Proposition 318: Sex-Based Designation of School Athletic Teams and Private Spaces
Statewide — all of Arizona
General election · Tuesday, November 3, 2026
- Referred to the ballot by the Arizona Legislature as House Concurrent Resolution 2003 (2026), which passed the House 32-25 on Feb. 23, 2026 and the Senate 16-12 on June 12, 2026, per Arizona Legislature floor-vote records.[3]
- Per Ballotpedia, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled on July 16, 2026 that the measure does not violate the single-subject rule and may remain on the ballot.[4]
The question on the ballot
PROPOSITION 318. REFERRED TO THE PEOPLE BY THE LEGISLATURE RELATING TO STUDENT ATHLETICS. OFFICIAL TITLE: AMENDING SECTION 15-120.02, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: 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.[2]
Requires public and private schools, higher education institutions and athletic associations that sponsor interscholastic or intramural teams to designate each team as male, female, or coeducational/mixed, and prohibits males from playing on female-designated teams, based on sex as recorded on the original birth certificate. It also bars those entities from authorizing anyone to use restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms or other private spaces not designated for that person's sex as recorded at birth, expands who may sue and be sued over alleged violations, and does not restrict any athlete's eligibility for a team aligned with their sex or designated coeducational. It is titled the Protect Girls' Sports in Arizona Act. Per the ballot summary, existing law imposes the team-designation requirement only on public schools and those competing against them.[1][2]
A YES vote means
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.
A NO vote means
A "no" vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws relating to student athletics.
Arguments made for
- Center for Arizona Policy (Peter Gentala, President, and Leisa Brug, VP of Advocacy): "Sports already use weight classes and age groups to ensure fair competition; separating athletes by sex does the same, allowing girls to compete against peers with comparable physical traits."[2]
- Arizona Women of Action (Kimberly Miller, President): "This measure upholds the original intent of Title IX by ensuring school and athletic teams are designated male, female, or coed based on biological sex."[2]
Arguments made against
- ACLU of Arizona (Darrell Hill, Director of Policy): "The ACLU of Arizona urges a NO vote on Proposition 318 because it would force Arizona schools and athletic associations to adopt a blanket rule that does not consider age, level of competition, and sport, and opens schools to a flurry of lawsuits."[2]
- ONE Community (Angela Hughey, President): "Prop 318 is not about creating a new policy—it expands an existing law that is still being challenged in court."[2]
On record in support
- Center for Arizona Policy (President Peter Gentala and VP of Advocacy Leisa Brug) signed or sponsored an argument for Proposition 318 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]
- Arizona Women of Action (President Kimberly Miller) signed or sponsored an argument for Proposition 318 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]
- State Sen. Shawnna Bolick signed or sponsored an argument for Proposition 318 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]
- Liberty Counsel Action (President John Stemberger) signed or sponsored an argument for Proposition 318 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]
- Protect Girls Sports in Arizona (Co-Chair Kaylie Ray) signed or sponsored an argument for Proposition 318 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]
- Chandler Mayor Kevin Hartke signed or sponsored an argument for Proposition 318 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]
On record in opposition
- Civic Engagement Beyond Voting (Co-Directors Melinda Iyer and Catherine Sigmon) signed or sponsored an argument against Proposition 318 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]
- League of Women Voters of Arizona (Pinny Sheoran) signed or sponsored an argument against Proposition 318 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]
- Will of the People (named in the pamphlet as sponsor of several arguments; the pamphlet does not describe the group) signed or sponsored an argument against Proposition 318 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]
- State Sen. Mitzi Epstein signed or sponsored an argument against Proposition 318 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]
- ONE Community (President Angela Hughey) signed or sponsored an argument against Proposition 318 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]
- Changing Hands Bookstore co-founders Gayle Shanks and Clive Sommer, Tempe signed or sponsored an argument against Proposition 318 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]
Research notes & limits
Slate: the Secretary of State's official 2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet (hosted by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission; azsos.gov itself returned a bot-protection block and was not bypassed) lists exactly eight statewide measures: Propositions 141, 142, 144, 316, 317, 318, 319 and 320. Ballot question, 'yes'/'no' text: copied from the pamphlet's 'Ballot Format' page for this proposition. Arguments: excerpts of arguments published in that pamphlet, attributed to the signer and sponsoring organization it prints; the pamphlet prints many arguments per side (it reproduces spelling and punctuation as submitted), so these are a selection of 2 for and 2 against, not the full set. Legislative vote counts are from the Arizona Legislature's floor-action records. The pamphlet contains no fiscal estimate for this measure. Required vote: a majority of those voting. Items attributed to Ballotpedia (court ruling or campaign details) were not independently confirmed from the underlying primary source. Supporters and opponents listed are organizations and officials that signed or sponsored arguments printed in the official publicity pamphlet (taken in the pamphlet's print order, counting each organization or official once and skipping arguments signed only by private individuals with no organization or office; capped at the first six per side, the same way on both sides, and a side with fewer than six lists every such organization or official the pamphlet prints); signing or sponsoring an argument is taken as the stance. No committee finance totals were found (seethemoney.az.gov is a script-driven portal and no reputable report of totals was located), and the pamphlet and Legislative Council analysis contain no fiscal estimate or current-law description beyond the yes/no text.
Sources · 4
Researched 2026-10-19. Green citations are official government records.
- 1.Analysis by Legislative Council, Proposition 318 · Arizona Legislative Council · 2026 Official record
- 2.Arizona 2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet (November 3, 2026) · Arizona Secretary of State (Citizens Clean Elections Commission hosting) · 2026 Official record
- 3.Arizona Legislature floor-action and vote record · Arizona Legislature · 2026 Official record
- 4.Arizona Proposition 318 (2026) · Ballotpedia · 2026-10-16 Reference