A Nevada judge on Wednesday dismissed a challenge to a proposed ballot question limiting transgender athletes to sports based on their assigned sex at birth. But he ruled a description of the proposal’s effects must say it would carve out an exception to the state Constitution’s guarantee of equal rights regardless of gender identity.

Carson City Judge Jason Woodbury’s ruling largely disagreed with the lawsuit seeking to nullify the ballot question. But he said the new language he legally mandated to be included on signature gathering forms would more accurately reflect the proposal and that there must also be more consistency about what entities that oversee sports would be subject to the new rules.

Typically, these rulings trigger an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo is behind the initiative, which would require entities overseeing school sports to categorize them as male, female or coeducational. In a recording obtained by The Nevada Independent last month, Lombardo described the ballot initiative as part of his “game plan” to secure re-election by getting people out to vote. 

In a statement Wednesday, Lombardo campaign spokesperson Halee Dobbins said that the governor “is proud to lead the effort to give voters a direct voice on the issue, and he is confident voters will overwhelmingly choose to protect the safety, competition, and integrity of girls’ sports.”

“There has been a lot of talk, but not a lot of action when it comes to actually protecting girls’ sports in Nevada,” the statement said.

It’s unclear if there are any transgender student athletes in Nevada, and if so, how many. Last year, the organization overseeing school sports in Nevada — which does not track the number of transgender athletes — changed its policy to limit participation to a student’s assigned birth sex, as did the NCAA.

Wednesday’s ruling relates to a lawsuit filed on behalf of Sue Burtch, the head of the Nevada chapter of the National Organization for Women. A hearing was held last week.

The lawsuit alleged the petition’s “description of effect,” a 200-word summary of its implications, was insufficient because it did not include context that it would carve out an exception to Nevada’s so-called Equal Rights Amendment, omitted the scope of the school sports issue and did not describe any true effects, among other arguments.

Woodbury only agreed with the first argument. 

Originally, the description only noted that the proposal would amend the part of the Nevada Constitution that restricts discrimination based on gender and other characteristics, which voters approved in 2022. 

However, Woodbury said this should be modified, and his ruling included a new description that explicitly notes the initiative would carve out an exception to the state Constitution.

It is likely that this new description will be the one used on forms to gather signatures. Nevada law prohibits descriptions complying with court rulings from being challenged in future lower court cases, but the ongoing case can still be appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.

For the measure to qualify for the November ballot, supporters must submit at least 37,197 signatures from each of the state’s four congressional districts by June 24. Challenges to the descriptions of effect can invalidate already-collected signatures, but no signatures have been collected yet, according to Lombardo’s campaign.

Woodbury’s other ruling against the initiative was not in response to complaints brought up in the original lawsuit. In last week’s hearing, he questioned why the ballot question itself says that any “recipients of State funds” are subject to the proposed rules, while the description of effect said it applied to “programs that receive public funds.”

His revised description of effect replaces “public funds” with “State funds.”

“[T]he Description of Effect must be modified to correct this slight discrepancy and avoid any misunderstanding by potential signers,” Woodbury wrote in his ruling.

The lawsuit’s other arguments largely revolved around whether it is legal for a ballot initiative to force a government entity to take certain actions. 

Bradley Schrager, a lawyer challenging the proposal who typically represents Democrat-backed causes, referred to a Nevada Supreme Court ruling that invalidated another ballot initiative by saying it cannot supersede the Legislature’s ability to pass laws.

Schrager argued this should apply to non-Legislature government entities as well, but Woodbury did not agree.

“Such an extension … would virtually abrogate Nevada’s initiative power,” Woodbury wrote.