Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Diversity Equity Inclusion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes measure limiting government diversity, equity and inclusion activity after heated debate
Summary
The House gave final passage to House Bill 2,868, a measure dealing with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI); supporters said the bill prevents government preferences and preserves merit, while opponents said it would erase programs that address systemic barriers and urged stronger anti-discrimination protections instead.
House Bill 2,868, described on the floor as a restriction on diversity, equity and inclusion practices within government, passed final passage after extended and often emotional debate that divided the chamber along philosophical and political lines.
Supporters argued the bill protects individuals from government preferential treatment and insisted the government should not be in the business of favoring particular ideologies or identity-based programs. Representative Collin said: “Can we pass this bill? Can we get it signed by Katie Hobbs? And can we tell the government, you can't be racist anymore?” and voted in favor.
Opponents described the bill as unnecessary or harmful. Representative De Los Santos pointed to the Arizona Constitution — which, he said, already bars preferential treatment in public employment and contracting — and argued the bill was redundant and did not address existing legal gaps protecting sexual orientation. Representative Cruz said DEI practices “exist not to give anyone an unfair advantage, but to remove systemic barriers,” and called the measure an erasure that offers no remedies.
Action taken: The House passed final passage for House Bill 2,868 by a recorded vote of 33 ayes, 25 nays and 2 not voting; the clerk recorded the final passage and the bill will be transmitted to the governor.
Why it matters: The measure drew broad comment about the role of state government in workforce and contracting decisions, the meaning of merit, and protections for historically underserved communities. Many members referenced history, constitutional language, or personal experience to explain their positions.
Ending: With the bill passed, proponents hailed it as a defense of equal treatment under law; critics urged the legislature to instead adopt broader anti‑discrimination protections and to address underlying inequities the bill does not remediate.
