A Wisconsin Constitutional amendment is scheduled to be on the ballot in November 2026 - IT COULD REMOVE RIGHTS FROM WISCONSIN'S CITIZENS!
Feb 20
2 min read
Feb. 20, 2026, Waukesha, WI - The AJR 102 “Equality Amendment” is a proposed change to
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...




Comments