Election 2026

Protecting Children Is On the Ballot in Colorado

Colorado has three propositions on the November ballot where voters can take action to protect children.

Propositions 133, 134 and 135, respectively, protect children from sexual predators, keep girls sports for females and boys sports for males, and ban irreversible “transgender” surgeries for minors.

A “Yes” vote on all three initiatives will make Colorado safer for children.

After the Colorado General Assembly voted against all three measures, Protect Kids Colorado coordinated a remarkable campaign to place the propositions on the ballot. The organization worked with other groups like Colorado Parent Advocacy Network and Catholic Vote to collect signatures.

Working on a shoestring budget, more than 3,300 volunteer petition circulators gathered more than 500,000 signatures for the three measures. Hundreds of churches across the state hosted signature-gathering events.

Here’s what they were able to place on the November ballot:

  • Proposition 133, “Penalties for Human Trafficking of a Minor,” is also known as “The Children Are Not for Sale Act.” This citizen initiative elevates human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude from a second-class to a first-class felony. It would require a life sentence in prison for human trafficking of a minor – without parole.
  • Proposition 134, “Male and Female Participation in School and Collegiate Sports,” defines male and female based on biological sex. It mandates that colleges and K-12 schools designate boys and men’s sports for males and girls and women’s sports for females. This commonsense measure is also known as “The Protect Girls Sports Act.”
  • Proposition 135, “Prohibit Surgery on Minors in Response to Perception of Sex or Gender,” prohibits health care professionals from performing “transgender” surgeries on minors with sexual identity confusion. Also known as “The Protect Kids From Irreversible Sex-Change Surgery Act,” this measure keeps state and federal money from being spent on these destructive surgeries.

Here’s more important information to know.

Proposition 133 also expands the definition of trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude to include “knowingly trading anything of monetary value to buy or sell sexual activity with a minor.”

The pro-abortion group Cobalt Advocates opposes this initiative, as it is afraid this expanded definition could be used by abortion opponents to prosecute anyone who helps a minor travel to Colorado to obtain an abortion.

Erin Lee, executive director of Protect Kids Colorado, told The Colorado Sun this was “patently false,” adding, “There is nothing in Proposition 133 that creates a new crime related to abortion.”

She added:

The legislature had an opportunity to strengthen these protections and failed. Now Colorado voters have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether these crimes deserve stronger consequences.

Some voters think the two recent Supreme Court decisions in Little v. Hecox and State of West Virginia v. BPJ already protect girls and women’s sports.

But those decisions only upheld state laws designating girls and women’s sports for females; they did not overturn laws and education policies in states that still allow – or fight to allow – men in women’s sports.

And while the Trump administration’s Department of Justice and Education Department have acted to protect girls and women’s Title IX education rights, states like Colorado still allow boys in girls sports and private spaces.

Proposition 134 is opposed by a coalition of groups called Families, Not Politics. It includes LGBT activist organizations like One Colorado, Transgender Law Center and Inside Out Youth Services. Joining them are radical education and abortion groups, such as the Colorado PTA, the Colorado Education Association, Cobalt Advocates and Rocky Mountains Planned Parenthood, as well as a couple of Unitarian Universalist groups.

Colorado has been at the forefront of promoting false transgender ideology and the destructive “transitioning” of children.

Among other harmful actions, the state’s General Assembly voted to mandate teaching about “LGBT individuals” in all K-12 social studies classes, restricted any beneficial therapy for children with sexual identity confusion, made the state a sanctuary for transgender medical procedures for minors, and allow children as young as 12 to receive therapy without parental knowledge or consent.

While the Department of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department are working to stop irreversible transgender medical procedures, all this work could be reversed with a new administration that espouses transgenderism.

Colorado begins sending out ballots to all registered voters on October 2. Voters may mail in their ballots, or drop them off in ballot boxes or at Voter Service and Polling Centers, where they can also vote in person. The state also has same day registration.

For more information, go to Colorado Elections and Voting.

Related articles and resources:

‘Art Club’ Documentary — One Family’s Escape from Gender Ideology, and the Bigger Trend Sweeping the Nation

Colorado Committee Kills ‘Children Are Not for Sale Bill’

Meet Three Heroes Working to Protect Colorado Children

Nebraska Citizens to Vote on Constitutional Amendment Protecting Girls Sports

One Mom’s Journey Advocating for Children and Parental Rights

‘Protect Kids Colorado’ Qualifies Three Child Safety Ballot Measures for November

‘Save Girls Sports’ on the November Ballot — Here’s How You Can Help

Supreme Court to Hear Title IX Girls Sports Case

Washington State Citizens Fight for Parents’ Rights, Girls Sports

Supreme Court Approves States’ Use of DHS Database to Exclude Illegal Voters

The U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of allowing states to use the Department of Homeland Security’s database to check registered voters’ citizenship.

In a 6-3 per curiam decision (an opinion issued in the name of the Court and not an individual justice), the justices overturned an injunction from District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, blocking states from using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.

The majority decided the government was likely to succeed in its case, which was sent back to the district court for a full review.    

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayer and Kagan.

The Court explained that SAVE was created as part of the “Immigration Reform and Control Act” of 1986” to allow “federal, state, and local government agencies to verify the citizenship and immigration status of noncitizens applying for public benefits.”

President Trump signed an executive order on March 31, 2026, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” instructing the DHS to modify SAVE and compile data from more federal databases, including the Social Security Administration and federal citizenship and naturalization records.

The order directed DHS to send state election officials a State Citizenship List, at least 60 days before an election, to ensure that only citizens voted in federal elections.

SAVE was also modified to allow bulk searches, rather than individualized searches, so that election officials could more easily compare state and local voter rolls with the SAVE database.

The League of Women Voters, its local affiliates and the Electronic Privacy Information Center challenged the modifications, alleging that the changes violated Social Security confidentiality rules, the Privacy Act of 1974, and “were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.”

The Court disagreed, citing the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, passed by Congress in 1996, which forbid state, local and federal agencies from blocking DHS from sharing information about citizenship and immigration status.

The justices pointed out, however, that the decision may not have a big impact on the 2026 mid-term elections. The National Voter Registration Act prohibits states from creating new programs that “systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters” within 90 days of an election.

But states can still use the SAVE program to make individualized inquiries about a voter’s citizenship. In addition, before Sooknanan blocked the use of the program, DHS had already flagged around 30,000 registered voters, in 12 different states, as possible non-citizens. States can still investigate their eligibility.

Reuters reported that most of the errors came from “bureaucratic errors.” For example, New Jersey recently announced that 6,600 non-citizens were added to voter rolls through a “technology glitch” that automatically registered them as they applied for IDs and drivers licenses.

Reports like this lead to voter uncertainty about election results. The mistrust is compounded when the huge number of noncitizens in the U.S. is taken into consideration.

A September 22 report from the Congressional Research Service stated that in 2024 “an estimated 50.2 million foreign-born people resided in the United States, representing approximately 14.8% of the total U.S. population.”

Almost 26 million of these are naturalized citizens, leaving about 24 million noncitizens. Around 12 million of these are “lawful permanent residents” and approximately 14 million are illegal aliens, although that number may be greatly underestimated.

That leaves a lot of room for error when registering voters.

The Supreme Court decision, allowing states to work with DHS to create more accurate voter lists, is one step in the right direction.

Related articles and resources:

9 Election Reforms States Can Implement to Prevent Mistakes and Vote Fraud

Are Elections Secure? 10 Examples of Election Issues Around the Country

Can the US Postal System Be Trusted with Our Ballots?

The Facts About Election Integrity and the Need for States to Fix Their Election Systems

How To Restore Faith in Our Federal Elections

Is it ‘Voter Suppression’ to Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote?

Why (and How) Christians Should Vote

Constitutional ‘Right to Abortion’ on Nevada Ballot This Fall

The 2026 midterm elections are quickly approaching and voters in four states will have an abortion measure on the ballot. One of those states is Nevada.

Nevada voters will cast a second and final vote on Question 6, the “Right to Abortion Amendment.”

A “Yes” vote creates a constitutional “right” to abortion in the state. A “No” vote would help save babies’ lives.

Nevada law requires voters to approve a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment in two consecutive general elections before it takes effect.

Nevadans approved this language in 2024 by a vote of 64% to 35%. If it passes again on November 3, it becomes part of the Nevada Constitution on November 24, 2026.

If approved, Question 6 would add the following language to the Nevada Constitution:

All individuals shall have a fundamental right to abortion performed or administered by a qualified health care practitioner until fetal viability, or when needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient, without interference from the state or its political subdivisions.

The amendment goes on to say that fetal viability, a baby’s ability to survive outside the womb, would be based solely on the judgment of the abortionist. That opens the door to abortions in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. And because the amendment allows abortion at any point when a provider says it is needed for the woman’s “health,” there is no clear limit at all.

Protect Our Girls, the campaign to defeat Question 6, explains that this amendment would:

  • Allow abortions into the ninth month of pregnancy on healthy babies who feel pain.
  • Eliminate safety standards that protect women from abortion complications.
  • Remove parental notification on abortions for minors, allowing boyfriends and predators to pressure a girl into an abortion.

Pre-born babies can feel pain before viability, at 15 weeks or earlier. Under Question 6, babies who can experience pain would be subjected to painful late-term abortions.

Nevada already has one of the most liberal abortion laws in the nation. State law allows abortion during the first 24 weeks of a preborn baby’s life. Question 6 pushes that limit out even further, based on the abortionist’s judgment.

Supporters will tell voters that since abortion is already legal in Nevada, Question 6 changes little. They’re wrong.

A statute can be debated and improved over time. A constitutional amendment is designed to be permanent, and it would make future protections for babies, women and families much harder to pass or defend.

The campaign behind Question 6 is led by Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom. According to Ballotpedia and The Nevada Independent, supporters include Planned Parenthood Advocates Mar Monte, Reproductive Freedom for All, the ACLU of Nevada, and the Feminist Majority Foundation.

Opposing the measure are two political action committees, Protect Our Girls and Students for Life Action Ballot PAC, along with national pro-life groups Americans United for Life and Priests for Life.

The money gap between the measure’s opponents and supporters is enormous. Ballotpedia reports that supporters poured more than $13.2 million into passing Question 6 in 2024, while no money was reported on the opposing side.

This year, Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom has raised more than $815,000 so far, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Nevada secretary of state.

By comparison, Protect Our Girls has raised $10,000, all from two Carson City donors. Students for Life Action Ballot PAC has raised about $1,700.

The next campaign finance reports are due mid-October.

Bible-believing, pro-life Christians in Nevada cannot sit this one out. We encourage Nevadans to please vote, pray and talk to family, friends and neighbors about this important measure.

Early voting in Nevada begins October 17. Election Day is November 3.

And remember to vote for candidates who align with your Christian values this fall.

Nebraska Citizens to Vote on Constitutional Amendment Protecting Girls Sports

Nebraskans will consider a constitutional amendment to protect girls sports in the 2026 midterm election, which will be held on November 3.

Through the initiative process, Nebraska citizens submitted over 211,000 signatures to get the “Fairness for Girls” Amendment added to the 2026 general election ballot.

A ballot initiative is a process that allows citizens to propose statutes or constitutional amendments to place on the ballot after gaining a requisite number of signatures. Citizens then vote on the measures in a regularly scheduled election.

Twenty-six states allow for this type of “direct democracy,” where a majority of voters can directly change the law in their states, in addition to the usual process of state and federal elected representatives proposing and passing laws.

The initiative, also called the “Nebraska Sex Requirement for School and College Sports Amendment,” would add the following text to the state constitution:

(1) Schools must expressly designate each athletic team or sport as one of the following based on biological sex: (a) Males, men, or boys; (b) females, women, or girls; or (c) coed or mixed.
(2) Athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall not be open to students of the male sex.

If approved, it would establish constitutional protections for sex-separate athletics, ensuring female athletes receive equal access to athletic opportunities. The measure would prohibit “transgender”-identified males from competing in girls sports.

While Nebraska has a law protecting girls sports, those safeguards are only statutory, meaning they can be weakened, repealed or overturned. The Fairness for Girls Amendment would ensure girls sports are protected by the Nebraska Constitution.

Fairness for Girls, the leading campaign supporting the initiative, says the measure would:

  • Protect Fairness in Girls Sports: Allowing men to compete in girls sports destroys a level playing field and undermines fairness for our daughters.
  • Protect Girls’ Opportunities: Over 900 medals have been awarded to biological males competing in girls sports.
  • Protect Girls’ Physical Safety: Protecting girls from preventable, potentially life-altering injuries is not controversial. It’s common sense.

The Nebraska Family Alliance (NFA), a Focus on the Family-allied organization, strongly supports this Amendment. NFA Advocacy & Engagement Coordinator Elizabeth Nunnally said,

Men and women have distinct biological differences, and girls sports protections are common-sense. Equal opportunity, privacy, and safety are fundamental rights of every Nebraskan, and Fairness for Girls will establish these safeguards for girls sports in the Nebraska Constitution once and for all.

The organization added, “Nebraska has the opportunity in November to make history and become the first state to adopt these protections through a voter-led constitutional amendment.”

Citizens living in Nebraska can help ensure girls sports are protected for generations to come by voting “Yes” on the state’s Fairness for Girls Amendment on November 3. You can visit the Nebraska secretary of state’s website to learn more about early voting.

All citizens have additional opportunities to promote life, religious freedom, free speech, the God-given reality of biological sex, marriage and children’s rights this election season. In the 2026 midterm election, please support candidates who most align with your Christian values.

Related articles and resources:

Christians Must Get Out to Vote This November

Why Should I Vote?

Understanding the Importance of Voting

Every Single Vote Matters

5 Easy Ways Christians Can Get Involved in Politics

Are You Registered To Vote? If Not, Today is the Day to Do It.

Vermont Ballot Measure Would Enshrine ‘Gender Identity’ Into Constitution

Photo from Shutterstock.

Vermont Ballot Measure Would Enshrine ‘Gender Identity’ Into Constitution

In the 2026 midterm election, Vermont citizens will consider Proposal 4 (Prop 4) which would guarantee protections for each person’s sexual preference and “identity” in the Vermont Constitution.

Vermont’s General Assembly passed Prop 4 earlier this year, referring it to voters to consider at the ballot box on November 3. The Vermont Senate passed the proposed constitutional amendment in a 29-0 vote, while the state House of Representatives passed it 128-14.

The “Equality of Rights” Amendment proposes a long list of various characteristics, invented identities and expressions to add as protected classes in the Vermont Constitution, including an individual’s “sexual orientation,” “gender identity” and “gender expression.”

If passed, the ballot measure would add this proposed language to the Vermont Constitution:

That the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. The State shall not deny equal treatment under the law on account of a person’s race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin.

While “equal rights” may sound compelling, Prop 4 would have negative consequences for Vermont citizens.

Prop 4 threatens the privacy and safety of women by protecting individuals’ “gender identity” and “gender expression.” If the measure passes, biological men identifying as women would have a constitutional right to access women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and sports.

Now, you might be wondering what so-called gender identities the measure would protect. The answer is … all of them. Gender activists say there are at least 72 different gender identities – from xenogender to cakegender to biogender to chaosgender.

Of course, these different gender identities aren’t real. They’re made up out of whole cloth by gender activists, who continually create new “identities” for any person to become by a simple declaration.

But the point stands. If Prop 4 passes, any person could make up and identify as any gender identity – even ones not yet invented – and instantly receive constitutional protections.

You might still be confused as to what all that means. If so, you’re not alone. As we’ve previously written, “Gender activists are making all this up as they go along, so don’t expect it to make sense.”

Additionally, Prop 4 poses a significant threat to religious freedom by enshrining protections for “sexual orientation” into the state constitution.

Laws that protect sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI laws) are frequently used to target people of faith and those who believe humans are created male and female.

As Dr. Ryan T. Anderson has warned, “SOGI laws are the ones that have been used to penalize bakers, florists, photographers, schools, and adoption agencies when they declined to act against their convictions concerning marriage and sexuality. Such laws do not adequately protect religious liberty or freedom of speech.”

For example, same-sex activists sued Christian baker Jack Phillips for refusing to create a custom cake for their “wedding,” an action they claimed violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which contains SOGI protections. Thankfully, Phillips eventually won his case – and two additional ones.

In the case of Vermont, the Vote No on Prop 4 campaign encourages Vermont citizens to Vote “No” on Prop 4. It warns that if the proposal passes, it would:

  • Enshrine unequal rights into the Vermont Constitution.
  • Exacerbate Vermont’s affordability issues.

The group also advises that voting “No” on Prop 4 would not end equal rights in Vermont. It would send the Vermont Legislature back to the drawing board to draft a real equal rights amendment.

The Vermont Family Alliance, a parental rights and child protections advocacy group, opposes Prop 4:

Our main concern … is that [because of Prop 4] the legislature will pass laws that discriminate against biological women, Christians, and traditional families by providing “expanded protections” to the finite list of state-sanctioned “historically marginalized populations” … specifically under “gender identity” and “gender expression” in the proposed amendment.

If you live in Vermont, we encourage you to vote “No” on Proposal 4 this November 3, or when you vote early this election. You can visit Vermont’s secretary of state’s website to find out more about early voting.

Related articles and resources:

What is “Gender Identity”?

How to Talk to Your Children About ‘Transgenderism’

Photo from Shutterstock.