Arizona Legislature referred HCR2044 to the ballot, a proposed constitutional ban on race- and sex-based preferences in public programs

On June 12, 2026, the Arizona Legislature gave final passage to House Concurrent Resolution 2044 ("Preferential treatment; discrimination; prohibited acts"), referring a measure to the November 2026 general-election ballot that would amend Article II, Section 36 of the Arizona Constitution. The amendment would bar the state — defined to include state government, cities, towns, counties, public universities, community colleges, school districts, and special districts — from granting preferences or discriminating based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, or public contracting. It would also prohibit conditioning admission, hiring, promotion, or scholarships on endorsement of race-based diversity initiatives and bar funding positions dedicated to race- or ethnicity-based preferential treatment.

The House passed HCR2044 by 31-23 on February 26, 2026, and the Senate passed it 16-13 on June 12, 2026, after which it was transmitted to the Secretary of State for ballot placement. As a legislatively referred constitutional measure, it required no governor's signature. The resolution's primary sponsors were Reps. Steve Montenegro and Leo Biasiucci, joined by 32 Republican co-sponsors; the measure listed exceptions for academic instruction and research, student organizations and guest speakers, licensed health services, bona fide sex-based qualifications, actions required for federal program eligibility, and tribal-membership qualifications for Native American programs.

Updates

2026-06-15 — ACLU of Arizona criticized the measure as a First Amendment threat [5]

The ACLU of Arizona's policy director, Darrell Hill, said HCR 2044 would burden academic freedom and First Amendment-protected speech at public universities and schools.

2026-06-26 — Will of the People PAC sued to keep HCR2044 off the ballot [6]

The PAC, formed by Progress Arizona, filed suit arguing the measure unconstitutionally restricts First Amendment speech and improperly bundles controversial provisions with already-protected anti-discrimination prohibitions.