Arizona Proposition 318: Restrict girls’ sports and school private spaces by sex recorded at birth
What it does. Proposition 318, the Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona Act, would require public and private schools and athletic associations that sponsor teams to designate each as male, female or coed based on athletes’ biological sex, and would prohibit males from playing on female-designated teams. Sex would be defined as recorded at birth on the original birth certificate. It would also prohibit schools, higher education institutions and athletic associations from authorizing anyone to use restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms or other private spaces not designated for that person’s biological sex, and would expand who may sue and be sued for violations. Ballotpedia says current Arizona law applies only to public schools and private schools that compete against them. [1] [2]
Official ballot question. Referred to the people by the Legislature relating to student athletics. Amending Section 15-120.02, Arizona Revised Statutes. Requires all schools and athletic associations to designate athletic teams as male, female, or coed based on the biological sex of the athletes as defined at birth; prohibits these entities from authorizing use of private spaces not designated for a person’s sex. [1]
If you vote yes
A yes vote shall have the effect of: (1) requiring private schools, public schools, and athletic associations to designate every athletic team as male, female, or coed/mixed based on sex and to prevent males from joining female teams; existing law imposes this requirement only on public schools and those competing against them; (2) prohibiting schools and athletic associations from authorizing anyone to use private spaces (such as restrooms) not designated for that individual’s sex; (3) defining sex as an individual’s biological status as male or female as recorded at birth on an original birth certificate; and (4) authorizing athletes to sue schools and athletic associations that knowingly violate this law. [1]
If you vote no
A no vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws relating to student athletics. [1]
What it would cost
Arizona law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) staff to summarize the fiscal impact of each voter initiative, and the JLBC states that “This requirement excludes legislatively referred propositions.” This measure was referred by the legislature, so the official pamphlet has no JLBC fiscal summary for it. The Legislative Council analysis in the pamphlet does not include a cost estimate, and we did not find another official one. [3] [1]
Both sides
Strongest case for
Attorney Thomas Bouman writes in the pamphlet that “girls’ sports should be reserved for girls,” and that when biological males compete in female divisions, “the physical advantages of male physiology—greater muscle mass, bone density, and speed—can displace female athletes from podiums, scholarships, and roster spots.” [1]
He says the measure “also protects privacy” in locker rooms and showers, and that it is narrowly drawn: “It does not create criminal penalties. It does not regulate private youth sports.” [1]
A collegiate volleyball player and coach writes that “boys who identify a certain way should not be allowed to bypass the common-sense rules that protect women and girls,” and that girls’ ability to compete on girls’ teams should not depend on politics. [1]
Strongest case against
The League of Women Voters of Arizona says the measure “addresses a situation that affects very few students, yet it imposes statewide mandates on every public school, many private schools, colleges, universities, and athletic associations,” and “invites costly litigation by creating new private rights of action.” [1]
State Sen. Mitzi Epstein says “Prop 318 would subject girls to invasive inspections and questions about their gender,” and that it “create[s] new ways to start lawsuits” accusing any girl of not being feminine enough. She says it would betray Title IX’s promise to women and girls. [1]
The League adds that decisions about student well-being “should be guided by educators, parents, and established athletic policies—not broad mandates written into law through a statewide ballot measure.” Other opponents say local schools and sports associations, not politicians, should handle the issue. [1]
What neither side is saying
Context that bears on what this measure does or who it affects but that the arguments above do not address. These are sourced facts, not arguments for or against the measure.
- The measure covers restrooms and locker rooms, not only sports. The Legislative Council analysis says Proposition 318 would also prohibit public schools, private schools, higher education institutions and athletic associations that maintain private spaces integral to athletic engagement from authorizing anyone to use a private space not designated for that person’s biological sex as recorded at birth on their original birth certificate. [1]
- Changes would be hard to make later. The pamphlet notes that under Proposition 105 (1998), measures like this one “cannot be changed in the future if approved on the ballot except by a three-fourths vote of the members of each house of the legislature and if the change furthers the purpose of the original ballot measure, by an initiative petition or by referring the change to the ballot.” [1]
Editorial context, not the opinion of We Elect. Each point is a fact we found in a source we opened and read; where sources disagree or data are missing, we say so. How we choose these.
Follow the money
Contributions reported by committees registered to support or oppose Proposition 318. Major donors are those who gave $100,000 or more; where fewer than three did, up to five of the largest listed donors giving $5,000 or more are shown.
Supporting (Yes)
Total raised $3,600
Committee
- Protect Girls' Sports in AZ $3,600
Major donors
No major donors reported.
Opposing (No)
Total raised $871,000
Committee
- Will of the People $871,000
At least one of these committees also campaigns on Arizona Proposition 142, Arizona Proposition 144, Arizona Proposition 320, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| Progress Arizona | $281,000 |
| Future Freedoms | $150,000 |
| Arizona Education Association | $75,000 |
| UFCW Local 99 | $75,000 |
| Lynn Schusterman | $70,000 |
Independent spending by other groups (7)
Spent separately, not given to a committee; not included in the total.
| LD4 Democrats (from July through September 2026) | $916 |
| Worker Power PAC (in September 2026) | $609 |
| Center for Arizona Policy Action (in September 2026) | $547 |
| Legislative District 20 Democratic Committee (in September 2026) | $461 |
| Democrats of the Red Rocks (DORR) (in September 2026) | $405 |
| Save Our Schools Arizona PAC (from September through October 2026) | $137 |
| D14 Democrats (in October 2026) | $16 |
Reported contributions through Oct. 24, 2026, as compiled by Ballotpedia from state filings; the source lists each side’s top donors, not every donor. Figures are reported contributions and may be updated as new reports are filed. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Official filings: Arizona Secretary of State, See the Money.
Sources
- 2026 General Election Guide: Legislative Council analyses, ballot language, and voter-submitted arguments for and against — Arizona Secretary of State (2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet; copy hosted by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission) (Official state voter guide, 2026)
- Arizona Proposition 318, Require All Schools and Athletic Associations to Restrict Sports Participation and Access to Private Spaces Based on Sex (2026) — Ballotpedia (Reference (quotes supporters and opponents), accessed 2026-10-28)
- Ballot Initiatives (page on fiscal analyses of November 2026 ballot propositions) — Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) staff (Official legislative fiscal office, 2026-08-19)
Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Last reviewed 2026-10-28. How we write both sides.
We Elect is a Brunner Creative site. Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Each side is written to be the strongest case its supporters would recognize, and every claim is tied to a source we opened and read.