Legislators
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. [3] 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." [4] 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." [3]
Senator John Fetterman tweeted the day of the election saying 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, his wife, and Levi, his dog, opposed amendments 1 and 2, and supported amendment 3. [5]
State Rep. 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." [3]
State Rep. 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." [3]
Organizations
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. [3]
Pennsylvania Democratic Party said that amendment 3 "offers additional protection against laws or policies that would deny Communities of Color their legal rights," and "codifies the progress many Pennsylvanians have fought for so long." It went on to say, "While widely spread social media posts suggest this amendment will create unforeseen civil rights vulnerabilities, top attorneys and lawmakers have advised this is 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." [6]
Editorials
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." [7]
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?" [8]
