2021 Pennsylvania Amendment 3

May 18, 2021
Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended by adding a new section providing that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of an individual's race or ethnicity?
Results
Choice Votes % Yes 1,629,890 72.31% No 624,208 27.69%
County results Precinct results[a] Yes   90%–100%   80%–90%   70%–80%   60%–70%   50%–60% No   70%–80%   60%–70%   50%–60% Tie   50%

2021 Pennsylvania Amendment 3 was a proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution to prohibit the denial or abridgment of equal rights on the basis of race or ethnicity. Supporters of the measure included United States Senator John Fetterman, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, while opposition to the change was mostly limited to social media. Placed on the ballot by Senate Bill 1166, it succeeded with over 72% of the vote in favor, and with the backing of every county except Fulton and Huntingdon.

During the 2019 to 2020 legislative session, Senate Bill 1166 was introduced, originally containing only the constitutional amendment question related to emergency powers. State Senator Vincent Hughes introduced an amendment that added Amendment 3, which was unanimously adopted by the Pennsylvania State Senate.[5] Hughes' amendment came two weeks after the murder of George Floyd,[6] with it being the first statewide ballot measure based on racial equity voted on following his death.[7] The death of Floyd led to widespread protests.[8]

Constitutional law professors believed that the amendment would not have much practical effect because of courts already considering race and ethnic discrimination to be in violation of both Pennsylvania's and the United States constitution.[7]

It was the fourth equality provision to be a part of the state's constitution, following the clause stating that "all men and born equally free and independent," an amendment prohibiting sex discrimination from 1971, and a provision guaranteeing civil rights.[6]

Democratic State Senator Vincent Hughes, who introduced the amendment, believed that court cases and judicial decisions would ultimately decide what the practical effect of the amendment would be, but he still saw it as a step in the right direction.[6] He felt that discrimination based upon race was "cooked into the DNA of this nation" and he urged for others to "take action to explicitly prohibit racial and ethnic discrimination in Pennsylvania's Constitution."[9] Hughes also said: "Any extra protection that we can provide around the issue of race and ethnicity, I think we need to be in the business of providing. And if we can add that extra protection to the state constitution, the lawyers I talk to said that that's a good thing."[6]

Democratic United States Senator John Fetterman, on Election Day, stated, via Twitter, that he and his wife, Giselle Fetterman, had done their part in voting. He said that there were, "Big questions including making sure Pennsylvania is able to respond in an emergency without partisan bickering." Fetterman and his wife opposed amendments 1 and 2, and supported amendment 3.[10]

Republican State Representative Jesse Topper assured constituents of his who were skeptical of the amendment's effects that there was no ill intent. "There are some who are generally skeptical, because the word 'equality' has been somewhat co-opted over the years by left-leaning groups to mean whatever they want it to mean."[6]

Democratic State Representative Donna Bullock said that if the equality amendment were to fail and the two GOP-backed governor emergency amendments passed, it would be an ominous sign. If that happened, she believed that it would "be a hit to morale," and that it would "say to me, personally, that we have a lot more work to do in this state to address racism and bias, and that it's deeper than we thought."[6]

The ACLU of Pennsylvania supported the amendment, believing that it could have lasting impacts on issues such as systemic racism and that it would allow for state courts to make rulings against Pennsylvania governmental entities who had lacked action on providing equality of rights.[6]

Pennsylvania Democratic Party said that Amendment 3 "offers additional protection against laws or policies" that would abridge the legal rights of Communities of Color, and "codifies the progress many Pennsylvanians have fought for so long." It went on to say that top attorneys and lawmakers advised that "widely spread social media posts [that] suggest this amendment will create unforeseen civil rights vulnerabilities" were false, and that "Leading justice organizations like the ACLU support this measure." It urged individuals to vote in favor "to help ensure equal rights under the law for all Pennsylvanians."[11]

The Northampton County Council approved in a unanimous, 8–0 vote, a resolution supporting the amendment.[12]

The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board backed the amendment and recommended that people vote in favor, saying, "There are protections against discrimination in the Pennsylvania constitution, but this amendment aims to make it as clear as possible by adding to article I of the Commonwealth's constitution that 'equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of an individual's race or ethnicity.'" This, it believed, would codify "an existing and important protection."[13]

The Observer-Reporter Editorial Board supported the measure, saying that, "Sixteen other state constitutions have similar amendments," and that "Pennsylvania should join them." It also felt that the amendment "would spell out clearly that Pennsylvania does not countenance bigotry and intolerance based on race or ethnicity. Who, in the 21st century, could object to that?"[14]

Opposition to the amendment was small and limited to social media, with a majority of conservative messaging either keeping silent on the issue, or advocating for voters to support all three amendments on the ballot that year.[15] One graphic, however, called for voters to support amendments one and two, but to oppose amendment 3, arguing that racial discrimination was already illegal, and that adding ethnicity to the constitution without defining it "invites extreme abuse of the law."[15] The origin of the graphic was unclear.[15]

Democratic State Representative Tim Briggs thought that a reason for voters feeling uncertain of what the effects would be, was because the legislature had not held hearings on any of the three amendments. If the amendments were to pass and have unintended consequences, he said, another referendum would need to be held. Briggs believed that, "[a] constitutional amendment is a tough way to legislate, because when you don't put a lot of thought into what the consequences are, it's hard to correct."[6]

League of Women Voters believed that if the amendment were passed, it "could add opportunity to bring ‘reverse discrimination’ cases," meaning that, "if a Caucasian person felt they were discriminated against by a State-run operation or agency in hiring, admissions, or denied opportunities, they could sue under this new law."[9]

The following question and information was included on voter's ballots for the May 18, 2021, Municipal Primary:[16]

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 3

PROHIBITION AGAINST DENIAL OR ABRIDGEMENT OF EQUALITY OF RIGHTS BECAUSE OF RACE OR ETHNICITY

Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended by adding a new section providing that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of an individual's race or ethnicity?

() Yes

() No

Philadelphia County had the highest level of support of any county, with 84.44%, and Fulton County had the least, with 47.05% in favor. The Philadelphia metropolitan area had the sole three counties to have more than 80% of those voting to back the amendment: Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia. The region coined "Pennsyltucky" had the sole two counties in opposition: Fulton and Huntingdon.

• State equal rights amendments