Proposition 134: Weiser warns of body checks the measure does not require

By Shaina Cole | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice

Gov.-elect Phil Weiser raised the prospect of full-body examinations of Colorado student athletes on Wednesday, one day after voters moved to restrict girls’ sports to biological females.

The measure sets no method for determining sex and requires no examination of anyone. Neither does the NCAA rule that already governs Colorado’s NCAA programs, nor the policy one Colorado district has run since May 2025.

“I don’t believe it would be acceptable to Colorado to have every student athlete to have to go through full-body examinations or other invasions of privacy,” Weiser said at a post-election news conference at the Capitol, the Denver Post reported. “So we need to figure out what we do given the decisions last night.”

The measure runs three pages. It requires schools to label teams male, female or coed and bars biological males from female teams. A female may play on a male team where no female team is offered. It says nothing about how a school establishes which is which.

The Legislative Council’s analysis says so directly. The measure “does not impose a specific method for determining or demonstrating biological sex,” the Blue Book states in its summary and analysis. “Individual schools or school districts must determine their own verification procedures.”

Where the body-check line comes from

The inspection language does appear in the Blue Book. It appears in the arguments-against section, where predictions about how districts might behave belong.

“The measure does not protect fairness; it turns athletic eligibility into a body inspection and manufactures new grounds for discrimination,” that section reads. “Some athletes may be forced to undergo invasive or expensive testing to prove their biological sex, while others may be able to simply provide a note from a doctor.”

Opponents conceded the low-burden path in the same sentence they used to raise the alarm. RMV checked that claimagainst the text on Oct. 1 and found no examination, no mechanism for one student to accuse another and no finding to appeal from.

What the NCAA does, with no exam at all

Proposition 134 reaches collegiate sports, where NCAA members have operated under a sex-based rule since February 2025. The measure defines a postsecondary institution by accreditation, so it reaches programs outside the NCAA as well.

The NCAA bars anyone assigned male at birth from competing on a women’s team. Member schools certify eligibility themselves, as they do for every other NCAA requirement. The policy contains no examination, no genetic test and no hormone screen.

It is also stricter on documents than Proposition 134. Athletes assigned male at birth “may not compete on a women’s team with amended birth certificates or other forms of ID,” the NCAA states. Colorado’s measure says nothing about amended certificates. State law lets a person change the sex on a Colorado birth certificate without surgery under Jude’s Law, codified at section 25-2-113.8.

The NCAA says the policy may not be waived, and that member schools remain responsible for certifying eligibility. It also states that state and federal legislation supersedes NCAA rules.

What the current high school system requires

The system Proposition 134 replaces asks more of the students it applies to than the measure asks of anyone.

Colorado High School Activities Association rules recognize a right for transgender athletes to compete, and allow CHSAA to review a school’s eligibility decisions, according to the Blue Book. Under current practice a transgender student discloses to the school, which performs what CHSAA bylaws call a confidential evaluation to determine gender assignment, the Colorado Sun reported Wednesday. That evaluation can draw on letters from parents, teachers, friends and doctors.

Proposition 134 would end that process. A categorical rule asks nothing of the individual student, because there is no individual determination to make.

What one Colorado district already does

El Paso County’s District 49 adopted a policy restricting female teams to biological females in May 2025.

Asked how the district verifies a student’s sex, D49 Director of Communications David Nancarrow described a paper trail that already exists.

Students enroll with a birth certificate. At athletic registration, the student and family state the sex again. The CHSAA annual physical form asks the student and the parent to state it again. Staff compare that paperwork against enrollment records already on file.

The only page a school receives is the Medical Eligibility Form. Gender is a fill-in line for the student and parent. The physician certifies that the student was examined and is medically eligible, nothing more. Nothing on the page asks about anatomy, chromosomes or hormone levels.

“Well over 99% of our students already identify as a boy or a girl,” Nancarrow wrote.

As of RMV’s reporting on Oct. 1, the district had handled zero eligibility disputes in more than 16 months. Families can seek a waiver.

At least seven Colorado schools and districts have adopted policies of this kind, according to the Blue Book. D49’s is the only record RMV has examined.

What elite sport settled on

Megan Burke, a co-founder of Athletes for Action, which backed the measure, told the Denver Post the implementation question has answers.

“I would tell Phil Weiser he should go to the Olympic committee and figure out what is going on there,” Burke said. “We’re not reinventing the wheel here.”

World Athletics, which governs international track and field, announced a rule in July 2025 that took effect that September, requiring athletes entering the female category to take a one-time test for the SRY gene. It is taken once in a lifetime by cheek swab or blood draw.

Critics object to genetic testing on its own grounds, and no Colorado district has proposed it. It is not a full-body examination.

The measure also carries a protection its critics rarely mention. Section 25-60-105, headed “Protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act,” requires that a person born with a diagnosis of a disorder or difference in sex development receive all legal protections and accommodations afforded under federal law, notwithstanding anything else in the article.

Protect Kids Colorado answers the legislature point

Weiser made a second argument that drew a direct response. All three Protect Kids Colorado measures change statute rather than the constitution, which means lawmakers can revise them without returning to voters.

“Anytime you have a ballot measure that is statutory, it is a natural and, I believe, appropriate role for the legislature to say, ‘What are the adjustments that need to be added?'” Weiser said.

The measure takes effect Jan. 1, 2027, by its own terms. Lawmakers convene Jan. 11, ten days later, and the chamber math has moved against the measure’s backers.

Democrats held 49 of 65 House seats and 24 of 35 Senate seats on preliminary returns as of Wednesday morning, two-thirds of both chambers for the first time, after flipping six Republican House seats and one Senate seat and losing none.

Rewriting or repealing a statute takes a simple majority, which Democrats already had.

Protect Kids Colorado built its victory statement around the legislature’s record on exactly these bills.

“For years, Colorado families asked their elected representatives to take these concerns seriously, only to see legislation repeatedly rejected at the Capitol,” said former state Sen. Kevin Lundberg, the group’s chairman. “Yesterday, Coloradans spoke for themselves. They have made clear that the legislature’s refusal to act did not reflect the will of the people.”

Erin Lee, the group’s executive director and a designated representative on all three measures, went further. The group was sending a signal to Colorado’s leadership, she said, that “when elected officials fail or refuse to protect kids, We the People will come together and do it ourselves.”

“Our voices cannot be ignored,” Lee said.

The question worth asking

There is a real legal obstacle to implementing Proposition 134, and it is not body checks.

Public schools, colleges and universities may not exclude students from extracurricular activities that align with their gender identity under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, the Blue Book states. It says that “it is unclear at this time how the measure will impact current state law.”

Eight schools and districts sued CHSAA and the state in 2025 over CADA’s gender identity protections. They settled with CHSAA that December on terms letting them keep separate teams without penalty. Senior U.S. District Judge John Kane dismissed what was left on Aug. 26, finding the districts lacked standing because no transgender student had been harmed by their policies.

Kane did not rule on whether CADA and a biological-sex policy can coexist. Weiser, Colorado’s attorney general since 2019, was a defendant in the case.

Where the count stands

In the Secretary of State’s count, last updated at 7:29 p.m. MST Wednesday, Proposition 134 leads 52.56 percent to 47.44 percent, a margin of 118,954 votes out of more than 2.3 million cast on the question. Proposition 135 leads 52.15 percent to 47.85 percent. Proposition 133 leads 62.05 percent.

The Associated Press has projected Proposition 133 approved. As of Thursday it had not called 134 or 135, and listed both as too early to call. Protect Kids Colorado declared victory on all three Wednesday evening.

None of these results are official.