Full Breakdown
Nebraska Ballot Measure on Sex-Separate Athletics Faces Legal Challenge
9/9/2026, 7:13:30 AM
Core Issue and Current Status
Nebraska voter Cara Ullman has refiled a lawsuit to block the “Fairness for Girls” constitutional amendment from the November ballot. The amendment would embed a 2025 law requiring public K-12 schools, colleges, universities and competing private institutions to label athletic teams as male, female or coed based on the athlete’s biological sex at birth, barring male students from female-only teams. The challenge centers on whether the petition’s object statement—the brief description circulated with signatures—provides sufficient detail under state law.
Background & Context
In late August the petition gathered enough valid signatures to qualify. Nebraska law defines “sex” by reproductive systems that produce eggs (female) or sperm (male). The amendment would elevate that definition to the state constitution.
Key Figures & Groups
- Cara Ullman – plaintiff.
- Sydney Hayes – Ullman’s attorney.
- Bob Evnen – Secretary of State, certifying the ballot measure.
- Zach Pohlman – State Deputy Solicitor General defending the object statement.
- Andrew La Grone, Julie Slama, Rob Schafer – sponsors of the amendment.
Timeline
- Late August – Petition qualifies after sufficient signatures.
- Earlier this week – Nebraska Supreme Court declines to hear Ullman’s initial challenge.
- Friday – Ullman’s attorney appears before Lancaster County District Judge Lori Maret to request that Evnen be barred from placing the measure on the ballot.
- Upcoming – Judge Maret will issue a written ruling; Evnen must certify the ballot by the following Friday.
- November – General election decides the amendment.
Official Statements & Responses
The Attorney General’s Office drafted the ballot title, asking whether the constitution should require schools to designate each athletic team or sport as male, female, or coed based on biological sex and prohibit male students from joining female-designated teams. Deputy Solicitor General Zach Pohlman said object statements must disclose whether the measure is an initiative or referendum, state the object, and be concise and prominent. He argued the petition meets all three statutory requirements and noted no court has ever removed a qualifying initiative on an object-statement challenge.
Former state senator Andrew La Grone, speaking for the sponsors, asserted the sponsors exercised a First Amendment right to craft the object statement and called the lawsuit a “political question” beyond the judiciary.
Criticism & Opposition
Ullman argues the object statement is overly vague—failing to mention “schools” and potentially misleading signers about the measure’s scope.
Verbatim Quotes
- “These summaries … must contain enough information to sufficiently advise voters of the true contents of the proposed law or constitutional amendment,” — Sydney Hayes
- “What the object statement is not supposed to be is a recitation or a summary of every provision,” — Zach Pohlman
- “There is no way a state can police the content of that statement,” — Andrew La Grone
What’s Next
Judge Lori Maret will issue a written decision on Ullman’s request. If she blocks the measure, Secretary of State Bob Evnen must remove it from the November ballot; otherwise, the amendment will appear for voter approval.
