A Four-Time NCAA Champion Wants a Lane of Her Own for Her Daughter. Colorado's Board of Ed Members Want the Old Rules.

On Nov. 3, Colorado voters decide whether girls’ teams will be protected by a statewide sex-based rule that takes effect Jan. 1, 2027.

Colorado should approve Proposition 134 to protect girls’ teams, as Caroline Piehl urged in her Oct. 8 Colorado Politics column¹.

On Oct. 9², five members of Colorado’s State Board of Education used the same publication to urge a no vote. They called the measure “vague, poorly written” and said it would insert the Commissioner of Education into athletic policy decisions.

Athletes for Action highlighted Piehl’s appeal on Oct. 11: “Her Colorado Politics column connects her years in swimming with the opportunities she wants for her daughter.”³

“Every kid who wants to play deserves a place to play.”

Caroline Piehl

Piehl’s account begins at a pool in Centennial¹ and reaches her four-month-old daughter. At Smoky Hill High School, she won back-to-back state championships in the 200 individual medley. She also set Colorado records in that event and the 100 freestyle. She credits Title IX and a level field: “every race I swam was against other girls, on a level playing field.”

In swimming, she writes, “the gap between the fastest men and the fastest women isn’t measured in hundredths of a second. It’s measured in body lengths.”¹ She cites an Ernst & Young and espnW study finding that 94% of women in the C-suite played sports. Her warning is that a girl who trains for years and loses a relay place or scholarship to a male athlete learns that the game is rigged.

That rule would preserve girls’ opportunities to compete for team places, records and scholarships. Its text requires school-sponsored teams to be designated male, female or coeducational by biological sex and bars male participants from female teams. Girls could join boys’ teams where no girls’ team is available in their sport; coed teams remain open¹. Students born with a diagnosed difference in sex development retain federal legal protections and accommodations⁴.

Piehl writes that her daughter “won’t remember this election, but she will grow up with its results.” That is the household stake: preserving the opportunities mothers want to pass to their daughters¹.

Oct. 8Piehl urges voters to approve Proposition 134 in her Colorado Politics column
Oct. 9Five State Board of Education members urge a no vote
Oct. 11Athletes for Action highlights Piehl’s appeal
Nov. 3Colorado voters decide whether to approve Proposition 134.

94%

share of women in the C-suite who played sports

Colorado families now face a patchwork of eligibility policies⁵. Chalkbeat reports that some schools permit teams based on gender identity, while other districts and charter schools do not. The result is a statewide sex-based rule for male and female teams, while coeducational teams remain open to every student.

Chalkbeat reports similar ballot measures in Washington, Arizona and Nebraska, with Nebraska’s proposed restriction going into its constitution⁵. The guide connects those measures to President Trump’s 2025 executive order and reports that a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allows, without requiring, states to adopt such restrictions.

Protect Kids Colorado also backs Proposition 133, increasing sex-trafficking penalties, and Proposition 135, barring sex-change surgery for minors, Chalkbeat reports⁵. Co-founder Erin Lee describes the group as “a grassroots collection of a few thousand individuals who’ve taken an interest in the issue.” Athletes for Action’s Paula Scanlan credits Colorado families with putting the sports measure on the ballot⁶. Parents can turn that organizing into a statewide protection at the ballot box.

The opposing board members are Lisa Escarcega, Karla Esser, Kathy Gebhardt, Rebecca McClellan and Kathy Plomer². They warn that the measure “doesn’t say who makes the call, what documentation is required or what a family can do if a school gets it wrong,” and could expose girls to “invasive gender checks.” They say CHSAA adopted a policy in 2019 allowing local schools to make eligibility decisions, with an appeals process.

Chalkbeat reports that the measure leaves the method of determining sex to schools⁵. The text requires each school’s governing body to adopt an implementing policy, leaving local institutions to establish procedures under the statewide rule⁴. If the Commissioner determines that a district intentionally refused to comply, the Commissioner must give notice and reasonable time to comply; the Commissioner must take remedial action if the district remains noncompliant and makes no good-faith attempt to comply. That compliance safeguard concerns districts; schools should also establish clear documentation and review procedures for families.

Lee told Chalkbeat: “Everyone is subjected to the requirement to prove biological sex, and then no one has to guess or question or single anyone out.”⁵ She identifies doctor notes and cheek swabs as possible documentation. Schools should implement the standard consistently and protect students’ privacy, rather than rely on the board members’ hypothetical judgment that a girl looks “too strong.”²

On Nov. 3, voters decide whether Colorado will protect girls’ teams under a statewide sex-based rule, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2027⁵, if approved. The same eligibility rule protects female teams while preserving the other avenues for participation⁴. Piehl pairs that protection with an inclusive principle: “Every kid who wants to play deserves a place to play.”¹

Vote yes on Proposition 134.

A Four-Time NCAA Champion Wants a Lane of Her Own for Her Daughter. Colorado's Board of Ed Members Want the Old Rules.

Sources