Proposition · every Arizona voter

Proposition 142Add details to the ban on race-based preferential treatment and discrimination

Constitutional amendment: Proposition 142, referred to voters by the Legislature as HCR 2044 (2026). Passes with a majority of the voters voting on it (Arizona Constitution, Article 21, Section 1).

INCOMPLETE. Still open on this page: (1) The official ballot wording below is copied word for word from the Secretary of State's ballot language, but the YES and NO lines and the summary above it are ours, from the Legislative Council analysis and the pamphlet arguments read through a summary tool, which paraphrases. (2) The pass rule for a constitutional amendment is from Article 21, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution (azleg.gov), read through a summary tool. (3) The "Today" column is our reading of the official "no" statement ("keeps the current law"), not checked against the current statutes. (4) Cost to the state: no cost estimate found. (5) The reasons for and against are the named arguments printed in the pamphlet; statistics inside them are the writers' claims and we have not checked them. No claim check has been done. (6) Campaign committees and campaign money were not looked up. (7) We did not read the full text of the measure.

Official ballot language (PDF): Secretary of State ballot language (PDF)

In plain words

Article II, Section 36 of the Arizona Constitution already bans the state from giving preferential treatment to, or discriminating against, people. This measure adds detail. The state, cities, counties, public universities, community colleges and school districts could not require applicants, employees, students or contractors to back race-based preferences or race-based "diversity, equity and inclusion" ideas as a condition of school, a job, a contract or a scholarship. They also could not spend public money on offices or positions at public schools and colleges that promote race-based preferential treatment, or use discipline that treats students or employees differently by race or ethnicity. The measure has exceptions (HCR 2044, proposed Section 36 C(2) and D): academic, research and creative work, student organizations, health services, specified federal compliance, tribal programs and historical discussion. Each exception qualifies a particular prohibition, so this does not mean all teaching or all diversity-related activity is banned. (azleg.gov (Arizona Legislature) )

Before and after

Question	Today (our reading of the official NO statement)	If YES wins
Preferential treatment or discrimination by the state	Banned by Article II, Section 36	Still banned; the analysis says the ban would reach actions done as part of a federal program too
Requiring people to back race-based preferences or "diversity, equity and inclusion" ideas to get school, a job or a contract	Not spelled out in the amendment	Banned, including required statements, required training and asking people to discuss their own race
Public money for positions that promote race-based preferential treatment at public schools and colleges	Not spelled out	Banned
Discipline that treats students or employees differently by race or ethnicity	Not spelled out	Banned
Exceptions	Not applicable	Several, including academic, research and creative work, student organizations, health services, specified federal compliance, tribal programs and historical discussion (HCR 2044, Section 36 C(2) and D)

From the ballot language, the Legislative Council analysis and the pamphlet: see (azleg.gov (Arizona Legislature) )

Biggest change

Adds a ban on requiring applicants, employees, students or contractors to support race-based preferences or "diversity, equity and inclusion" ideas. source: azleg.gov (Arizona Legislature)
Bans public money for offices or positions at public schools and colleges that promote race-based preferential treatment. source: azleg.gov (Arizona Legislature)
Bans discipline that treats students or employees differently by race or ethnicity. source: azleg.gov (Arizona Legislature)

Who it affects most: State and local governments, public schools and colleges, and the people who work, study or contract with them.

Cost to the state: Unknown. The Legislative Council analysis text we read has no fiscal section. Opponents argue it could cost public universities research money (their claim, not checked).

Our plain-words summary. Every line points to its source.

What your vote means

YES

The constitution's existing ban would add details: no requiring people to back race-based preferences or "diversity, equity and inclusion" ideas to get schooling, a job or a contract, no public money for positions that promote them, and no different discipline by race.

Nothing changes: the current ban in the constitution stays as it is.

Our one-line summary of the official YES and NO statements in the Secretary of State's ballot language; the official statements, word for word, are under "Official ballot wording" below.

Why people want it, and why others object

Why this is on the ballot

The Legislature put this on the ballot. It changes the state constitution, so only another statewide vote can change it back. It passes with a majority of the voters voting on it.

The bill is House Concurrent Resolution 2044 (2026). It amends Article II, Section 36 of the Arizona Constitution. source: azsos.gov (Arizona Secretary of State)
Under Article 21, Section 1, a proposed amendment passes if a majority of the voters voting on it approve. source: azleg.gov (Arizona Legislature)

Why supporters want it

Victor Riches, president of the Goldwater Institute: a carve-out in the constitution lets race-based preferences continue when federal law calls for them; this would bar such treatment in schools, agencies and contracting for good. source: apps.azsos.gov (Arizona Secretary of State)
Nathan Duell, Heritage Action for America: DEI has failed Arizonans, and the measure protects free speech by banning DEI loyalty statements as job conditions. source: apps.azsos.gov (Arizona Secretary of State)
Kimberly Miller, Arizona Women of Action: opportunity should rest on merit, not race. source: apps.azsos.gov (Arizona Secretary of State)
Scot Mussi, Arizona Free Enterprise Club: the federal-mandate exception lets race-based policies take hold whatever local voters want; the measure targets the practice, so renaming a program would not get around it. source: apps.azsos.gov (Arizona Secretary of State)
Seven arguments for are printed in the pamphlet; most repeat these points. source: apps.azsos.gov (Arizona Secretary of State)

Why opponents object

Pinny Sheoran, League of Women Voters of Arizona: state law already bans discrimination; this goes further by restricting programs, and later legislatures could ban more ideas without a vote of the people. source: apps.azsos.gov (Arizona Secretary of State)
Darrell Hill, ACLU of Arizona: the measure bars certain ideas in colleges and government workplaces, which he says violates the First Amendment. source: apps.azsos.gov (Arizona Secretary of State)
State Sens. Mitzi Epstein and Lauren Kuby: it would bar good-faith efforts to diversify faculty, including recruiting ads, and could cut medical research funding. source: apps.azsos.gov (Arizona Secretary of State)
Marie Sansone: Article II, Section 36(A) already bans preferential treatment and discrimination, so this adds confusion and cost. source: apps.azsos.gov (Arizona Secretary of State)
Monica Sandschafer, Mi Familia Vota: it would create "DEI police" who review every grant, class and program. source: apps.azsos.gov (Arizona Secretary of State)
Sixteen arguments against are printed in the pamphlet. source: apps.azsos.gov (Arizona Secretary of State)

Who backs each side

For: arguments signed or sponsored by the Goldwater Institute, Heritage Action for America, Arizona Women of Action and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. Campaign committees and campaign money for this proposition were not looked up (INCOMPLETE). source: apps.azsos.gov (Arizona Secretary of State)
Against: League of Women Voters of Arizona, ACLU of Arizona, Mi Familia Vota, Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, Our Voice Our Vote Arizona and Chispa AZ, among others. Campaign committees and campaign money for this proposition were not looked up (INCOMPLETE). source: apps.azsos.gov (Arizona Secretary of State)

In each side's own words where we could find them, quoted or summarized with a link to the source. We don't endorse either side.

What you will see on your ballot

Official ballot wording, word for word (tap to open)

The official ballot title, word for word from the Secretary of State's ballot language file .

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY THE LEGISLATURE RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT AND DISCRIMINATION
OFFICIAL TITLE
AMENDING ARTICLE II, SECTION 36, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA.
DESCRIPTIVE TITLE
ADDS FURTHER DETAILS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OR DISCRIMINATION BY THE STATE BASED ON RACE, ETHNICITY, OR OTHER CLASSES.

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution’s current prohibition against preferential treatment or discrimination by the state based on race, ethnicity, or other classes, to specifically prohibit: (1) compelling individuals to support preferential treatment or discrimination based on race or ethnicity as a condition of education, employment, or contract opportunities; (2) spending public money on positions in public education responsible for promoting preferential treatment or discrimination based on race or ethnicity; and (3) implementing disciplinary practices that treat students or employees differently based on race or ethnicity. Prohibited conduct includes requiring or asking an applicant, employee, student, or contractor to provide a statement in support of race-based diversity, equity, and inclusion beyond upholding the federal Equal Protection Clause or asking such a person to discuss the person’s race or ethnicity or experience with others’ race or ethnicity. The amendment contains certain exceptions for health services, legal, and other reasons.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current prohibition in the Arizona Constitution against preferential treatment or discrimination by the state based on race, ethnicity, or other classes.

Copied word for word from the Secretary of State's ballot language PDF (2026-Ballot-Language-English-2026-0819.pdf), page 2. The Secretary of State's file has no separate question line; it prints the official title, the descriptive title, and a YES statement and a NO statement, shown here in that order.

Latest news

Recent reporting from a range of outlets, newest first. We link to it; we don't endorse it.

No articles collected yet for this measure.

Full text of the measure

The Secretary of State's ballot language file prints the descriptive title and the YES and NO statements. The full text of the resolution is on the Legislature's website (azleg.gov, HCR 2044, 2026 session); we have not read it. Read it in the Secretary of State ballot language (PDF) .

We link to analysis from several sources; we don't endorse it.