What’s on your ballot: Prop 142 would reinforce state’s DEI ban, end affirmative action

The future of diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, in Arizona will be on the November ballot with Proposition 142, which would amend the state constitution to prohibit race-based programs and positions.

If approved by voters, Prop 142 would do several things:

• Prohibit the state from requiring a person to endorse preferential treatment toward or discrimination against an individual based on race or ethnicity.
• Prohibit public funds from being used to create a public education position or office to promote preferential treatment toward or discrimination against an individual based on race or ethnicity.
• Prohibit requiring enrollment in courses or training promoting “race-based diversity, equity and inclusion.”
• Prohibit implementation of disciplinary policies that treat individuals depending on race or ethnicity.

The ballot measure would effectively end affirmative action in Arizona, which refers to policies used in governments and schools to ensure minority groups can access education, leadership and other opportunities.

In 2010, Arizona voters approved Prop 107, which enacted similar restrictions at a state level but did not apply to entities that receive federal funds. Prop 142 would prohibit DEI and affirmative action at those government entities and schools, as well.

Prop 142 was referred to voters via House Concurrent Resolution 2044, which received sweeping Republican support but none from Arizona Democratic lawmakers.

What are the arguments for Prop 142?

The Goldwater Institute is a key supporter of Prop 142. The conservative think tank argues that the constitutional amendment would ensure equal opportunity in Arizona.

Matt Beienburg, the Goldwater Institute’s director of education policy, said this year’s ballot measure would codify what voters already approved in 2010.

“We’re not going to find loopholes or carve-outs where it’s OK to discriminate. Whether it’s contracting, education, employment, the same rules are going to apply to everybody. You’re going to get a fair shake based on your ability and your qualifications, not based upon your race or your skin color,” he said.

Beienburg specifically pointed to university diversity course requirements, employee training focusing on critiquing “whiteness,” and requiring applicants and students to endorse specific views as examples of policies in Arizona that would no longer be allowed.

He also framed Prop 142 as free-speech protection, saying it ensures individuals don’t have to endorse specific views.

“This measure says, again, you’re not going to discriminate, but you’re also not going to force people to subsidize the government taking actions that do that, or force people to take training or courses that are promoting these ideologies,” he said.

The Goldwater Institute noted that Prop 142, if approved, would enshrine the prohibition on race-based policies in the Arizona Constitution regardless of what happens on the national level.

“It’s not about who’s in the White House or who’s sitting on the Supreme Court,” Beienburg said.

Prop 142 would not restrict education on historic discrimination, such as slavery in the United States.

What are the arguments against Prop 142?

For faith-based advocacy group Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Arizona, or LAMA, part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Prop 142 ignores realities of actual inequity in Arizona.

While the Goldwater Institute argues that Prop 142 would put all Arizonans on an equal level, LAMA counters that it ignores marginalized groups who have experienced historic discrimination.

LAMA Director Solveig Muus said Prop 142 incorrectly assumes all people face the same barriers and treats any effort to address inequality as an unfair preference.

“It’s more than about discrimination; it seeks to really restrict the ways in which public institutions, schools, universities and government agencies can really address inequity,” she said.

LAMA also argued that amending the Arizona Constitution to prohibit DEI policies moves Arizona backward, adding that barring spending on those programs will create confusion about what is allowed.

Muus said that is especially true when it comes to affirmative action, arguing Prop 142 will make it harder for universities to address inequality.

“Equal treatment is important, but justice requires more than pretending everyone starts from the same place,” she said.

As the Trump administration has also cut and withheld funds for programs seen as promoting DEI nationwide, Muus calls the overall shift “disappointing.”

Prop 142 also contradicts LAMA’s religious teachings of supporting, loving and respecting the human dignity of all people.

“Our social teachings call for us … to confront racism, to respect the dignity of all, to work for justice, work for peace, and that’s why we oppose this bill,” Muus said.

What will Arizona voters see about Prop 142 on their ballots?

Here is the official ballot language for Prop 144:

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.

Subscribe to the KTAR Political Brief newsletter to get our top political stories, exclusive guest interviews and more to your email inbox.

Related

Adrian Fontes rejects voter purges after SCOTUS election rulingYour guide to Arizona’s 2026 general election debates: Candidates face off in top racesSen. Ruben Gallego says Republicans lack empathy about economic painWhat’s on your ballot? Prop 144 has multiple provisions about elections in Arizona‘You lied’: Kris Mayes, Warren Petersen trade accusations in bitter attorney general debateKris Mayes, Adrian Fontes ask US attorney to act on alleged voter data misuse