A Nevada judge heard arguments Thursday on a lawsuit seeking to nullify the ballot initiative limiting transgender athletes to sports based on their assigned sex at birth.

Carson City Judge Jason Woodbury threw out an effort from supporters of the initiative to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the naming of certain defendants was illegal. But he did not issue a ruling on the lawsuit itself, which was brought by the head of the Nevada chapter of the National Organization for Women. 

Throughout the 75-minute hearing, Woodbury pressed both sides over whether the form to gather signatures for the ballot question sufficiently explained its effect and if it is legal for a ballot initiative to force a government entity to take certain actions.

His decision will have significant implications on the 2026 election cycle. In a recording obtained by The Nevada Independent last month, Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo described the ballot initiative as part of his “game plan” to secure re-election by getting people out to vote. He also said in another recording that “I am not enough of a motivator as a governor candidate to get them off the couch.”

Debate over transgender student sport participation is also growing in Nevada. Lt. Gov. Stavros Anthony (R) created a task force on the issue — which spurred an ethics investigation over use of state resources — and the group overseeing Nevada school sports changed its policy last year to limit students to sports that align with their assigned sex at birth.

It’s unclear if there are any transgender student athletes in Nevada, and if so, how many. Polls have consistently shown the vast majority of Americans support participation restrictions, while opponents have said they are an effort to sideline a miniscule minority.

A bill in last year’s legislative session would have placed these limits at Nevada schools, but it never received a hearing in the Democrat-controlled Legislature. 

A central part of challenges to ballot questions center on the “description of effect,” a 200-word summary of its implications. This proposal’s description states it would amend the state Constitution to require any entities that receive public funds and oversee sports to categorize sports by sex and adopt rules to implement the measure.

Bradley Schrager, a lawyer who typically represents Democrat-backed causes and is representing the plaintiffs seeking to block the ballot initiative, argued the description, which does not specifically mention transgender students, was insufficient.

“There are no effects or consequences within their description of effect,” Schrager said. “It is, in essence, a mini summary.”

He also argued that the description does not provide the context of existing rules, such as the new restrictions enacted last year.

“To not mention it all is to run away from what’s required of the effects and consequences,” he said.

Meanwhile, lawyers in support of the ballot initiative said the effects were “very clearly set forth.”

“The description … lays out the proposed policy, which is to require that athletic eligibility would be based on biological sex,” lawyer Keith Ketola said.

The other primary issue is whether these ballot initiatives are allowed to direct governments to take certain actions.

Ketola said they can.

“If you can have a constitutional petition that can’t tell the state what to do, then the people of Nevada have no ability to change the government at all,” he said.

However, Schrager argued that existing legal precedent says this is not allowed for these kinds of ballot initiatives, referring to a 2022 Nevada Supreme Court ruling that quashed an education-related ballot initiative by saying it cannot supersede the Legislature’s ability to pass laws.

“There’s no question that this initiative strays into administrative details that are inappropriate for a constitutional measure,” Schrager said.