NO318

What Prop 318 actually says

The provisions of HCR 2003 that change what schools and leagues must do, section by section, with the legal language on one side and plain English on the other. Nothing here is paraphrased without the original next to it.

Proposition 318 is House Concurrent Resolution 2003 of the 57th Legislature, Second Regular Session. It passed the House on February 23, 2026 and the Senate on June 12, 2026, and was filed with the Secretary of State the same day. Because it is a legislative referral, it did not go to the Governor for signature or veto.

It amends a statute that already exists, A.R.S. § 15-120.02. Its short title is the “Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona Act.”

Subsection A – who has to designate teams by sex

§ 15-120.02(A)

BEGINNING ON JANUARY 1, 2027, each SCHOOL THAT SPONSORS AN interscholastic or intramural athletic team or sport that is sponsored by a public school or a private school whose students or teams compete against a public school AND EACH ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION THAT SPONSORS AN INTERSCHOLASTIC OR INTRAMURAL SPORT shall be expressly designated DESIGNATE THE ATHLETIC TEAM OR SPORT as one of the following, based on the biological sex of the students ATHLETES who participate…

In plain English

The deleted clause is the important one. Today the law reaches public schools, plus private schools that play against them. Strike that, and it reaches every school – and the definitions section extends “school” to colleges and universities.

“Athletic association” is new here too, which pulls in leagues that have no connection to any school at all.

Subsection B – the exclusion

§ 15-120.02(B)

A SCHOOL OR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION MAY NOT OPEN ANY INTERSCHOLASTIC OR INTRAMURAL athletic teams TEAM or sports SPORT THAT IS designated for “females”, “women” or “girls” may not be open to students ATHLETES of the male sex.

In plain English

Close to current law, rewritten so the ban applies to the school rather than to the team. The school or league is now the party that “may not open” the team, and that is what makes it the defendant later.

Subsection D – restrooms, locker rooms, and showers

This subsection is entirely new.

§ 15-120.02(D)

BEGINNING ON JANUARY 1, 2027, IF A SCHOOL OR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION PROVIDES AND MAINTAINS RESTROOMS, LOCKER ROOMS, SHOWER ROOMS OR OTHER PRIVATE SPACES THAT ARE INTEGRAL TO ATHLETIC ENGAGEMENT, THE SCHOOL OR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INCLUDING EMPLOYEES OF THE SCHOOL OR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, MAY NOT AUTHORIZE ANY INDIVIDUAL TO USE A RESTROOM, LOCKER ROOM, SHOWER ROOM OR OTHER PRIVATE SPACE THAT IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL’S SEX.

In plain English

Two phrases carry the weight.

“Any individual” – not “any student” or “any athlete.” As written this reaches coaches, staff, volunteers, officials, and spectators using a facility at a sanctioned event.

“Integral to athletic engagement” – undefined. The gym locker room, clearly. The restroom off the gym lobby during a game, probably. The nearest restroom in the main hallway? The measure does not say, and the people who have to guess are school employees facing personal exposure for guessing wrong.

Subsection E – the one-way shield

§ 15-120.02(E), formerly (D)

A government entity, any licensing or ORGANIZATION, accrediting organization or any athletic association or organization may not entertain a complaint, open an investigation or take any other adverse action against a school OR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION for maintaining separate interscholastic or intramural athletic teams or sports for students ATHLETES of the female sex.

In plain English

A school that excludes a student is immunized: no agency, no accreditor, no league may even open an investigation into it.

A school that includes a student has no equivalent protection. It faces the lawsuit in the next subsection.

That asymmetry is the whole design. Exclusion is legally free. Inclusion is expensive. Every institution reading this statute learns the same lesson.

Subsection F – the private lawsuit

§ 15-120.02(F), formerly (E)

Any student ATHLETE who is deprived of an athletic opportunity or suffers any direct or indirect harm as a result of a school OR AN ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION knowingly violating this section has a private cause of action for injunctive relief, damages and any other relief available under law against the school OR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.

In plain English

“Any direct or indirect harm” is not defined anywhere in the statute. A competitor who placed behind someone can assert it. So, arguably, can a teammate.

“Knowingly” is the supposed limit, and it is where the pressure comes from. A district that has heard nothing is not knowing. A district that received a complaint last Tuesday and let the student play on Friday has a much harder argument. In practice, a complaint is the thing that manufactures knowledge – which means anyone can create the school’s liability by sending one email.

Subsection H – the shield has a sword

§ 15-120.02(H), formerly (G)

Any school that suffers any direct or indirect harm as a result of a violation of this section has a private cause of action for injunctive relief, damages and any other relief available under law against the government entity, the licensing or ORGANIZATION, accrediting organization or the athletic association or organization.

In plain English

This one is not new. It has been in the statute since 2022, and Prop 318 only renumbers it and tidies the list of defendants.

It matters because of what it does next to subsection E. E says a regulator may not investigate a school for excluding an athlete. H says that if one does anyway, the school can sue it – for damages, and under subsection I, for attorney fees.

So the protection for institutions that exclude is not merely that nothing can be done to them. The body that tries becomes the defendant.

Note who is missing. Prop 318 adds athletic associations to the list of parties E protects. It does not add them here. A club league that gets investigated has no matching claim. A school does.

Subsection I – damages and attorney fees

§ 15-120.02(I), formerly (H)

All civil actions must be initiated within two years after the alleged violation of this section occurred. A person AN INDIVIDUAL or organization that prevails on a claim brought pursuant to this section is entitled to monetary damages, including damages for any psychological, emotional or physical harm suffered, reasonable attorney fees and costs and any other appropriate relief.

In plain English

Fee-shifting is what makes these cases economically viable to bring. A plaintiff with a plausible claim of “indirect harm” costs a school district a defense even if the district eventually wins.

Two years also means a school’s decision this season is contestable through the season after next.

Subsection J – the definitions

§ 15-120.02(J), formerly (I)

  1. “ATHLETE” MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL, INCLUDING A STUDENT, WHO PARTICIPATES IN ANY INTERSCHOLASTIC OR INTRAMURAL ATHLETIC TEAM OR SPORT.

  2. “ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION” MEANS A LEAGUE, CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION OR ORGANIZATION THAT HAS A PRIMARY PURPOSE OF SPONSORING OR ADMINISTERING EXTRACURRICULAR ATHLETIC CONTESTS OR COMPETITIONS.

  3. “School” means either: (a) A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE school that provides instruction in any combination of kindergarten programs or grades one through twelve. (b) An institution of higher education.

  4. “SEX” MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL’S BIOLOGICAL STATUS AS MALE OR FEMALE AS RECORDED AT BIRTH ON THE INDIVIDUAL’S ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

In plain English

“Athlete” replaces “student” throughout. Adults who compete in a covered league are athletes.

“Athletic association” is broad enough to cover a youth soccer club, a travel volleyball organization, or a summer rec league, none of which have any relationship to a school.

“Sex” is the definition that does the work, and the word “original” is load-bearing. In September 2025 a federal judge permanently barred Arizona from requiring surgery before a transgender person could correct the sex marker on their birth certificate. Prop 318 routes around that ruling by making the corrected document irrelevant – so an Arizonan can hold a valid, accurate, state-issued birth certificate and have this statute disregard it.

Note also what the definition assumes. “Biological status as male or female as recorded at birth” treats an administrative entry as a plain statement of biological fact. For intersex people that entry can be a provisional judgment later corrected, and the statute offers no alternative when the original document does not settle the question. It names one document and stops.

Severability and title

Secs. 2 and 3

Sec. 2. Severability. If a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application…

Sec. 3. Short title. This act may be cited as the “Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona Act”.

In plain English

Severability means striking the locker room provision in court would leave the definition and the lawsuit intact. Voting no is the only way to reject the measure as a whole.

Read it yourself: HCR 2003 as filed (PDF, azleg.gov)