Arizona voters will decide this November whether to lock the state’s ban on race-based preferential treatment even deeper into the state constitution, with a measure that supporters say closes old loopholes and opponents warn will tie the hands of schools and agencies trying to address inequality. Proposition 142, headed for the November 2026 ballot, would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit race-based programs and positions across government, education and contracting.
The measure grew out of House Concurrent Resolution 2044, which referred Prop 142 to Arizona voters after receiving sweeping Republican support in the Legislature, according to KTAR News 92.3 FM. Arizona Democratic lawmakers did not support the resolution, per the same report. If approved, Prop 142 would amend Article II, Section 36 of the state constitution, according to the ballot language cited by the outlet.
At its core, the measure would prohibit the state from requiring anyone to endorse preferential treatment or discrimination based on race or ethnicity. It would also bar public funds from going toward public-education positions or offices whose job is to promote race-based preferential treatment, and it would prohibit requiring enrollment in courses or training that promote race-based diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Disciplinary policies that treat individuals differently because of race or ethnicity would also be barred under the measure.
Building on a 2010 Ban
Prop 142 isn’t Arizona’s first attempt at this. Voters approved Prop 107 in 2010, enacting similar state-level restrictions on preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity. But that earlier measure did not apply to entities receiving federal funds, a gap Prop 142 is designed to close by extending the same prohibitions to DEI and affirmative-action practices at government entities and schools that accept federal dollars.
Prop 107’s federal-funding exception was conditional: it allowed otherwise prohibited action needed to establish or maintain eligibility for a federal program when ineligibility would cost the state federal money. HCR 2044 narrows that exception to outreach, advertising or communications that do not change application criteria or evaluations, while separately preserving data collection, advertising or outreach required by federal law. The distinction matters: the measure does not simply erase every federal-law or federal-funding exception. The 2010 amendment and HCR 2044’s revised language spell out the change.
Affirmative action generally refers to government and school policies intended to help minority groups access education, leadership and other opportunities, the outlet’s report notes. The measure would effectively end affirmative action in Arizona, and the ballot language would apply the same anti-discrimination rules across contracting, education and employment alike.
Supporters Point to Equal Opportunity
The Goldwater Institute has come out in support of Prop 142, arguing it would ensure equal opportunity in Arizona. Matt Beienburg, the institute’s director of education policy, said the measure would simply codify what voters already approved in 2010.
“You’re going to get a fair shake based on your ability and your qualifications, not based upon your race or your skin color,” Beienburg said, according to the same account. He pointed to university diversity-course requirements, employee training focused on critiquing whiteness, and requirements to endorse specific views as examples of policies Prop 142 would prohibit. The institute has also said the measure would constitutionalize the prohibition on race-based policies regardless of future shifts in national political or judicial winds.
Backers of the measure also emphasize what it would not touch. Prop 142 would not restrict education about historic discrimination, including slavery in the United States, per the ballot language described in the report. The measure is also framed as protecting individuals from being forced to endorse specific views as a condition of their education, job or contract.
Faith Group Warns of Confusion and Backsliding
Opposition has come from the Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Arizona, a faith-based advocacy group affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The group, known as LAMA, argues Prop 142 ignores inequity and the marginalized groups still affected by historic discrimination.
LAMA Director Solveig Muus said the measure assumes people face the same barriers and treats efforts to address inequality as unfair preference. “Equal treatment is important, but justice requires more than pretending everyone starts from the same place,” Muus said, per the outlet’s reporting. Muus added that the measure would make it harder for universities to address inequality on campus.
The group has also argued that constitutionalizing a DEI prohibition would move Arizona backward, and that barring spending on DEI programs would create confusion about what is actually still allowed under law. Muus said LAMA opposes Prop 142 in order to confront racism, respect human dignity, and work for justice and peace, linking the group’s position to its religious teachings on human dignity.
What the Ballot Language Actually Says
Beyond the broad strokes, the measure’s specific ballot language includes several detailed prohibitions. It would bar compelling individuals to support race- or ethnicity-based preferential treatment or discrimination as a condition of education, employment or contract opportunities, and it would prohibit requiring or even asking applicants, employees, students or contractors to provide statements supporting race-based DEI beyond upholding the federal equal protection clause.
The proposal’s education provisions also specify both the reach of the spending restriction and some limits on it. Covered institutional money includes revenue from grants, tuition, endowments and donations, and the bill lists programming tied to race, ethnicity, intersectionality, gender identity or sexual orientation among the activities it would restrict. It exempts academic instruction, research and creative work, registered student organizations, and licensed mental- or physical-health services. Those details appear in the resolution’s full text.
The language would also prohibit asking applicants, employees, students or contractors to discuss their own race or ethnicity or their experience with other people’s race or ethnicity, while including exceptions for health services, legal reasons and other unspecified reasons, according to the ballot language cited in the report. A yes vote would amend the constitution’s current prohibition against race- or ethnicity-based preferential treatment or discrimination, while a no vote would maintain the existing constitutional language as it stands.
National Backdrop
The national legal backdrop includes two distinct Supreme Court decisions. In 2023, the court ruled that Harvard’s and the University of North Carolina’s admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause. In 2014, it upheld Michigan’s voter-approved constitutional ban on race-conscious admissions, while emphasizing that the case addressed whether voters could prohibit such policies—not the general merits or constitutionality of race-conscious admissions. Prop 142 would reach beyond admissions to areas such as public contracting and required training. The 2023 ruling and the Michigan decision mark those separate legal questions.
The debate over Prop 142 arrives as the Trump administration has cut and withheld funds nationwide for programs it views as promoting DEI, a backdrop that has shaped both sides of Arizona’s campaign. Notably, the same report also flagged an inconsistency in its own ballot-language section, which at one point labels the measure Prop 144 rather than Prop 142 — a discrepancy that remains unresolved in the available reporting.
