Fairness Project
charitable organization in the U.S.A
The Fairness Project is a United States 501(c)(4) charitable organization created in October 2015. They promote general economic and social justice throughout the US by the use of ballot measures to circumvent deadlocks in law changes by the legislative and executive branches of government. They act as a national body by supporting state organizations and campaigns with targeted funding rather than by direct campaigning. They support the gathering of signatures to meet the variable requirements to trigger ballots in states and then aid the campaigns with early financial backing, strategic advice, and various campaign tools.
The Project seeks to raise state minimum wages, both through stepped annual increases and through elimination of the tip credit exemption. It has expanded Medicaid coverage and provided funding in the most expensive ballot campaigns ever fought. Usually alongside their other campaigns, the Fairness Project has supported improving paid sick leave coverage. Following Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Project has also supported legalizing abortion via statewide ballot initiatives. The Project has supported 17 proposals in total, of which 16 have passed.
“Fairness Project” enters the record as charitable organization in the U.S.A. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Fairness, Project and charitable can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Fairness Project” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Fairness, Project and charitable provides the most credible route into that argument.
The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 15, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q55611417. The first chronological checks are 2015.
Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Fairness Project”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Fairness Project primary sources, Fairness Project archive and Fairness research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Fairness Project”?
- Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
- What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Fairness Project” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.