Patchwork protections

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown.

Earlier this week we told you about female athletes in Washington state who are asking voters to pass a ballot initiative to keep boys out of girls sports. Voters in three other states will also consider initiatives on women’s sports next week, and WORLD commentator David Closson says the results will be telling.

Millions of Americans will soon vote in the 2026 midterms. Most notably at stake is control of Congress.

But four states will also vote on first-of-their-kind ballot initiatives concerning women’s sports. In Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, and Washington state, voters will decide whether to prohibit males from competing in women’s athletics.

DAVID CLOSSON: The partisan leanings of these states differ widely. Colorado and Washington are reliably Democratic. Nebraska, solidly Republican. And Arizona, purple, a perennial battleground.

Polling consistently shows that a sizeable majority of Americans oppose males competing in women’s sports. But now voters in these four states will have an opportunity to confirm that emerging consensus. Or contradict it.

The measures differ in their details.

Arizona’s Proposition 318 would require schools to designate athletic teams as male, female, or coed based on sex. Crucially, it would prevent males from joining female teams. The measure also addresses access to restrooms and locker rooms.

Colorado’s Proposition 134 would require school and college athletes to compete on teams consistent with their biological sex.

In Nebraska, legislators have already passed a bill to protect girls’ sports. But those protections are in the law, not the constitution. Voters there will decide whether to elevate them to the state constitution.

And in Washington, Initiative 638 would prohibit males from competing in girls’ sports. The measure would also require verification of biological sex from a healthcare provider.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state laws designed to preserve the integrity of women’s sports.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that women and girls should be allowed to compete for life-changing opportunities on an equal playing field. He said they shouldn’t have to fear physical injury from biological males, or be forced to compete against them.

Here’s the key: The Court ruled that states may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex.

Currently, our state laws are a patchwork: 29 have laws or regulations that limit participation in women’s or girls’ school sports to females only. The remaining 21 states provide no comparable protections.

Congress has not been able to agree on a national standard, so state patchwork it remains.

Voters next week will tell us a lot. The outcomes could be especially significant in Colorado and Washington, where female athletes lack legal protection. If polling is accurate, these measures have a decent chance to pass—even in states that vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

If these measures can make it there, to paraphrase Frank Sinatra, they can make it anywhere.

For WORLD, I’m David Closson.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.