purpose of a gender transition.”
In banning abortion, the amendment also would repeal the state’s constitutional right to reproductive freedom. That right was approved by voters in 2024 in a measure also known as Amendment 3.
Opponents of the measure have raised an extraordinary amount of money for a state the size of Missouri: almost $20.5 million at last report. Supporters have raised a bit over $3.7 million.
Nebraska: Initiative Measure 442 would strengthen ban on trans athletes
Nebraska already has a law to prevent males (as defined) from participating in K-12 and college female sports. Initiative Measure 42 would make that prohibition part of the state Constitution.
The law was placed on the ballot by petition with over 211,000 signatures submitted. It qualified for the ballot once it was determined that the 139,000 signatures needed were validated.
Nevada: Question 6 is abortion provision going to voters a second time
Nevada’s Question 6 would would amend the state Constitution to recognize “a fundamental right to abortion.” To amend the state Constitution in Nevada, voters must approve the change twice. The first vote on this amendment occurred in 2024, with nearly 64.4 percent of voters giving it their approval.
The proposed amendment would allow abortion, which already is legal in the state, through fetal viability or “to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.” The right to abortion could not be “denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest.”
Supporters have raised nearly $1.6 million at last report. Opponents are far behind with almost $60,000.
Virginia: Question 1 would put abortion right in Constitution
Abortion in Virginia already is legal; Question 1 is designed to ensure that it stays legal by establishing a “right to reproductive freedom” in the state Constitution. Reproductive freedom is defined as “the ability to make and carry out decisions relating to one’s own prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and fertility care.”
Supporters have raised about $3.2 million for their campaign, while opponents trail with more than $800,000.
Washington: Initiative 638 would require sex verification for student athletes
Initiative 638, the Sex Verification Requirements for Female School Sports Initiative, includes an enforcement mechanism. It would require a signed statement from the health care provider of any student wishing to participate in female sports, a statement that “verifies the student’s biological sex.” The verification would have to be based on the “student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.”
The campaigns for and against the measure are turning out to be expensive: Backers have raised a bit over $8 million, while opponents have raised more than $3.8 million.
The group supporting the initiative, Let’s Go Washington, was founded by and is partly bankrolled by hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, who contributed nearly $2.23 million. The biggest funders of the opposition are public-employee unions.
Let’s Go Washington also is supporting a parental rights measure and an initiative to repeal a new state income on wealthy households.