The Man Behind the Anti-Trans Ballot Machine

This story was published in partnership with Westword, an independent, alt-weekly newspaper in Denver.

A ballot measure can do what years of lobbying, legislation and campaign promises sometimes cannot: turn a contentious political fight into a simple yes-or-no question for millions of voters.

They let campaigns isolate complex legal issues and take them directly to voters. And on its face, it seems like the most democratic way to settle a political fight — let the people decide.

But the strategy also reflects one that LGBTQ+ advocates have seen before, where voters who broadly support equal treatment have backed policies that limit specific rights for certain groups.

Few political operatives understand that strategy better than Tim Mooney.

The longtime conservative consultant from Cave Creek, Arizona, has spent decades helping turn policy fights into ballot questions. He has worked on dozens of ballot campaigns across the country involving same-sex marriage (both for and against), voting laws, education policy and labor issues — many of which have been successful.

Now, he’s working on ballot measures in both Colorado and Arizona that have been a sticky subject for Democrats who are eager to win over conservative voters on the issue of transgender civil rights.

Mooney may not be a household name in conservative homes, but his influence is undeniable in conservative political circles that back his campaigns. He boasts a track record of 55 wins out of 62 ballot measures he’s helped craft and get on ballots across the country, and his network of companies has gathered more than $22 million in campaign contracts and payments since 2010, according to campaign finance records and other publicly available documents.

And while his method of focusing on ballot measures may seem ingenious, it has become par for the course in an era of divisive American politics, where bipartisan lawmaking has become less common and workarounds to get laws passed outside standard procedures become more common.

Indeed, multiple progressive groups have flagged that this year alone, ballot measures are being used across the nation to push for more politically conservative laws than in years past. And while that history has seen reactionary politics swing in the opposite direction, advocates worry that, given the state of trust in elections and the makeup of the nation’s courts, wins at the ballot could be far more permanent than before.

The ballot and the battlefield

Mooney’s efforts come as transgender civil rights have become an increasingly sharp dividing line between states. A September report from the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), an independent nonprofit think tank that researches LGBTQ+ policy, found that while state protections based on sexual orientation have generally improved since 2020, policies affecting transgender people have moved rapidly in opposite directions. In 2026, more than half of states fell into MAP’s lowest category for gender-identity policy.

Colorado is one of five states with transgender-related measures on their 2026 ballots that have among the easiest routes for getting measures before voters.

But Mooney’s work begins well before a lawmaker’s pen hits the paper, through identifying issues, polling voters, finding states where a measure can realistically reach the ballot, raising money and assembling a team to turn an idea into legislation.

In a sit-down interview with LOOKOUT and Westword, Mooney said his campaigns conduct extensive research before deciding to move forward with a measure.

“These efforts need to be organized months, even years in advance,” he said. “We come up with the issue ideas and do early quantitative and qualitative research to best understand both raw support data and demographics and underlying attitudinal notions.”

Logan Casey, director of policy research at MAP, said that strategy has a familiar history in LGBTQ+ politics, by using “ballot measures as a tactic against LGBTQ rights.”

Rather than relying solely on politicians to move an issue through a statehouse, ballot initiatives can put the question directly before voters — and, depending on the state, bypass legislative or gubernatorial opposition.

Research from MAP found that ballot measures were a central tool in the fight over same-sex marriage in the 1990s and 2000s. Its latest research also found that ballot-access rules also play a part: Colorado is one of five states with transgender-related measures on their 2026 ballots that have among the easiest routes for getting measures before voters.

MAP’s research points to something Mooney has understood throughout his career: that where a campaign is located is just as decisive as what it’s about, saying he deliberately looks for states offering a plausible path to victory.

Both Colorado and Arizona offered such paths.

In Arizona, Proposition 318, called the Protect Girls Sports in Arizona Act, “requires all schools and athletic associations to designate athletic teams as male, female, or coed based on the biological sex of the athletes as defined at birth; prohibits these entities from authorizing use of private spaces not designated for a person’s sex.”

Arizona already restricts transgender girls from competing on girls’ school sports teams under its 2022 “Save Women’s Sports Act.” Prop. 318 would expand that framework to athletic associations and add restrictions on bathrooms, locker rooms, showers and other private athletic spaces, while also expanding who can sue over alleged violations.

It was originally proposed as a resolution by Rep. Selina Bliss, R-Prescott, in the Arizona House. Mooney helped craft the language.

“I did the first draft and worked with Rep. Bliss and Arizona House Legislative Counsel to write the language of the referendum,” he said in an interview with LOOKOUT and Westword.

He then brought in help from former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould to review the language for content and constitutionality.

Tim Mooney (above) is one of the key figures behind ballot measures in both Colorado and Arizona that aim to limit the civil rights of transgender people. (Photo courtesy of Tim Mooney)

Proposition 318 passed through the Legislature as a concurrent resolution, sending it directly to voters without a statewide petition drive or approval from Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.

Colorado required a different approach for Propositions 134 and 135. Prop. 134 would require students in Colorado schools and colleges to compete on teams that match their sex assigned at birth. The ballot language does not explicitly direct how to enforce, which opponents worry could open the door to invasive "gender inspections." Prop. 135 would effectively ban gender-affirming surgeries for minors and prohibit public funds or health insurance from paying for those procedures.

Mooney told LOOKOUT and Westword he worked with Protect Kids Colorado leader Erin Lee, Colorado Parent Advocacy Network Executive Director Lori Gimelshteyn, XX-XY Athletics founder Jennifer Sey and Mark Geist. None responded to multiple requests for comment.

He also said former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, his legal counsel in the state, was “largely responsible” for drafting language. Gessler confirmed Mooney's role.

Colorado’s official initiative records name Michele Austin and Lee as the designated proponents of the sports measure that eventually became Proposition 134. In total, they submitted close to 169,000 signatures, which the Colorado Secretary of State’s office then randomly sampled and verified.

Finding the fault lines

Mooney’s different teams reflect another part of his strategy—using divisions within parties.

Earlier this year, one of Arizona’s most prominent Democrats, Ariz. Sen. Ruben Gallego, distanced himself from support for transgender athletes. Despite the existing law already barring transgender women from competing in women’s sports, Gallego told The Dispatch that, “There are some sports that some of these trans children should not be playing,” following that up with, “We want you to be part of our community, but this is just the one place you can’t play, and let’s find other activities for you to be involved.”

“There’s sort of a disconnect there between core values of inclusion and fair treatment, and how specific policies actually impact trans people."
- Logan Casey, Movement Advancement Project

In Colorado, Democratic Rep. Regina English (D-Colorado Springs) has repeatedly broken from her party on LGBTQ+ issues, including a vote against a constitutional resolution that enshrined same-sex marriage protections in 2024.

This year, she supported a failed amendment that designated a woman as “XX” chromosomes, only.

“The vote should not be seen as an anti-trans stance,” she said in a statement after casting her vote. “It was simply a matter of agreeing with the definition as I read it.”

English was also among four Democrats who voted against the “Kelly Loving Act,” a law that formally expands legal protections for transgender Coloradans. The law is named after Kelly Loving, a trans woman who was killed during the Club Q shooting in 2022.

“There’s sort of a disconnect there between the core values of inclusion and fair treatment and how specific policies actually impact trans people,” Casey, from MAP, said.

That distinction is evident in public opinion on trans people. A Pew Research Center survey found 66% of Americans believe trans athletes should compete on teams that match with their sex assigned at birth. But the same survey found 56% supported protecting transgender people from discrimination in jobs, housing and public spaces.

Mooney’s approach appears calibrated to that divide. He has been deliberate about how the ballot measures are presented.

Asked how he responds to critics who say transgender students are being used as an electoral strategy, Mooney pointed to what his campaign does not say.

“Neither the language of Prop 318 (in Arizona) nor the campaign for it ever mentions the word ‘transgender,’” he said. “We want everyone to be respected.”

The proposition, however, would directly affect transgender students.

On a similar note, other political strategists warned against assuming the political attention around transgender issues means they are decisive for large numbers of voters. Pointing to the more than $200 million spent on anti-trans television advertising in 2024, Casey, from MAP, said there is “little to no evidence to suggest that these strategies, the anti-trans ads and campaigning, actually make any difference in who someone's going to vote for.”

That does not mean the measures have no political value. Casey said they can still energize voters who already agree with them and keep transgender issues in front of the electorate.

Advocates on both sides of the political spectrum have long worried about using ballot measures to establish — or even remove — civil rights protections. Conservatives saw their own expectations diminish when ballot initiatives across multiple states to enshrine abortion into state constitutions went in the opposite direction from what they had wanted, including in both Colorado and Arizona.

There is also debate over whether ballot initiatives should be used for civil rights measures at all, considering there are instances in which voters are casting decisions on groups that have no say in what the initiative is about.

For the ballot measures in Arizona and Colorado — all of which affect trans youth — It’s important to note that youth under 18 years old, of course, are not able to vote. And a recent report by the Williams Institute of UCLA found that in states with voter identification laws, nearly half of eligible trans voters don’t have a proper ID.

That gets to the main problem civil rights advocates have with groups using ballot measures as the main lever in deciding civil rights for large (or even small) groups of people: Not everyone who gets to decide on their rights has a chance at the ballot box.

And even though ballot measures that have limited LGBTQ+ civil rights in the past have been overturned by U.S. Supreme Court rulings — Amendment 2 in Colorado and Proposition 8 in California, for example — that scenario seems far less likely given the current makeup of the Supreme Court and its approach to civil rights for queer people.

Following the money

Mooney’s ballot work is only one part of a much larger political operation.

Campaign finance records show that Mooney’s network of companies received more than $22 million from federal, state and local political committees between 2010 and 2026.

Mooney operates through five active corporate entities registered in Arizona and Wyoming: September Group LLC, Silver Bullet Group Inc., Morning in America LLC, Morning in America II Inc., and AZ Green House Project LLC.

“Show me someone who hasn't faced criticism, and I'll show you someone who hasn't accomplished very much.”
-Tim Mooney

His firms collected $14.4 million from federal political committees between 2010 and 2024. September Group accounted for $12.6 million of that, including $6.4 million in 2020 alone.

The money helps explain the scale of the operation, but Mooney’s role is less visible than the campaigns he helps build. It has also repeatedly brought scrutiny.

In Utah, Mooney faced criminal charges in 2023 over the way petition contractors were compensated. Court filings show Mooney entered into contracts paying petition circulators $16 per signature, violating Utah election codes that prohibit compensating circulators based on signature volume.

On Oct. 1, 2025, Mooney pleaded no contest to a Class A misdemeanor for violating certificate of nomination procedures. The plea was placed in abeyance until October 2026 under court probation.

In Michigan, an organization sued Mooney and his firm, Silver Bullet LLC, after a petition drive to repeal the state’s prevailing wage law.

Of 390,861 signatures collected by Silver Bullet, state officials disqualified more than 161,000 as invalid or duplicate, leaving the campaign short of the requirement. The Michigan Department of State noted that “no petition consulting firm has submitted a lower percentage of valid petition signatures... since records have been kept.” The case ultimately settled.

Mooney’s position is that this is what happens when you operate in hardball politics.

“Hardball politics invites scrutiny, justified or not. If you’re going to be in this game, you’re going to get sued,” he said. “I wish lawsuits were always based on clear facts in the law. They seldom are.”

He added: “Show me someone who hasn't faced criticism, and I'll show you someone who hasn't accomplished very much.”

Now, he said his operations rely on legal counsel to navigate differing election laws around the country, even though he feels political considerations rather often influence litigation surrounding contentious campaigns.

With that mindset, Mooney said the next ballot fights are already beginning to take shape.

“In fact, we are beginning to think about the 2028 election and potential efforts now,” Mooney said. “Once the results are in for 2026, this will become more focused, with beginning work for 2028 starting right after the new year.”

Additional reporting and analysis done by Michael Nolan from the MuckRock Sunlight Research Desk