The United States approaches the November 3 midterm election with a thicket of constitutional questions that could alter the relationship between federal power and individual liberties. At the national level, lawmakers and scholars are debating the scope of immigration enforcement, the meaning of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, and the breadth of Lgbtq rights in schools and workplaces. Three Colorado Law faculty members—Jonathon Booth, Scott Skinner-Thompson and Elizabeth Meyer—have been identified as experts who can explain the historical, legal, and policy dimensions of these issues for reporters seeking depth.
National issues shaping the 2026 midterms
Booth, an associate professor specializing in democracy, race, law and policing, is prepared to discuss how federal authority governs immigration enforcement and what precedents exist for limiting or expanding that power. He can also trace the evolution of birthright citizenship from its post-Civil War origins to contemporary challenges that question whether the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil should be altered. Meanwhile, Skinner-Thompson, a constitutional scholar, focuses on the legal shields that protect LGBTQ individuals, the ongoing litigation over transgender rights, and how courts are interpreting civil-rights statutes in the current climate.
Meyer, who researches Title IX and policies affecting LGBTQ students, adds a layer of educational context. She can explain the tension between federal and state policies that impact transgender youth, the ways school districts balance safety with privacy, and how recent debates over parental access to medical records intersect with students’ rights to confidentiality. Together, the trio provides a comprehensive view of the three pillars—immigration, citizenship and LGBTQ protections—that dominate the political discourse ahead of the elections.
Washington state initiatives mirror the cultural clash
On the West Coast, two statewide measures sponsored by the political group Let’s Go Washington have crystallized the broader national conversation. Initiative 638 seeks to bar transgender students from participating in girls’ sports teams in K-12 schools, mandating that a medical professional verify a child’s sex assigned at birth. Proponents argue that the rule safeguards “fair competition,” while opponents warn it would force doctors to perform invasive examinations not customary in standard athletic physicals. Initiative 001 aims to roll back the legislature’s recent amendment to the state’s “Parents Bill of Rights,” shortening the period for parents to request textbooks and guaranteeing access to a child’s medical or mental-health records. Critics fear the measure could compel schools to disclose a student’s gender identity to unsupportive families, jeopardizing the safety of LGBTQ youths.
Both initiatives echo similar battles in states such as Colorado, Arizona and Nebraska, where lawmakers are wrestling with whether to codify restrictions on transgender athletes or to protect parental involvement in education. The Washington votes therefore serve as a bellwether for how the country’s cultural fault lines may be reflected in ballot boxes across the nation.
Ballot measures across seven states
Arizona – Proposition 318
Arizona voters will decide whether to require schools and private facilities to categorize sports participation according to the sex recorded at birth. Supporters claim the measure preserves “sex-segregated athletics,” while opponents label it discrimination that would limit transgender youth’s access to school activities.
Colorado – Propositions 134 and 135
Colorado presents a paired decision. Proposition 134 mirrors Arizona’s sports rule, demanding sex-based classification for athletic teams. Proposition 135 targets medical care, prohibiting certain gender-affirming surgeries for anyone under 18 and restricting public funds for such procedures. Medical associations argue that treatment decisions should remain between families and qualified clinicians.
Missouri – Amendment 3
Missouri’s amendment bundles abortion restrictions with a ban on gender-transition procedures for minors, including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. The proposal would embed these limits in the state constitution, creating a landmark convergence of reproductive and transgender-health policy.
Nebraska – Initiative 442
Nebraska’s measure seeks a constitutional amendment that forces schools to segregate athletic teams by biological sex, reinforcing an existing statutory restriction but elevating it to the highest legal authority in the state.
Vermont – Proposal 4
In contrast, Vermont voters will consider a broad equal-protection amendment that explicitly forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, among other characteristics, providing a constitutional foundation for future LGBTQ claims.
Virginia – Question 2
Virginia’s ballot asks citizens to delete an outdated constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, replacing it with language that affirms the right of two consenting adults to marry regardless of sex, gender or race. Though the ban is already unenforceable after the 2015 Supreme Court ruling, its removal would symbolically cleanse the state charter.
Washington – Initiatives 001 and 638
Washington’s two measures, described above, will determine whether parental rights to a child’s medical information are expanded and whether transgender athletes can compete in gender-aligned sports. The outcomes will likely influence pending legislation in neighboring states.
Collectively, these eight measures illustrate a stark ideological divide: six proposals aim to tighten controls over transgender youth and related health care, while two initiatives—Vermont’s equal-protection amendment and Virginia’s marriage-equality question—seek to broaden constitutional guarantees for LGBTQ citizens. As voters head to the polls on November 3, the resulting legal landscape could reshape not only state statutes but also national debates over the balance between individual rights and governmental authority.
