House committee advances bill to ban government DEI offices after extended debate

Representative Mayberry, the sponsor of House Bill 9-23, told the Finance, Ways and Means Subcommittee on April 14, 2025, that the bill would prohibit a state agency, political subdivision or public institution from maintaining or authorizing an office, department or program that "promotes or requires discriminatory preferences to increase diversity, equity, or inclusion." The subcommittee approved the bill 9-3 and sent it to full Finance.

Why it matters: HB 9-23 would remove the formal authorization for government DEI offices and declare mandates, policies, guidance or consent orders coming from such offices void. Supporters described the measure as restoring merit-based hiring in government; opponents warned it could remove a guardrail against discrimination and limit agencies' ability to pursue inclusive contracting and hiring practices.

Key points from the hearing

- Sponsor's intent: Representative Mayberry said his aim was to "stop discriminatory practices," arguing government should adopt merit-based hiring and that separate hiring rules that favor particular groups should be removed. He said the companion effort on hiring practices is addressed in a separate bill (noted in the hearing as HB 6-22).

- Opponents' concerns: Representative Chisholm and others warned of "unintended consequences," saying the measure could enable discriminatory contracting or hiring by removing offices that oversee inclusion practices. Chisholm said the bill "takes us back" and expressed concern about reversing progress toward more diverse workforces in government and procurement.

- Legal references discussed: Committee members cited federal protections and a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision during the discussion. A deputy speaker referenced the Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) in the course of debate; representatives also noted existing federal anti-discrimination law applies to employment.

Representative testimony (selected, verbatim)

- "I believe that we should all be on an equal playing field," Representative Mayberry said during his remarks.

- "A bill like this, it takes us back 61 years," Representative Chisholm said, arguing the measure could reintroduce patterns of exclusion the civil-rights movement fought to remove.

What the committee did

After extended debate and multiple questions from members, the subcommittee voted to advance HB 9-23 to full Finance with a recorded roll-call tally of 9 ayes and 3 noes. The clerk recorded the result as 9-3 in favor.

Authorities explicitly referenced in the hearing

- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (discussed in the hearing as a federal employment-protections authority).

- Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (U.S. Supreme Court, 2023) — referenced by a deputy speaker during discussion of recent legal context.

What the record does not show

The subcommittee debate focused on policy arguments and constitutional and statutory context; the transcript does not record specific contract or procurement language that would modify existing contracting procedures or give concrete examples of how local governments would implement the change. Sponsors and opponents discussed companion and follow-up legislation (for example, changes to hiring law were mentioned), but fiscal and implementation details for those follow-ups were not provided in this hearing.

Next steps

HB 9-23 moves to the full Finance Committee for further consideration and any fiscal review. The committee record shows the subcommittee restricted testimony to fiscal impacts for most calendar items; the DEI bill generated extended policy conversation within that constraint.