Arizona Proposition 142: Further ban on race-based preferences and DEI requirements in public institutions
What it does. The Arizona Constitution already says the state “shall not grant preferential treatment to or discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin” in public employment, education or contracting. Proposition 142 would extend that, even when part of a federal program, and would bar the state and local governments, public universities, community colleges and school districts from requiring applicants, employees, students or contractors to endorse certain race-based diversity, equity and inclusion concepts; from requiring people to discuss their own race or ethnicity; and from requiring training that promotes those ideas. It would also bar spending public money on offices at public educational institutions responsible for promoting preferential treatment, and bar disciplinary policies that treat students or employees differently by race or ethnicity. It includes specified exceptions. [1]
Official ballot question. Proposed amendment to the Constitution by the Legislature relating to the prohibition of preferential treatment and discrimination. Amending Article II, Section 36, Constitution of Arizona. Adds further details to the constitutional prohibition against preferential treatment or discrimination by the state based on race, ethnicity, or other classes. [1]
If you vote yes
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. [1]
If you vote no
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. [1]
What it would cost
Arizona law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) staff to summarize the fiscal impact of each voter initiative, and the JLBC states that “This requirement excludes legislatively referred propositions.” This measure was referred by the legislature, so the official pamphlet has no JLBC fiscal summary for it. The Legislative Council analysis in the pamphlet does not include a cost estimate, and we did not find another official one. [2] [1]
Both sides
Strongest case for
Victor Riches of the Goldwater Institute writes that the measure ensures “state taxpayer resources are never used to force students or state employees to endorse race-based discrimination,” and closes “an existing loophole that has allowed race-based preferential treatment in hiring, education and state contracting if the federal government calls for it.” [1]
Nathan Duell of Heritage Action for America writes that DEI policies “have led to divisive discriminatory practices and preferential treatment of individuals based on characteristics such as race and sex,” and that the measure would “prohibit the employers from requiring DEI loyalty oaths as a condition of employment.” [1]
Jerry Pittman of Prescott writes that it “guarantees that every Arizonan will be judged as an individual based on merit, not as a member of a racial category,” and “removes the threat that partisan political maneuvering in Washington can impose unfair racial preferences on Arizona.” [1]
Strongest case against
Marie Sansone of Williams writes that the Constitution already bars preferential treatment and discrimination, so the measure “adds nothing to the Constitution’s clear prohibition. To the contrary, it would result in confusion, disputes, and significant public and private costs.” [1]
The League of Women Voters of Arizona says the measure “contains expansive and ambiguous language that could discourage institutions from offering lawful programs focused on student success, community engagement, cultural understanding, mentoring, or educational access.” It also says the measure “grants future Legislatures the authority to prohibit additional concepts and activities without returning to voters for approval.” [1]
Civic Engagement Beyond Voting says it “would block teachers from discussing truthful history and accurate science,” and that “race and ethnicity data is essential to meaningful research or medical results.” [1]
Follow the money
Contributions reported by committees registered to support or oppose Proposition 142. Major donors are those who gave $100,000 or more; where fewer than three did, up to five of the largest listed donors giving $5,000 or more are shown.
Supporting (Yes)
Total raised —
No committee registered.
Independent spending by other groups (2)
Spent separately, not given to a committee; not included in the total.
| Goldwater Institute (from September through October 2026) | $365,731 |
| Arizona Free Enterprise Club (in October 2026) | $4,640 |
Opposing (No)
Total raised $871,000
Committee
- Will of the People $871,000
At least one of these committees also campaigns on Arizona Proposition 144, Arizona Proposition 318, Arizona Proposition 320, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| Progress Arizona | $281,000 |
| Future Freedoms | $150,000 |
| Arizona Education Association | $75,000 |
| UFCW Local 99 | $75,000 |
| Lynn Schusterman | $70,000 |
Independent spending by other groups (6)
Spent separately, not given to a committee; not included in the total.
| Save Our Schools Arizona PAC (from September through October 2026) | $1,308 |
| LD4 Democrats (from July through September 2026) | $916 |
| Worker Power PAC (in September 2026) | $609 |
| Democrats of the Red Rocks (DORR) (from September through October 2026) | $483 |
| Legislative District 20 Democratic Committee (in September 2026) | $461 |
| D14 Democrats (in October 2026) | $16 |
Reported contributions through Oct. 24, 2026, as compiled by Ballotpedia from state filings; the source lists each side’s top donors, not every donor. Figures are reported contributions and may be updated as new reports are filed. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Official filings: Arizona Secretary of State, See the Money.
Sources
- 2026 General Election Guide: Legislative Council analyses, ballot language, and voter-submitted arguments for and against — Arizona Secretary of State (2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet; copy hosted by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission) (Official state voter guide, 2026)
- Ballot Initiatives (page on fiscal analyses of November 2026 ballot propositions) — Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) staff (Official legislative fiscal office, 2026-08-19)
- Arizona Proposition 142 (2026) — Ballotpedia (Reference (quotes supporters and opponents), accessed 2026-10-28)
Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Last reviewed 2026-10-28. How we write both sides.
We Elect is a Brunner Creative site. Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Each side is written to be the strongest case its supporters would recognize, and every claim is tied to a source we opened and read.