Wisconsin Prohibit Government Discrimination or Preferential Treatment Amendment (2026)
| Wisconsin Prohibit Government Discrimination or Preferential Treatment Amendment | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Affirmative action and Constitutional rights |
|
| Status On the ballot |
|
| Type Legislatively referred constitutional amendment |
Origin |
The Wisconsin Prohibit Government Discrimination or Preferential Treatment Amendment is on the ballot in Wisconsin as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2026.
A "yes" vote supports this amendment to prohibit any governmental entity from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration. |
A "no" vote opposes this amendment to prohibit any governmental entity from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration. |
Overview
What would AJR 102 do?
- See also: Text of measure
The amendment, Assembly Joint Resolution 102 (AJR 102), would create a new section, Section 27, in Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution to prohibit any governmental entity from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration.
What is affirmative action?
- See also: Affirmative action ballot measures
Affirmative action refers to the steps taken by employers and universities to increase the proportions of historically disadvantaged minority groups at those institutions. Historically, affirmative action nationwide has taken many different forms, such as strict quotas, extra outreach efforts, and racial and gender preferences. However, racial quotas in university admissions were banned in a 1978 United States Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. On June 23, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended race-based considerations in college admissions, but explicitly allowed national service academies to continue considering race as a factor in admissions for national security reasons in their decision, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College.[1][2]
To read more about affirmative action in Wisconsin, click here.
What do supporters and opponents say about AJR 102?
- See also: Support and Opposition
Supporters of AJR 102, such as state Sen. Stephen Nass (R-11), say that its passage is necessary because "preferential treatment to any individual or group is wrong, no matter who it targets or what the reason. Past discrimination, however wrong, cannot be corrected with more discrimination."[3]
Opponents of AJR 102, such as state Sen. Chris Larson (D-07), state that its passage would "make addressing disparities significantly harder to achieve" and that such programs provide the ability to "take steps to study and address these disparities."[4]
Assemblyman Dave Murphy (R-56) was the lead author of the constitutional amendment, and 18 different members of the Wisconsin State Assembly and Wisconsin State Senate were listed as co-sponsors. In both the State Assembly and the Senate, legislative Republicans largely supported referring the constitutional amendment to the ballot, while legislative Democrats did not. All 18 Senate Republicans voted to support AJR 102, while all 15 Senate Democrats voted to oppose it. In the State Assembly, all 54 Republicans voted in favor of AJR 102, while all 45 Democrats voted against it.[5]
Text of measure
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article I, Wisconsin Constitution
The ballot measure would create Section 27 of Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution. The following underlined text would be added and struck-through text would be deleted:[6]
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
Section 27 (1) In this section, “governmental entity” means the state, its political subdivisions including municipalities, the University of Wisconsin System, the Technical College System, any public college or university, any public school district, and any office, department, independent agency, board, commission, authority, institution, association, society, or other body in state or local government created or authorized to be created by the constitution or any law, including the legislature and the courts.
(2) A governmental entity may not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration.
(3) This section does not prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the governmental entity.
(4) Nothing in this section prohibits bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration.
(5) If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with the United States Constitution or federal law, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the United States Constitution and federal law permit. Any provision of this section held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.[7]
Support
Supporters
Officials
- State Sen. Stephen Nass (R)
- State Rep. Dave Murphy (R)
Organizations
Arguments
Opposition
Opponents
Officials
- State Sen. Dora Drake (D)
- State Sen. Chris Larson (D)
- State Rep. Kalan Haywood (D)
Arguments
Campaign finance
- See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2026
As of February 6, 2026, Ballotpedia has not identified any committees registered to support or oppose the measure.[8]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Background
Affirmative action ballot measures
- See also: Affirmative action ballot measures
Ballotpedia tracked 11 ballot measures related to affirmative action between 1996 and 2026. Of these measures, six were approved, four were defeated, and one was approved by the legislature. The topic was last voted on in California in 2020. California Proposition 16 would have repealed a previous measure establishing that government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting. It was defeated with 57% of the vote against it.
| Year | State | Official Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | California | Proposition 16 | Repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which says that the state cannot consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting |  |
| 2019 | Washington | Initiative 1000 | Allow affirmative action without the use of quotas by the State of Washington | Approved by the legislature |
| 2019 | Washington | Referendum 88 | Allow Initiative 1000 to go into effect, thereby expressly allowing the state to implement affirmative action policies without the use of preferential treatment (as defined) or quotas (as defined) in public employment, education, and contracting | |
| 2012 | Oklahoma | State Question 759 | Ban affirmative action programs in the state and prohibited special treatment based on race or sex in public employment, education and contracts |  |
| 2010 | Arizona | Proposition 107 | Prohibit the state from giving preferential treatment to or discriminating against any person or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin | |
| 2008 | Colorado | Amendment 46 | Establish that the state may not discriminate or give preferential treatment to anyone on the basis of a variety of characteristics | |
| 2008 | Nebraska | Measure 424 | Prohibit any political subdivision and institutions of higher learning from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any person based on their race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin | |
| 2006 | Michigan | Proposal 2 | Prohibit the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting | |
| 2003 | California | Proposition 54 | Prohibit government from classifying people based on race, ethnicity, color, or national origin in public education, contracting, or employment | |
| 1998 | Washington | Initiative 200 | Prohibit public institutions from granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or nationality | |
| 1996 | California | Proposition 209 | Add language to the California Constitution that says that the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting | |
U.S. Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action
- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): The U.S. Supreme Court held that race was a legitimate factor in college admissions, but that the racial quota system of the UC Davis School of Medicine, which reserved 16 of 100 places for qualified minorities, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[9][10]
- Gratz v. Bollinger (2003): The University of Michigan's Office of Undergraduate Admissions (OUA) used a 150-point scale to rank undergraduate applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. Factors that were assigned points included high school grades, test scores, curriculum strength, alumni relationships, and others. Applicants received 20 points for being from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group (defined as African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans). The U.S. Supreme Court held that the OUA's assignment of points for underrepresented group status did not meet the individual consideration requirement established in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.[11]
- Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): The University of Michigan Law School, like the OUA, considered the race of applicants in making admissions decisions. However, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law school's use of race in admissions. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the majority's opinion, stated that the law school employed a "highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant's file." Justice O'Connor also stated that the law school had a compelling state interest in considering race: "In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity."[12]
- Fisher v. University of Texas (2016): The University of Texas (UT) admitted each in-state student who graduated in the top 10 percent of their graduating senior class. Students who did not graduate in the top 10 percent of their class were evaluated for admissions based on a holistic, full-file review, according to UT. One factor that was considered is an applicant's race. In 2013, the case first went before the U.S. Supreme Court, which remanded the case for further consideration back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In 2015, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld UT's use of race in considering applicants for admissions. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority's opinion, stated that the use of race served a compelling interest ("educational benefits that flow from student body diversity") and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.[13]
- Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (2023): The nonprofit membership group Students for Fair Admissions filed a complaint in 2014 and claimed that Harvard's policy of considering race in admissions violated anti-discrimination law by excluding high-achieving Asian Americans in a quota-like fashion. In October 2019, a judge ruled that Harvard College's admissions policies did not unduly discriminate against Asian Americans and that no quotas were in place. Students for Fair Admissions filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. THe court of appeals ruled in favor of Harvard later that year, concluding that Judge Burroughs made no errors in her ruling or factual findings. Students for Fair Admissions then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the First Circuit's decision. On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and ruled in favor of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., in a 6-3 decision. The ruling effectively ended race-based considerations in college admissions, but explicitly allowed national service academies to continue considering race as a factor in admissions for national security reasons.[14][15]
- United Steelworkers v. Weber (1979): Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp, as part of a collective agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, implemented an affirmative action program within their training program; half the positions in the program were reserved for black workers until the percentage of black workers in the plant corresponded with the percentage of black workers in the local labor force. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the program as within the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice William Brennan, writing the court's opinion, stated, "We need not today define in detail the line of demarcation between permissible and impermissible affirmative action plans. It suffices to hold that the challenged Kaiser-USWA affirmative action plan falls on the permissible side of the line. The purposes of the plan mirror those of the statute. Both were designed to break down old patterns of racial segregation and hierarchy. Both were structured to "open employment opportunities for Negroes in occupations which have been traditionally closed to them."[16]
- Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986): In the 1980s, the contract between the school board of Jackson, Michigan, and the teachers' union aimed to (a) protect teachers with the most seniority from layoffs and (b) require that the percentage of laid-off teachers who were minorities be no greater than the percentage of teachers who were minorities under the contract. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the board could not terminate non-minorities' employment for the purpose of protecting minorities' employment. According to Justice Lewis Powell, there was a difference between preferential treatment in hiring and preferential treatment in layoffs: "While hiring goals impose a diffuse burden, often foreclosing only one of several opportunities, layoffs impose the entire burden of achieving racial equality on particular individuals, often resulting in serious disruption of their lives. That burden is too intrusive."[17][10]
- United States v. Paradise (1987): The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of one-black-for-one-white promotional quotas for the Alabama Department of Public Safety (DPS). In the 1970s, the Alabama DPS was required to use promotional quotas until at least 25 percent of the department's upper ranks were Black persons. According to the U.S. District Court, which mandated the promotional quotas, their purpose was to address the "Department's pervasive, systematic, and obstinate discriminatory exclusion of blacks." Justice William Brennan, writing the supreme court's opinion, stated, "The one-for-one requirement did not impose an unacceptable burden on innocent third parties. ... Nor has the court imposed an "absolute bar" to white advancement. ... Accordingly, the one-for-one promotion requirement imposed in this case does not disproportionately harm the interests, or unnecessarily trammel the rights, of innocent individuals."[18][10]
- City of Richmond v. Croson (1989): In Richmond, Virginia, construction contractors were required to subcontract 30 percent of their business to Minority Business Enterprises. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the subcontractor requirement violated the Equal Protection Clause and that race-based action by state and local governments required strict scrutiny. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the majority's opinion, stated that Richmond's justification ("past societal discrimination") for the subcontractor requirement could not "serve as the basis for rigid racial preferences." Richmond, according to Justice O'Connor, had not linked the subcontractor requirement to an identified specific discrimination nor tailored the requirement to the relevant labor pool (qualified MBE subcontractors).[19][20]
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995): Adarand Constructors, Inc. submitted the lowest bid as a subcontractor for a highway project funded by the United States Department of Transportation. Gonzales Construction Company, a different subcontractor, submitted a higher bid but received the contract. Gonzales Construction was certified as a disadvantaged business by the Small Business Administration, which meant that the prime contracting company would receive additional compensation for hiring Gonzales Construction. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. Justice O'Connor, writing the majority's opinion, concluded that strict scrutiny applied to federal racial classifications: "All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny."[21][22]
- Ricci v. DeStefano (2009): The New Haven Fire Department required civil service examinations to fill managerial positions. In 2003, 118 firefighters took the examinations; based on the results, 19 candidates, who were white or Hispanic, could be considered for the managerial positions. The New Haven Civil Service Board, considering the disparate impact the results would have on employment, discarded the exams. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against New Haven. According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the court's opinion, an employer cannot engage in intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) to avoid a disparate impact unless there is a strong basis in evidence that the employer would be subject to disparate impact liability. New Haven failed to demonstrate a strong basis in evidence, according to Justice Kennedy, since the exams were job-related and consistent with business necessity and there was no evidence that an "equally valid, less-discriminatory alternative" was available.[23][24]
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Wisconsin Constitution
In Wisconsin, the state legislature is required to approve an amendment by majority vote in two successive sessions for the amendment to appear on the ballot.
Assembly Joint Resolution 109 (2023-2024)
The following is the timeline of the constitutional amendment in the state legislature:[25]
- January 1, 2024: The constitutional amendment was reintroduced during the second legislative session as Assembly Joint Resolution 109 (AJR 109).
- February 15, 2024: The Wisconsin State Assembly voted 62-35, with two members not voting, to pass the constitutional amendment.
- March 12, 2024: The Wisconsin State Senate voted 22-10 to pass the constitutional amendment.
| Votes Required to Pass: 17 | |||
| Yes | No | NV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 22 | 10 | 0 |
| Total % | 68.7% | 31.3% | 0.0% |
| Democratic (D) | 0 | 10 | 0 |
| Republican (R) | 22 | 0 | 0 |
| Votes Required to Pass: 50 | |||
| Yes | No | NV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 62 | 35 | 2 |
| Total % | 62.6% | 35.4% | 2.0% |
| Democratic (D) | 0 | 35 | 0 |
| Republican (R) | 62 | 0 | 2 |
Assembly Joint Resolution 102 (2025-2026)
The following is the timeline of the constitutional amendment in the state legislature:[5]
- October 9, 2025: The constitutional amendment was reintroduced during the second legislative session as Assembly Joint Resolution 102 (AJR 102).
- January 13, 2026: The Wisconsin State Assembly voted 54-45 to pass the constitutional amendment.
- January 21, 2026: The Wisconsin State Senate voted 18-15 to pass the constitutional amendment.
Learn more about the ballot measures PDI →
| Votes Required to Pass: 17 | |||
| Yes | No | NV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 18 | 15 | 0 |
| Total % | 54.5% | 45.5% | 0.0% |
| Democratic (D) | 0 | 15 | 0 |
| Republican (R) | 18 | 0 | 0 |
| Votes Required to Pass: 50 | |||
| Yes | No | NV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 54 | 45 | 0 |
| Total % | 54.5% | 45.5% | 0.0% |
| Democratic (D) | 0 | 45 | 0 |
| Republican (R) | 54 | 0 | 0 |
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in Wisconsin
See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Wisconsin.
See also
View other measures certified for the 2026 ballot across the U.S. and in Wisconsin.
Explore Wisconsin's ballot measure history, including constitutional amendments.
Understand how measures are placed on the ballot and the rules that apply.
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Oyez, "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke," accessed February 11, 2015
- ↑ Oyez, "Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College," accessed February 6, 2026
- ↑ Superior Telegram, "DEI, public health order amendments to go on November ballots," accessed January 28, 2026
- ↑ Urban Milwaukee, "Republican-Backed Constitutional Amendments Take US Backwards, Deny Hard Truths," accessed January 28, 2026
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Wisconsin State Legislature, "Assembly Joint Resolution 102," accessed January 28, 2026
- ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "Assembly Joint Resolution 102 Text," accessed January 28, 2026
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source.
- ↑ State of Wisconsin Ethics Commission, "Wisconsin Campaign Finance Reporting Site," accessed February 6, 2026
- ↑ Oyez, "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke," accessed July 7, 2020
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 University of Rhode Island, "Affirmative Action History," accessed July 7, 2020
- ↑ Oyez, "Gratz v. Bollinger," accessed July 7, 2020
- ↑ Oyez, "Grutter v. Bollinger," accessed July 7, 2020
- ↑ Oyez, "Fisher v. University of Texas," accessed July 7, 2020
- ↑ AP News, "Divided Supreme Court outlaws affirmative action in college admissions, says race can’t be used," accessed June 29, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs in college admissions," accessed June 29, 2023
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber," June 27, 1979
- ↑ Oyez, "Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education," accessed July 7, 2020
- ↑ Oyez, "States v. Paradise," accessed July 7, 2020
- ↑ Oyez, "City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company," accessed July 8, 2020
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company," January 23, 1989
- ↑ Oyez, "Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña," accessed July 8, 2020
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña," June 12, 1995
- ↑ Oyez, "Ricci v. DeStefano," accessed July 8, 2020
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Ricci v. DeStefano," June 29, 2009
- ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "Assembly Joint Resolution 109," accessed January 22, 2026
- ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "Wis. Stat. § 6.78," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 Wisconsin Elections Commission, "Voter Registration and Proof of Residence," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ City of Milwaukee Election Commission, "How to Register to Vote," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Automatic Voter Registration," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ Vote.gov, "Register to vote Wisconsin," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ Wisconsin Elections Commission, "Wisconsin Voter Registration Application," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ Wisconsin Elections Commission, "Acceptable Photo IDs," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ Wisconsin Elections Commission, "Acceptable Photo IDs for Voting in Wisconsin," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ Wisconsin Elections Commission, "Exceptions to the Photo ID law," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ 36.0 36.1 Wisconsin Department of Transportation, "Wisconsin ID card for voting purposes - petition process," accessed January 5, 2026
