the Wisconsin Constitution that would prohibit state and local governments—including the Universities of Wisconsin—from considering race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting.
This amendment is misleading and disconnected from Wisconsin’s documented history of racial discrimination in the workplace.
WHAT THE "EQUALITY AMENDMENT" IS REALLY ABOUT...
While framed as a measure to promote fairness, AJR 102 would materially alter Wisconsin’s constitutional framework in ways that are neither necessary nor prudent.
Current federal and state law already prohibit unlawful discrimination. What they do not do—and what this amendment would effectively prevent—is allow government to take narrowly tailored, evidence-based steps to remedy documented inequities or comply with federal civil rights obligations.
By imposing a rigid constitutional ban on any consideration of race in public programs, AJR 102 risks placing Wisconsin agencies and local governments in direct conflict with federal law, particularly in areas such as procurement, education, housing, and public health.
The testimony offered in support of the amendment relies heavily on allegations and policy disagreements rather than adjudicated constitutional violations. It also fails to address the practical consequences for municipalities, universities, and nonprofit partners that depend on lawful tools to ensure compliance, expand opportunity, and manage public resources responsibly.
Equality under the law is already the standard. This amendment would not clarify that principle—it would constrain Wisconsin’s ability to govern effectively and lawfully.
Wisconsin has long ranked among the worst states in the nation for racial discrimination complaints filed by Black workers, reflecting persistent enforcement and accountability gaps rather than a lack of neutrality in the law.
WHAT THE CRITICS SAY...
Critics note that AJR 102 does nothing to strengthen civil rights enforcement, reduce discrimination complaints, or improve employer accountability.
Beyond the constitutional and civil rights concerns already raised, AJR 102 presents serious implementation and governance risks that have not been adequately examined.
The amendment’s broad language invites significant uncertainty about what routine government activities could trigger litigation. For example, it is unclear how agencies would lawfully conduct demographic data collection, targeted public health outreach, or federally required program reporting without risking constitutional challenge.
This ambiguity alone is likely to generate costly defensive litigation and compliance confusion across state and local government.
AJR 102 also threatens to freeze policy innovation at a time when workforce shortages, rural access gaps, and public health disparities require flexible, data-informed responses. Constitutionalizing this restriction removes the Legislature’s ability to adjust statutory approaches as conditions evolve. Future policymakers—regardless of party—would be locked into a rigid framework requiring another statewide constitutional amendment to fix unintended consequences.
Finally, the proposal could have economic competitiveness implications. Many federal grants, philanthropic partnerships, and multi-state procurement initiatives expect participating governments to demonstrate inclusive outreach and disparity monitoring. By creating uncertainty around Wisconsin’s ability to meet those expectations, AJR 102 risks putting the state at a disadvantage in attracting federal resources, major employers, and collaborative investments.
Civil rights advocates, including the ACLU of Wisconsin, warn the amendment would constitutionalize vague prohibitions, invite costly litigation, and shift power from local communities to courts—while leaving Wisconsin’s real discrimination problem unresolved.
The NAACP needs your help to fight against the proposed constitutional amendment.
Vote NO! to AJR 102 "The Equality Amendment"!
