John TytusColorado 2026 ballot

Proposition 135: Ban surgery on minors to alter sex characteristics

Statute, citizen initiative. Needs a majority to pass.

What it does

Bans any health care professional or other person from performing, prescribing, or providing surgery on someone under 18 to alter biological sex characteristics as a treatment in response to the minor's perception of their sex or gender. The ban is defined by the reason for the surgery, not a list of procedures, so it covers gender-affirming surgery and, the Blue Book says, may also limit other surgeries on non-transgender minors if read as responding to sex or gender perception. Male circumcision, treatment of medically verifiable disorders of sex development, and treatment of acquired physical or chemical abnormalities are allowed. Counseling and social transition are not restricted. State and federal funds, Medicaid, and private insurance couldn't pay for the banned surgeries.

The Blue Book says it is unknown how many minors receive these surgeries; one Harvard study of 2019 insurance claims estimated that for every 100,000 youths aged 15-17, 2.1 who identified as transgender or gender diverse had at least one gender-affirming surgery. Colorado's three large pediatric surgical providers say they don't perform gender- or sex-based surgeries on transgender patients under 18.

Blue Book arguments

For: Minors lack the maturity for permanent, life-altering medical decisions, so surgery should wait until adulthood; more long-term data is needed, some minors may regret irreversible surgery, and other states have already limited it.

Against: The ban is so broad it could interfere with medical and cosmetic surgery for transgender and non-transgender minors alike, leading insurers to narrow coverage and doctors to withhold care; it delays care that parents, patients, and doctors agree on, and restricting surgical care may worsen mental health outcomes for minors; these decisions belong to patients, families, and doctors, not the ballot.

What it costs

Minimal. Some rule-updating and complaint-handling workload at state agencies; possibly minimal Medicaid savings. No dollar figures.

Who is paying

Money as of the Sept 28, 2026 filing.

Same committees and money as Proposition 134; see that sheet for the donor detail. In short:

For

Committee Raised Spent
Protect Kids Colorado – Issue Committee (backs 133, 134, 135) $173,839 $91,814
Protect Our Children $0 $0

Against

Committee Raised Spent
Families not Politics (opposes 134 and 135; includes $283,678 in-kind) $1,391,126 $365,937
The People’s No (opposes 81, 132, 134, 135) $100,000 $0
No on 109 and 110 (files in TRACER as No on 134 and 135) $10,529 $4,389
Protect Trans Kids $0 $0
Vote Common Sense (registered against nine measures) $495,000 $81,367

Yes money: Protect Kids Colorado's own 501(c)(4) ($43,644), Pikes Peak Citizens for Life (Colorado Springs), and Truth and Liberty Foundation and Andrew Wommack Ministries (Woodland Park); 98% in-state. No money (Families not Politics): abortion-rights and LGBTQ advocacy groups (Cobalt Advocates, One Colorado), ACLU entities, Rose Community Foundation, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Merle Chambers; 76% in-state.

Where the parties stand

Democrats: the Colorado Democratic Party opposes Proposition 135 (listed in its State Central Committee release of Sept 8, 2026).

Republicans: no position from the Colorado Republican Party found as of Sept 30, 2026. The Weld County Republican Party, a county party, recommends a yes vote (its Resolution WCRCC-2026-09, adopted Sept 15, 2026).

No minor-party position found as of Sept 30, 2026.

What isn't known

Whether the measure would change anything in practice, given the providers' statements above. The Blue Book doesn't say.

Sources