Wisconsin ballot measure · November 3, 2026

Wisconsin Question 3, explained

Governmental entity discrimination prohibited. A ballot measure is a yes-or-no question put directly to voters — no candidate is involved, and the wording on the ballot is the wording that becomes law. This page shows that wording first, then what it actually changes.

The official wordingWhat appears on the ballot. Everything below explains it.

QUESTION 3: "Governmental entity discrimination prohibited. Shall section 27 of article I of the constitution be created to prohibit governmental entities in the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration?"

What it actually means

Wisconsin and federal law already bar government discrimination on race, sex, colour, ethnicity and national origin — but with exceptions: a racial classification can survive if it serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored, and a sex-based one if it is substantially related to an important interest. This amendment would write a flatter rule into the state constitution, covering the state, local government, the UW System, the Technical College System, school districts, the Legislature and the courts. The official explanatory statement says the language "appears to impose stricter standards against discrimination than the standards under current state and federal law." It follows California's Proposition 209 and similar measures in eight other states.

If you vote YES

A new Article I, Section 27 would bar any governmental entity from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, colour, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting or public administration.
"Governmental entity" is defined broadly: the state, municipalities, the University of Wisconsin System, the Technical College System, any public college or school district, and the Legislature and the courts.
Programmes that use those characteristics to address disparities — outreach, targeted scholarships, minority contracting goals — would be open to challenge under a standard the Attorney General's explanatory statement calls stricter than current law.
Three exceptions are written in: action needed to keep eligibility for a federal programme where the alternative is losing federal funds; anything required by federal law or the U.S. Constitution; and bona fide sex-based qualifications "reasonably necessary to the normal operation" of the covered activities.
Any part found invalid is severable, and the rest is to be applied as far as federal law allows.

If you vote NO

No new section is added. Government discrimination stays governed by Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Under that law, classifications by race, colour, ethnicity or national origin are allowed only where the government has a compelling interest and the remedy is narrowly tailored; sex-based classifications must serve an important interest and be substantially related to it.
The existing distinction between intentional discrimination and the disparate impact of a neutral policy remains, as the explanatory statement notes.
State and local programmes that consider these characteristics continue to be judged case by case in court rather than barred by the constitution.
The 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision ending race-conscious college admissions continues to apply either way.

The numbers that matter

Current standard for race-based government action: Compelling interest and a narrowly tailored remedy
Current standard for sex-based government action: Important government interest, substantially related
Similar measures decided in other states since 1996: 11 tracked; six approved, four defeated
Legislative vote to refer: Senate 18-15, Assembly 54-45

What each side says2 for, 3 against — quoted, not summarised

Why supporters say YES

"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."
— State Sen. Stephen Nass (R-11)
"The Equality Amendment will end discriminatory DEI programs throughout Wisconsin and ensure our government serves all citizens equally."
— Dan Lennington, managing vice president and deputy counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty

Why opponents say NO

"Either we accept that some groups are just going to have worse life outcomes because of their race, gender, or ethnicity, or we need to be able to take steps to study and address these disparities. This constitutional amendment will make addressing disparities significantly harder to achieve."
— State Sen. Chris Larson (D-7)
"Let's be clear: Discrimination is illegal in Wisconsin. So what would this amendment do? It would limit our governments' ability to use certain policies and programs intended to remedy longstanding disparities based on race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin."
— Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
"Legislative Republicans had the opportunity to expand economic and educational opportunities for all Wisconsinites over a decade, yet they chose not to. Now … they are attempting to eliminate historically bipartisan programs and guardrails by claiming that they provide 'preferential treatment.' The authors admitted they did 'no research' on existing programs or possible remedies."
— State Sen. Dora Drake (D-4)

What's genuinely uncertain

Which existing programmes would actually fall is not established. Neither side has published a list, and Sen. Drake says the authors did no survey of them; the amendment's effect would be worked out in litigation.
How far "public administration" reaches — a term not used in the comparable California and Michigan measures — is untested.
The scope of the federal-funding exception matters a great deal and is not defined: it covers action needed to keep eligibility where ineligibility "would result in a loss of federal funds," which courts would have to apply programme by programme.
No committee had registered to support or oppose the amendment as of February 2026, so there is no campaign finance record on either side.
The official explanatory statement's concluding paragraphs refer to the new provision as "art. I, § 18"; the amendment creates Article I, Section 27. The ballot question itself says Section 27.

The bottom line

Whether the constitution should bar government from ever weighing race or sex, including to close gaps it once created — a single rule applied to everyone, against the loss of tools the state now uses to address disparities.

One neutral sentence describing the tradeoff — not a recommendation.

Sources (4)The numbers in the text above link here

Checking it against the official text

The Wisconsin Elections Commission publishes the certified measures and, in most states, an official voter guide with fiscal notes. That is the authoritative version. Everything here is an explanation of it, not a substitute for it.

Confirm this with the official source

Your ballot is determined by your election authority, not by us. Verify your registration, precinct, and sample ballot at Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Other measures on the Wisconsin ballot

Candidates on the same ballot

Everything on the Wisconsin ballot →

Wisconsin Question 3, explained

What it actually means

If you vote YES

If you vote NO

Why supporters say YES

Why opponents say NO

Checking it against the official text

Other measures on the Wisconsin ballot

Candidates on the same ballot

Related reading

How do I find out what's on my ballot?

What is a sample ballot, and how do I get mine?

How do I understand a confusing ballot measure?

Why do down-ballot races matter so much?