Colorado is a solidly blue state with protections for trans people on the books. When a hospital stopped providing gender-affirming care to trans youth because of policies from the Trump administration, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that it had to resume care (the hospital is now being sued over its claim that the doctors are refusing to provide the care). And yet, on Tuesday, trans rights might be decided by voters through ballot initiatives.

Voters in the Centennial State will be faced with Propositions 134 and 135. A “yes” vote on Prop 134 supports defining student athletes’ gender by their “biological reproductive systems” and forcing them to only compete on teams that align with that gender. A “yes” on Prop 135 supports a ban on gender-affirming surgeries for trans minors: a rare situation that is limited to top surgery anyway. A carveout in the proposition allows cis people to still receive the same care denied to trans people.

The email, reviewed by Westword, is addressed from Rich Guggenheim to State Rep. Brianna Titone on Oct. 7, 2026. The message begins by calling Titone her deadname, then says: “Whats up trnny? OR do you prefer tron? I’ve got all kinds of slurs, and as long as you keep using the slur ‘cis’, I will keep using them on you, sir.”

Guggenheim was a lead proponent of what became Proposition 134, an initiative to prohibit trans students from playing on K-12 and college sports teams that don’t align with their sex assigned at birth. He was one of two designated representatives behind the original proposal, Initiative 70. Erin Lee replaced Guggenheim when the proposal was amended and reintroduced as Initiative 109 to make technical corrections. In the email to Titone, Guggenheim slams the House member out of Jefferson County for opposing the ballot measure, accusing her of “misogyny and homophobia” because Guggenheim is gay.

“What the email clearly shows is the animus toward the trans community behind these initiatives,” Titone says. “I can passionately disagree with someone without using slurs, but the choice was made to go there. Again and again, we see animus and vitriol used against the trans community, which they have realized they can profit from. It’s truly telling what their motivations are from this email.”

After saying she and her husband briefly contemplated committing arson against their local school district, Protect Kids Colorado Executive Director Erin Lee ultimately concluded, “ continue to burn things down, we're just doing it in a different way, through lawsuits, through exposure, through forcing the change of laws on these school districts. It's not as immediately gratifying, but I do think in the long run it's more effective.”

Over the next few weeks, Coloradans will decide whether to ban gender-affirming surgeries for minors, though available data suggests few teens receive such procedures in this state.

Proposition 135 would outlaw surgeries to change a minor’s sexual characteristics for gender-affirming purposes. Currently, 26 states outlaw both gender-affirming medication and surgery for youth, though a handful have exemption processes. Arizona bars only surgeries.

No Colorado hospitals currently offer gender-affirming surgeries to minors. Medical provider groups have opposed the ballot initiative because of concerns about government interference in healthcare decisions. And the measure’s opponents held a significant fundraising advantage as of the end of September.

According to meteorologists, the wildfire risk remains low in Connecticut after the state experienced adequate rainfall over the past several weeks.

Propositions 134 and 135 could greatly affect all young people's rights to bodily autonomy in the normally trans-friendly state.

In a complete betrayal, solidly Democratic Colorado will also be immediately shutting off care for trans kids currently receiving puberty blockers—despite Trump allowing a 6 month ‘tapering’ period.

Four paragraphs buried in a story published by the Meeker Herald-Times during mid-June triggered the entry of several Colorado ranchers into the Boulder-Suncor case argued on Monday morning before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Propositions 134 and 135 would restrict transgender students’ participation in school sports and ban gender-affirming medical care for minors. Like Amendment 2, they take a fight over LGBTQ+ rights out of the halls of the state Capitol and put it directly before voters. And, like Amendment 2, the campaigns surrounding them have centered on the idea that protecting LGBTQ+ people comes at the expense of someone else — in this case, children.

The similarities are not lost on people who lived through Colorado’s fight over LGBTQ+ rights more than three decades ago, even when the political circumstances today are different. The underlying political question is the same: What happens when the rights of a small, politically vulnerable group are put directly to a statewide vote?

This November, Prop 134 will ask Colorado voters whether or not all educational institutions should be required to enforce policies delineating sports participation by sex instead of gender, and Prop 135 will ask voters to voice whether gender-affirming surgery for minors should be prohibited.

“Ballot initiative 134 aims to prevent transgender children from participating in school sports,” Pendleton said. “It would add language in state statute to define boys and girls based on physical anatomy, excluding transgender people.”

Pendleton, who represents the Pride Resource Center, expressed concern about the current political attitudes toward transgender individuals in Colorado.

“Initiative 135 … would prohibit health care professionals from knowingly performing any surgery on a minor ‘for the purpose of altering biological sex characteristics,’” Pendleton said. “Both are very anti-LGBTQ and very antitrans pieces of legislation.”

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case out of Boulder on Monday morning.

Proposition 135 is a ballot initiative seeking to ban all insurance coverage and federal funding from covering gender affirming surgery for trans youth that will be appearing on the ballot this upcoming month.

The Colorado Medical Society, the largest organization of physicians in Colorado, agreed in its September meeting that it would be opposing the initiative. “CMS members hold diverse political views but share a core principle: medical decisions belong in the exam room,” said CMS President Sean Pauzauskie in a statement, “CMS flatly opposes interference by government or other third parties that compromise physicians’ abilities to use their medical judgment as to the information or treatment that is in the best interest of their patients.”

Colorado voters in November will decide if the state should ban gender-affirming surgeries for minors.

Proposition 135 would prohibit health care professionals from knowingly performing any surgery on a minor “for the purpose of altering biological sex characteristics.” The measure would also prohibit state and federal funding including Medicaid from being used to pay for gender-affirming procedures.

It’s one of two ballot measures seeking to restrict the rights of transgender children that are backed by Protect Kids Colorado, an organization led by prominent anti-LGBTQ+ activist Erin Lee. Lee did not respond before publication to Newsline’s questions about the goals of the measure and how it could prohibit non-transgender children from receiving surgeries related to gender. The other measure would ban transgender youth from playing on gendered sports teams.

Colorado voters will decide on Proposition 134 on Election Day. Here is a breakdown of what a statewide ban on transgender student athletes would mean for schools and colleges.

When the Supreme Court hears arguments in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, Colorado will defend antidiscrimination laws for the fourth time in 10 years.