March 2026 Hot Sheet: Anti-Trans Attacks Creep Down the 2026 Ballot

03/26/2026

By: Hillary-Anne Crosby, Senior Manager of Public Policy Communications

Welcome back to The Hot Sheet!

Here, we give you a quick rundown of what you need to know about the ballot measure landscape — the trends, legislative analysis, highlights of what’s on the ballot, and why it all matters. 

For more in-depth analysis, our latest voter attitudes research, and information on the measures we’re tracking, head to our Ballot Measure Hub.

The Toplines

• As of March 19, BISC is tracking 78 measures certified for 2026 ballots. 17 ballot initiative campaigns have submitted petition signatures that are currently being verified by state officials.
• BISC is monitoring 149 bills related to direct democracy filed in legislatures across 31 states as of March 24.
• BISC is closely monitoring a slate of anti‑trans ballot measures attempting to ban gender‑affirming care for minors, exclude trans students from sports, and more.
• A legislative proposal in Kansas is part of a larger trend to politicize state courts and compromise the independence of the judicial branch.
• BISC’s latest op-ed on Democracy Docket explores how defending direct democracy is about defending democracy itself.

2026 Qualified Ballot Measures

As of March 19, there are 78 measures certified for 2026 ballots. 23 ballot initiative campaigns have submitted petition signatures that are currently being verified by state officials.

BISC is also monitoring 149 bills related to direct democracy filed in legislatures across 31 states as of March 24.

Emerging Trend

Anti-Trans Attacks Creep Down the 2026 Ballot

As we move through the 2026 election cycle, the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center and our partners at Advocates for Trans Equality and Equality Federation are monitoring a growing slate of anti‑trans ballot measures aimed at barring gender‑affirming care for minors, excluding trans students from sports, and more. The landscape includes: 

On the Ballot 

• • • Colorado #109: Trans Student Exclusion from School Sports (CI)
      • What’s Proposed: Would force all school sports programs to restrict student participation based on sex assigned at birth. It also prohibits organizations from filing complaints, opening investigations, or assigning consequences to schools who follow this rule.
    • Colorado #110: Ban on Gender-Affirming Surgeries for Minors (CI)
      • What’s Proposed: Forbids healthcare providers from administering, and prescribing, gender-affirming care for minors. It also places new restrictions on insurance coverage, ensuring no state or federal funding can be applied.
    • Colorado #108: “Children Are Not For Sale Act” (CI)
      • What’s Proposed: While this initiative appears on its surface to be strengthening existing human trafficking laws, its vague language could potentially be used to criminalize travel related to gender-affirming care for minors.
    • Missouri Amendment 3: Near-Total Abortion Ban & Prohibition on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors (LR)
      • What’s Proposed: Although presented as an abortion measure, this constitutional amendment contains language that would block gender-affirming care for minors.
    • Washington IL26-638: Trans Student Exclusion from School Sports (CI)
      • What’s Proposed: Explicitly prohibits trans girls from participating in girls sports at school, using invasive physical exams and blood tests as the primary methods for establishing a student’s sex.

Potential Measures

• • • Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2003: Trans Student Exclusion from Schools Sports and Facilities (LR)
      • What’s Proposed: Under this proposed amendment, trans students would be barred from joining sports teams that best align with their gender identity. Use of bathrooms and locker rooms would also be limited to sex assigned at birth.
    • Arizona Senate Concurrent Resolution 1006: Ban on Trans Student Names and Pronouns in Schools (LR)
      • What’s Proposed: Amends the Arizona constitution to prohibit teachers, counselors, and other school staff from referring to trans students by their chosen name or pronouns without written permission from parents. Also bans trans students from using bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity.
    • Maine: “An Act to Designate School Sports Participation and Facilities by Sex” (CI)
      • What’s Proposed: Requires all schools to designate sports teams, bathrooms, and locker rooms by a person’s sex assigned at birth: male, female or co-ed. This has raised notable concerns among critics, as gender identity remains a category protected from discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act.
    • Nebraska: Anti-Trans Sports Ban Affecting K-12, Collegiate, Intramural Teams (CI)
      • What’s Proposed: Would amend the state constitution to designate K-12, collegiate, and intramural sports teams as being either male, female, or co-ed and restrict teams designated ‘female’ to only athletes assigned that sex at birth.
    • Nevada C-07-2026: Anti-Trans Sports Ban (CI)
      • What’s Proposed: Bans trans athletes from competing in female sports altogether and is part of Gov. Lombardo’s broader reelection campaign rhetoric, which aims to drive his potential supporters to the polls at the expense of the well-being, safety and belonging of trans students across the state.

Ballot measures that target trans people including youth are an attack on fundamental freedoms and an attempt to write discrimination into law. Voters deserve policies that protect people’s dignity, not political tactics that single out vulnerable communities. These efforts are part of a broader strategy to hijack the people’s tool for political gain at the expense of the trans community’s well-being and belonging. Targeting groups through the ballot is not governance — it’s cruelty disguised as policy. We will continue to support our partners pushing back on these discriminatory attacks and building a world where all communities can flourish.

2026 Ballot Measure to Watch

Issue: Democracy

Kansas: Establishing State Supreme Court Elections (LR)

What It Does: Amends the Kansas state constitution to provide for direct election of state supreme court justices. It would abolish the existing supreme court nominating commission tasked with vetting and recommending potential justices to the governor based on merit.

Why It Matters: Injecting partisan politics into the state’s highest court threatens the independence and impartiality of the Kansas Supreme Court — and Kansans’ ability to trust in it as a free and fair judicial system.

BISC ANALYSIS: The Politicization — and Polarization — of State Courts: Unfortunately Kansas isn’t alone in the trend to politicize state courts. Calls to instate supreme court races, or to make existing judicial races partisan, have intensified in recent years as judges have ruled out-of-step with elected officials’ desired outcomes. For example, it’s no secret that powerful lawmakers have been upset with the Kansas Supreme Court’s past decisions to uphold reproductive rights and education funding in the state. And therein lies the heart of the matter: our courts, especially our supreme courts, must be able to operate free from these kinds of political pressures and judges’ decisions must be shaped by law rather than partisan ideologies or popular trends.

Proposals threatening an independent judiciary are part of a larger effort to consolidate partisan power and remove the critical system of checks and balances that we rely on to keep our democracy running. But advocates for free and fair courts are fighting back. The ACLU of Kansas, American Federation of Teachers-Kansas, Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, and others were outspoken opponents of the Kansas measure as it worked through the state legislature last year. And further north, Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts are currently collecting petition signatures for CI-132, an initiative to permanently safeguard the state’s nonpartisan judicial elections. 

It’s important to note that BISC has a vested interest in protecting free and fair courts as courts are increasingly being used to undermine the people’s right to direct democracy, especially through bad-faith legal interpretations. Authoritarians will not stop their efforts to consolidate power and we cannot stop fighting to defend the People’s Tool and the democratic systems that it relies upon — including an independent judiciary.

In Case You Missed It

BISC Op-Ed: Ballot measures are core to democracy. That’s why they’re under attack.: BISC’s Executive Director, Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, has authored a new op-ed in Democracy Docket. In the op-ed, Chris explains how the ballot initiative process is one of several critical aspects of our democracy under attack right now and why we must protect the People’s Tool in order to protect the people’s power.You can read the full piece here!

We Have Been Here Before: Confronting the Fascist Backlash of Reconstruction to Find a New Path Forward: BISC Executive Director Chris Melody Fields Figueredo and Policy & Legal Advocacy Director Jennifer Parrish-Taylor have co-authored the piece, “We Have Been Here Before: Confronting the Fascist Backlash of Reconstruction to Find a New Path Forward.” In the blog, Chris and Jennifer give us a history lesson that traces how America’s current descent into authoritarianism is similar to what we experienced in the years following the Civil War.

BISC’s Resource Library: Our Partner Portal Resource Library houses ballot measure information ranging from campaign tools, templates, and past campaign materials (Values, MOUS, RFPs, etc.) —  to campaign debriefs and memos highlighting best practices. This library is a unique resource that can help campaigns and organizations build strategies and operationalize racial equity. To request access to the library, please email [email protected]