Question 3: Governmental Entity Discrimination and Preferential Treatment Prohibited

The law today

The Wisconsin Constitution has no section like the proposed Article I, Section 27. The UW Law School's State Democracy Research Initiative explains that if the amendment fails, state and federal equal protection principles would continue to prohibit many forms of discrimination and classification-based preferential treatment, and that the amendment's effect on specific programs would likely be resolved in future litigation.[11]

Arguments made for

• State Sen. Steve Nass: "Preferential treatment to any individual or group is wrong, no matter who it targets or what the reason. Past discrimination, however wrong, cannot be corrected with more discrimination. Old wounds cannot be healed by inflicting new ones."[2]
• Dan Lennington, Vice President and Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, in Assembly Judiciary Committee testimony: "The United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution are built on a foundation of racial equality. No one may be granted a preference or denied a benefit based on race."[6]
• State Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville), co-author, in committee testimony: "This isn't new policy—it's a return to Wisconsin's core values. Our state constitution should affirm what we all believe: everyone deserves a fair shot."[6]

Arguments made against

• State Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee): "It limits our own ability to help you — the public — and will make things worse." State Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said the amendment "will make addressing disparities significantly harder to achieve."[2][3]
• Amanda Merkwae, policy and advocacy director, ACLU of Wisconsin: "What the amendment is ultimately designed to do is eliminate proactive programs geared towards equity, like minority and women-owned business recruitment, or targeted workforce development, or retention initiatives in higher education that are designed to ensure that everyone gets a fair shot."[8]
• Debra Cronmiller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin: "This amendment is not prohibiting governmental entity discrimination."[8]

On record in support

• Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL; Vice President Dan Lennington testified in support of AJR 102 on November 5, 2025)[6]
• State Sen. Steve Nass and Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville), the resolution's authors, who testified for it[6][8]
• Tom Tiffany, the Republican candidate for governor, who has said he supports all three amendments[8]

On record in opposition

• ACLU of Wisconsin (position on AJR 102/SJR 94: Oppose)[9]
• League of Women Voters of Wisconsin (position filed with the Wisconsin Ethics Commission: "the League strongly opposes this proposed constitutional amendment")[7][8]
• Wisconsin Justice Initiative and Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action ("encourage voters to say 'NO'")[10]
• State Sens. Dora Drake (D) and Chris Larson (D)[12][3]
• David Crowley, the Democratic candidate for governor, who has expressed opposition to all three amendments[8]