Public Comment

Wisconsin voters are expected to consider a constitutional amendment prohibiting state and local government from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, and public administration. Supporters describe the proposal as a rule of equal treatment and an end to government preferences. Opponents argue that identical-treatment language can also prohibit targeted programs designed to remedy documented disparities. The proposed text contains exceptions connected to federal-program eligibility and certain bona fide sex-based qualifications. Government should not discriminate, but “no preference” can mean different things when institutions are trying to correct unequal access created by past practices. Constitutional language needs to distinguish equal treatment from policies intended to remedy a demonstrated disadvantage.

Should Wisconsin’s Constitution prohibit government from both discriminating and granting preferential treatment based on specified traits?

Overall results

1
59% support · excluded by 5%
7

Public jobs, contracts, and education should generally be awarded without government sorting people by race or sex.

7

Constitutional clarity can reduce shifting administrative definitions of DEI while preserving actions federal law actually requires.

2
57% support · excluded by 5%
7

A remedial exception can be tied to findings, duration, and review instead of authorizing preferences indefinitely.

7

Government can require equal treatment as a baseline while allowing limited corrective measures where evidence shows a specific barrier or past violation.

3
44% support · excluded by 10%
7

Existing anti-discrimination law can address unfair treatment without constitutionally foreclosing every targeted remedy a future problem might justify.

4
38% support · excluded by 12%

About the author