A Guest Column by Dr. Ruben Anthony, Jr.
Equal Opportunity Is on the Ballot: Vote No on Wisconsin's Constitutional Amendment 3
Dr. Ruben Anthony Jr.
On November 3, Wisconsin voters will be asked to decide three constitutional amendments that could have lasting implications for our state and deserve careful public understanding and thoughtful consideration. While all three merit voters' attention, one stands apart because it strikes at the heart of the Urban League's century-long mission to expand equal opportunity, remove barriers to economic advancement, and help ensure that every Wisconsin resident has a fair chance to succeed.
Constitutional Amendment 3 asks voters whether the Wisconsin Constitution should prohibit state and local governments from "discriminating against" or "granting preferential treatment to" individuals based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, and public administration.
At first glance, the proposal sounds noble. Who would support discrimination?
Yet that question highlights exactly why voters should look beyond the wording. The amendment creates the impression that Wisconsin lacks protections against discrimination and that voters are being asked to create them. That is simply not true. Discrimination is already illegal under federal and Wisconsin law.
Wisconsin has long-standing civil rights protections that prohibit discrimination in employment, education, housing, and public services. Voters are not being asked whether discrimination should be legal. They are being asked whether governments should lose important tools used to expand opportunity and address documented disparities that continue to affect Wisconsin families and communities.
For decades, Wisconsin has maintained programs designed to provide opportunities for businesses that have historically been excluded from government contracting. One example is the state's Minority Business Enterprise Program, established in 1983. The program was created because minority-owned businesses were receiving only a tiny fraction of publicly funded contracts despite taxpayers of all races contributing to support government services.
The goal was never to guarantee contracts or eliminate competition. The goal was to ensure that qualified businesses had a meaningful opportunity to compete.
And despite claims that such programs create unfair advantages, the reality tells a very different story.
According to a Wisconsin Department of Administration report, diverse suppliers received just 5.91 percent of the $3.5 billion spent by state agencies and the University of Wisconsin System on procurement in Fiscal Year 2022. Put another way, approximately 94 percent of state procurement spending went to non-diverse vendors.
These numbers do not suggest a system dominated by preferential treatment. In fact, they suggest the exact opposite. They demonstrate that significant barriers to equal participation continue to exist.
Yet under this constitutional amendment, many efforts designed to expand participation and opportunity could face legal challenges or be eliminated altogether.
Supporters argue that government should be completely race-neutral. In theory, that sounds fair. In practice, however, fairness requires recognizing that opportunity has never been distributed equally. When substantial disparities continue to exist, government should be allowed to measure them, understand them, and address them.
Programs that encourage participation by historically underrepresented businesses do not disadvantage others. They do not guarantee outcomes. They simply help ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to compete.
That principle lies at the heart of the Urban League movement.
For more than a century, Urban Leagues across America have advocated not for special treatment, but for equal opportunity. Equal opportunity requires more than declaring everyone equal on paper. It requires identifying barriers, measuring disparities, and creating pathways that allow every individual, family, and business the opportunity to succeed.
This amendment would make that work more difficult, not easier.
The proposal is especially concerning because it extends beyond contracting to include the broad and undefined category of "public administration." The scope of that language remains uncertain, raising questions about how it could affect public programs, grants, educational initiatives, health interventions, workforce development efforts, and other activities designed to improve outcomes for Wisconsin residents.
Wisconsin continues to face some of the most significant racial disparities in the nation across a range of measures, including employment, incarceration, educational attainment, homeownership, and infant mortality. These challenges will not disappear simply because we stop measuring them, nor will they improve if we limit our ability to respond to them. Closing these gaps is not simply a matter of fairness. It strengthens our workforce, expands economic opportunity, and creates stronger communities for everyone. The truth is that we all do better when we all do better.
That is why voters should not be misled by language that simply promises to prohibit discrimination.
Discrimination is already illegal.
The question is not whether discrimination should be prohibited. It already is. The question is whether Wisconsin should also retain the ability to address the lingering effects of discrimination when they continue to show up in our schools, our economy, our healthcare systems, and our communities.
After spending more than three decades working to expand opportunity, strengthen pathways to economic mobility, and remove barriers to advancement, I believe the answer should be an emphatic "no."
While this amendment deserves particular attention, we also urge all voters to examine each of the other two constitutional amendments on this year's ballot with the same level of care. Constitutional amendments are difficult to reverse. Before making permanent changes to Wisconsin's Constitution, voters should look beyond the wording of any ballot question, understand what it would actually do, and carefully consider its real-world consequences.
On November 3, look beyond the wording. Consider the impact.
Vote "No" on Constitutional Amendment 3
About the Author:
Dr. Ruben L. Anthony, Jr. is President and CEO of the Urban League of Greater Madison. Over a career spanning more than three decades, he has worked at the intersection of civil rights, economic opportunity, workforce development, education, and public policy, advocating for expanded pathways to employment, entrepreneurship, homeownership, and economic mobility for Wisconsin families and communities.
