The Wisconsin Senate (left) and Assembly chambers on Sept. 19, 2025. Photographs by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
The Legislature recently ended another busy floor period, having moved forward several bills with implications for the criminal justice system. Meanwhile, two criminal justice bills were enacted into law since our last update, while another two were vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers. Big bills have been introduced regarding legalization of medical marijuana and regulation of cannabis products that have proliferated under the Farm Bill of 2018. The Legislature is rushing to discuss a constitutional amendment that provides “the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable and fundamental individual right that shall never be infringed.” Culture-war issues like banning guaranteed income—a sister to universal income geared toward low-income individuals—and codifying English as the official language of the state are also progressing. All summaries below are quotes from the analysis provided by the Legislative Reference Bureau unless italicized (WJI’s additions). The titles are WJI’s summaries of the often lengthy and sometimes misleading titles provided by the bills' authors. When the bills in the Assembly and Senate are generally the same, WJI links to just one. An asterisk * denotes a bill substantially similar to one introduced in a previous session but which either failed to pass or was vetoed by the governor. For a refresher on the lifecycle of a bill, you can find that here. The rough progression of a successful bill is: introduction → referral to committee → passage by committee → vote by full chamber → transfer to the other chamber to go through the prior three steps there, too → to the governor for signature. The vetoed AB34/SB25 — Court-issued criminal complaints (John Doe prosecutions)* Under current law, a district attorney has the discretion as to whether or not to issue a complaint to charge a person with a crime. Current law also provides that, if a district attorney refuses to issue a complaint against a person, a judge may conduct a hearing to determine if there is probable cause to believe that the person committed a crime and, if so, issue a complaint. Under this bill, when there is an officer-involved death, which is a death that results directly from an action or an omission of a law enforcement officer, and the district attorney determined there was no basis to prosecute the officer, a court may not issue a complaint against the involved officer unless there is new or unused evidence presented. Status: Vetoed. AB66/SB76 -- Dismissing or amending certain criminal charges and deferred prosecution agreements* Under current law, a prosecutor may dismiss or amend a criminal charge without approval from the court. Under this bill, a prosecutor must get the court’s approval to dismiss or amend a charge if the charge is for any of the following: 1) a crime of domestic abuse or a violation of a domestic violence temporary restraining order or injunction; 2) theft of an automobile; 3) a crime of abuse of an individual at risk or a violation of an individual-at-risk TRO or injunction; 4) first-degree, second-degree, or third-degree sexual assault; 5) a crime against a child; 6) illegal possession of a firearm if the person has been convicted of, adjudicated delinquent for, or found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect of, committing, soliciting, conspiring, or attempting to commit a violent felony, as defined under current law; or 7) reckless driving that results in great bodily harm. The court may approve the dismissal or amendment of such a charge only if the court finds the action is consistent with the public’s interest in deterring the commission of these crimes and with the legislature’s intent, expressed in this bill, to vigorously prosecute individuals who commit these crimes. If the court approves any dismissal or amendment in a year, the court must submit an annual report to the legislature detailing each approval…. Status: Vetoed. The introed SB534/AB547 — Medical marijuana This bill creates a program that allows a registered patient to possess and use medical cannabis products; allows designated caregivers to possess medical cannabis products on behalf of registered patients; licenses and regulates medical cannabis growers, processors, and testing laboratories; and licenses and regulates dispensaries that sell medical cannabis products. No person may possess, sell, transfer, or transport cannabis or medical cannabis products unless the person is licensed or registered as provided in the bill. Under the bill, “medical cannabis products” includes products in the form of concentrates, oils, tinctures, edibles, pills, topical forms, gels, creams, vapors, patches, liquids, and forms administered by a nebulizer but excludes cannabis in a form that can be smoked. The bill adds medical cannabis to certain provisions under the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) and eliminates the sunset of certain requirements under the PDMP. Status: Public hearing held in the Senate, referred to committee in Assembly. AB606 — Regulation of hemp-derived cannabis This bill regulates hemp-derived cannabinoid products in the same manner as alcohol beverages are regulated under current law and renames the Division of Alcohol Beverages in the Department of Revenue as the Division of Intoxicating Products (division). The bill also makes minor changes relating to alcohol beverage warehouses and alcohol beverage production arrangements. Status: Public hearing held in Assembly, no Senate bill introduced. SB202/AB165 -- Guaranteed income prohibition This bill prohibits a political subdivision from expending moneys of the political subdivision for the purpose of making payments to individuals under a guaranteed income program. “Guaranteed income program” is defined under the bill to mean a program under which individuals are provided with regular periodic cash payments that are unearned and that may be used for any purpose. Programs under which an individual is required to perform work or attend training are not “guaranteed income programs” under the bill. Status: Passed in the Assembly, public hearing held in Senate. SJR105/AJR112 -- Constitutional amendment providing right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right without qualification Currently, the Wisconsin Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose. This constitutional amendment, proposed to the 2025 legislature on first consideration, guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms without qualification. The amendment further provides that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable and fundamental individual right that shall never be infringed. Finally, under the amendment, any restriction on the right to keep and bear arms shall be subject to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is a standard of judicial review of government limitations on fundamental rights that generally provides that such a limitation is valid and enforceable only if it is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, if it is narrowly tailored to its purpose, and if no reasonable less restrictive alternative exists. Status: Public hearing held in Senate. The in-between SB459/AB458 -- Admissibility of expert witnesses This bill updates the current statutory rule of evidence relating to testimony by experts to conform with recent changes made to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702 intended to clarify the court’s gatekeeping role with respect to expert testimony. Current law parallels FRE 702 prior to its amendment, allowing the testimony of an expert witness if the witness’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact at issue in the case, but limiting the testimony of an expert witness to testimony that is based on sufficient facts or data, that is the product of reliable principles and methods, and that is based on the witness applying those principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Similar to the changes made to FRE 702, the bill confirms that the proponent of the testimony is required to demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that the witness’s testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, that it is the product of reliable principles and methods, and, finally, that the witness’s opinion reflects a reliable application of those principles and methods to the facts of the case. Status: Public hearing has been held in both Senate and Assembly. AB24/SB57 — County sheriff assistance with certain federal immigration functions This bill requires sheriffs to request proof of legal presence status from individuals held in a county jail for an offense punishable as a felony. The bill also requires sheriffs to comply with detainers and administrative warrants received from the federal department of homeland security regarding individuals held in the county jail for a criminal offense. Under the bill, sheriffs must annually certify to the Department of Revenue that they have complied with each of these requirements. If a sheriff fails to provide such a certification, DOR must reduce the county’s shared revenue payments for the next year by 15 percent. The bill also requires sheriffs to maintain a record of the number of individuals from whom proof of legal presence is requested who are verified as unlawfully present in this state and a list of the types of crimes for which those individuals were confined in the jail. The information must be provided to the Department of Justice upon request, and DOJ must compile the information and submit a report to the legislature. Status: Passed in the Assembly; passed through committee in Senate and available for scheduling a full Senate vote. AB377/SB357 — Recognizing English as the official language of Wisconsin Currently, Wisconsin has no official language. This bill provides that the official language of this state is English. The bill also allows any state or local governmental entity to provide a person with access to artificial intelligence or other machine-assisted translation tools in lieu of appointing an English language interpreter if the entity is authorized or required by law to appoint an interpreter for the person. Additionally, the bill provides that, unless otherwise specifically required by law, all oral and written communication by all state and local governmental entities must be in the English language, except that such communication may be in another language when appropriate to the circumstances of an individual case, the implementation of a program in a specific instance, or the discharge of a responsibility in a particular situation. The bill also permits state and local government officers and employees to use a language other than English in oral or written communication whenever necessary for one or more of eight specified purposes. Finally, the bill precludes any state or local governmental entity from prohibiting any person from becoming proficient in any language or restricting the oral or written use of any language for a nongovernmental purpose. Status: Public hearing held in Assembly. AB89/SB92 — Retail theft enhanced penalties Under current law, the penalty for the crime of property theft varies by the value of the property taken…. Similarly, the penalty for the crime of retail theft varies by the value of the merchandise or service that is taken…. This bill specifies that, if, in a six-month period, a defendant commits more than one violation of property theft or more than one violation of retail theft, the value of items taken at each violation may be aggregated and the crimes may be prosecuted as one property theft crime or one retail theft crime. The penalty for the crime would be determined by the aggregated value of the items taken. Creates a new crime. Status: Passed in the Assembly; passed through committee in Senate and available for scheduling a full Senate vote. Newly enacted laws: AB77/SB66 — Registration plate concealment devices penalty Under current law, any motor vehicle for which the Department of Transportation has issued registration plates must display those plates, along with any decals issued for the plates. This bill prohibits the possession, sale, purchase, installation, and use of a registration plate concealment device, which is a manual, electronic, or mechanical device designed or adapted to be installed on a motor vehicle to 1) switch between two or more registration plates; 2) move, obstruct, or conceal a registration plate; or 3) alter the appearance of a registration plate so that the registration number cannot be seen and read. The bill also prohibits the equipment of any motor vehicle with a registration plate concealment device. A person who violates these prohibitions may be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 90 days, or both. Any vehicle equipped in violation of these prohibitions may be impounded, and reasonable costs for towing and impounding the vehicle may be assessed against the owner. Creates a new crime. Status: Enacted into law. AB75/SB115 — DOJ collection and reporting of certain criminal case data* This bill requires state DOJ to collect from the director of state courts all of the following information for each criminal case: 1) the county in which the case was filed; 2) the name of the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case; 3) the name of the court official assigned to the case; 4) the criminal charge filed; 5) the charging recommendation from the referring law enforcement agency, if applicable; 6) for each case, whether the court released the defendant without bail, upon the execution of an unsecured appearance bond, upon the execution of an appearance bond with sufficient solvent sureties, or upon the deposit of cash in lieu of sureties, or denied release, and the name of the court official who made the decision; 7) for each case for which a court required the execution of an appearance bond with sufficient solvent sureties, the monetary amount of the bond and the name of the court official who made the decision; 8) for each case for which a court required the deposit of cash in lieu of sureties, the monetary amount of cash required and the name of the court official who made the decision; 9) any other conditions of release imposed on the defendant and the name of the court official who made the decision; 10) whether any plea bargain was offered in the case; 11) whether a deferred prosecution agreement was offered in the case; 12) whether any charge relating to the case was dismissed; and 13) whether the case resulted in a conviction. Status: Enacted into law.
0 Comments
 By Margo Kirchner The April 1 ballot presents voters with yet another bad proposed constitutional amendment. Here’s what to know about it and why you should vote “no.” First, here’s a quick summary of general guidelines for ballot questions on proposed constitutional amendments. For a more in-depth discussion of these general guidelines, see this blog post from last year.
Now, on to this particular ballot question and proposed amendment. The question reads: “Photographic identification for voting. Shall section 1m of article III of the constitution be created to require that voters present valid photographic identification verifying their identity in order to vote in any election, subject to exceptions which may be established by law?” The actual amendment limits the types of acceptable photo identification to those that are issued by:
The amendment adds that the Legislature shall by law establish acceptable forms of photographic identification and exceptions to the requirement under the constitutional provision. It also includes a provision that a qualified elector unable to present valid photographic identification on election day must be permitted to cast a provisional ballot that can be counted if the elector presents a valid photographic ID within the time and at the place set by the Legislature. Note that the ID must be valid and photographic, whether presented at the time of voting or later to cure a provisional ballot. No expired licenses would be constitutionally acceptable. No social security cards or nonphotographic IDs would be constitutionally acceptable. This proposed amendment passed along party lines in at the start of the current legislative session. All 54 Republican Assembly representatives voted in favor, while all 45 Democratic Assembly representatives voted against. In the Senate, 17 Republicans voted in favor, while 15 Democrats voted against it. Don’t fall for messaging that makes you fear voter fraud. There is no need for this amendment. It is based on a contrived issue and already covered by a statute. Proponents of the amendment pull out an unsubstantiated mantra about election integrity and preventing fraud. Sponsor Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), for instance, said in written testimony that “Wisconsin’s voter ID requirement has been widely successful in preserving election integrity and ensuring that citizens are confident that the ballots cast are legitimate.” But voter impersonation fraud is exceedingly rare. A study by The Washington Post and cited by the Brennan Center in this report found only 31 credible cases of voter impersonation fraud in more than 1 billion votes nationwide over a 14-years period. Doing the math, that’s 0.0000031% of the time. Another study, conducted as part of an investigative project centered in the Arizona State University journalism school found just 10 cases of voter impersonation nationwide from 2000 to 2012. "With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters," the reporters wrote. In addition, the voter ID law already exists in a Wisconsin statute, and according to the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) and National Conference of State Legislatures it’s one of the strictest in the nation because the ID has to be photographic and valid. Per the LRB, although 36 states request or require voters to present some form of identification to vote, in most states photographic ID is not required or else there is a procedure to allow voters without an ID to vote. Not so here. An important point to consider regarding this proposed amendment: because of the voter ID law already in place, the people who can’t get acceptable identification cards will not be able to vote on it. Please consider voting ”no” on their behalf. There is no reasonable purpose for this provision to be added to the Wisconsin Constitution . . . unless one is worried that the law could change someday. Statements by certain Republican legislators indicate that cementing the voter ID law in place against future attacks in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, especially if Susan Crawford should win this election, is the real reason for the proposed constitutional amendment. The voter ID law cannot violate the state constitution if it’s itself part of that constitution. Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) wrote in written testimony supporting the proposed amendment that “Democratic activists on social media are openly asking someone to challenge Wisconsin’s Voter ID law in the Wisconsin Supreme Court” and that he was “not willing to risk a Wisconsin Supreme Court unburdened by precedent and the Wisconsin Constitution declaring Voter ID laws unconstitutional.” The Ballotpedia website has reported Rep. Bob Kreibich (R-New Richmond) as saying: “For clarification, photo ID is already required by Wisconsin State Statute. But a ‘yes’ vote would amend the Wisconsin Constitution to include this requirement, which will further protect the integrity of the voting system from our leftist-activist WI Supreme Court.” In addition, placing the voter ID law in the constitution protects it against change should the Legislature someday flip to the Democrats. Amending the state constitution is a years-long process that takes substantial effort. Amending or repealing a statute is far easier. The state constitution should not be changed for political reasons from a document guaranteeing rights to one that restricts rights, especially when a statute already is in place, the purported problem is nonexistent, and some voters will be denied the ability to vote. Disenfranchisement is more prevalent than voter impersonation fraud, though difficult to measure. John Johnson from the Marquette University Law School’s Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education recently conducted an analysis of Wisconsin population and driver’s license data to arrive at an estimate that somewhere between zero and 6% of adult Wisconsin residents lack a Department of Motor Vehicles photographic ID card. That translates into up to about 290,000 individuals, Johnson said. He found that young adults not enrolled in college and adults living in poverty are the two groups most likely negatively impacted by the voter photo ID requirement. In written testimony opposing the proposed amendment, the Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources wrote that “(o)lder voters who lack an acceptable photo ID for voting may not have the availability, financial resources, or mobility to obtain the necessary ID; those who are rural or low-income may face significant barriers obtaining the needed documentation.” All Voting is Local Action wrote that “(e)nshrining voter ID in Wisconsin's constitution risks disenfranchising voters, especially marginalized groups, addresses nonexistent voter fraud, and diverts focus from real issues. Existing laws work—this amendment adds barriers and harms democracy.” In his written statement of support of the proposed amendment, Wanggaard asserted that “(c)ontrary to claims made when Voter ID was passed, the law has not resulted in voter suppression. In fact, voter participation has increased since being implemented in 2014.” But he cited no authority for the assertion and ignored the possibility that voter participation increased because of the contentious elections in 2016, 2020, 2023, and 2024, and that it would have increased more (and possibly resulted in different outcomes) had the voter ID law not been in effect. Numerous organizations have voiced opposition to the proposed amendment, with several signing a joint letter published as a full-page advertisement in the Journal Sentinel in February. This is the third round of proposed amendments in the last 12 months targeting the state constitution’s suffrage provisions. Here's the full text of the proposed amendment: Section 1m (1) No qualified elector may cast a ballot in any election unless the elector presents valid photographic identification that verifies the elector’s identity and that is issued by this state, the federal government, a federally recognized American Indian tribe or band in this state, or a college or university in this state. The legislature shall by law establish acceptable forms of photographic identification, and the legislature may by law establish exceptions to the requirement under this section. (2) A qualified elector who is unable to present valid photographic identification on election day shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot may not be counted unless the elector presents valid photographic identification at a later time and place as provided by the legislature by law. The following lists are based on the entities that registered in favor or against the proposed amendment during its second round through the Legislature or signed the joint letter that was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The list is not meant to reflect all entities that may support or oppose the proposed amendment.
 By Margo Kirchner
Twenty-three organizations took out a full-page advertisement in Wednesday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calling for voters to protect the Wisconsin Constitution by rejecting a proposed amendment on April 1 ballots. Wisconsin Justice Initiative and Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action joined the letter, together with other organizations committed to democracy and voter rights. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign spearheaded the group effort. “The fact that 23 organizations from across Wisconsin have come together on this issue speaks volumes," Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Executive Director Nick Ramos told WJI following publication of the ad. "We may come from different backgrounds and areas of focus, but we are united in our commitment to protecting democracy and ensuring that our constitution serves the people—not political interests. This kind of broad, collective action is exactly what Wisconsin needs to push back against attempts to undermine our rights and instead build a government that truly represents all of us,” Ramos said. The April ballot question will ask voters to enshrine in the Wisconsin Constitution the strict voter identification requirements that already are part of state statutory law. The letter first urges voters “to oppose this amendment and vote no, not just because of its content, but also because of the troubling precedent it sets” regarding the state’s most important governing document. “The Wisconsin Constitution is a foundational framework, meant to protect and reflect the shared values of our state. It is not, and should not be, a tool for political gamesmanship,” the organizations wrote. “Yet, in recent years, we have seen an alarming trend of constitutional amendments being rushed to the ballot—like a team coming to Lambeau Field and running a trick play on every down—to exploit the rules instead of respecting the spirit of the game. Our lawmakers, regardless of political party, should always create bills through meaningful public debate and bipartisan collaboration.” Proposed constitutional amendments must be approved by the Legislature during two consecutive legislative sessions. They then go to voters at an election the Legislature chooses. The April proposed amendment was quickly passed along party lines at the start of the current legislative session in January and placed on the first possible election date allowed by state statutes. The group letter also criticizes the content of the amendment itself. Wisconsin’s voter ID laws are some of the strictest in the nation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Placing them in the constitution will make it significantly more difficult to reverse course in the future. The amendment would affect voting rights for years and decades to come. “Amendments to the constitution should strengthen our democracy, solve real problems, and uplift all Wisconsinites—not erode democratic norms or serve narrow political interests. Unfortunately, the proposed voter ID amendment on the April ballot is another example of how our constitution is being used not to help but to hinder our interests,” the letter said. “(I)t risks creating more barriers for voters, especially for those who already face challenges in making their voices heard.” “(L)et us reject attempts to misuse our most sacred governing document for political advantage, staying true to the principles that make Wisconsin a model for effective, inclusive democracy,” the organizations wrote. The group asked legislators and readers to make Wisconsin “a state where our constitution is used to advance democracy, not undermine it. Inspired by the Wisconsin Idea, let us ensure our constitution and laws reflect the values and aspirations of all Wisconsinites, informed by fairness, research, and a commitment to the public good.” The writers pointed to Gov. Tony Evers’ recently proposed constitutional change to permit citizen-led amendments as a subject worthy of consideration, in comparison to the April proposed amendment. “We call on voters to reject amendments that limit their rights until they are empowered with the tools and power to advance their own reforms and champion amendments that truly strengthen our democracy,” they wrote. “Wisconsin deserves better. Let’s stop changing our constitution for political gain and start using it to make our state stronger, fairer, and more inclusive,” they concluded.  By Alexandria Staubach
Wisconsin Justice Initiative and its sibling organization Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action urge you to vote “no” on the November statewide ballot referendum question. The election is less than a month away, and absentee ballots are already out. Once again, Wisconsin voters are asked to approve an amendment to the state’s constitution. The proposed amendment appears to make a seemingly innocuous change, but one that could actually have significant effects. The referendum question reads as follows: “Eligibility to vote. Shall section 1 of article III of the constitution, which deals with suffrage, be amended to provide that only a United States citizen age 18 or older who resides in an election district may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum?” At best, the proposed amendment is a solution in search of a problem. At worst, it eliminates a guarantee of voting to U.S. citizens and unnecessarily opens Pandora’s box, permitting more restrictive voter identification laws and regulations. The current language in Article III of the state constitution (emphasis added) guarantees the right to vote: “Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.” The proposed amendment would eliminate that guarantee and turn the constitutional provision into a restriction on who can vote. The above provision would be changed to read (emphasis added): “Only a United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district who may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum.” Noncitizen voting is not an issue in Wisconsin. The federal government in 1996 enacted a law prohibiting noncitizen voting in national federal elections, and Wisconsin and its municipalities have not conferred voting rights on noncitizens. In an interview with WJI, professor Atiba Ellis, a nationally noted voting rights scholar at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, confirmed that noncitizen voting should not be issue in this election, as national laws already restrict voting at the federal level to citizens. Some municipalities in other states have permitted noncitizen voting in local elections. Takoma Park, Maryland, for instance, has permitted noncitizen voting in local elections for 30 years. The number of noncitizens voters there is small: 347 registered noncitizen voters, 72 of whom cast ballots in a 2017 election. Frederick, Maryland, recently became the largest municipality in that state to permit noncitizen voting. New York, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., also have permitted some noncitizen voting. Santa Ana, California, will vote on a measure this November to permit noncitizen voting in local elections. Very little written testimony exists at all in the legislative record regarding this proposed constitutional amendment, and none points to any instance of noncitizen voting in Wisconsin. Notwithstanding that in his written testimony supporting the amendment sponsor Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) called noncitizen voting “a real issue,” he pointed to no instances of noncitizen voting in Wisconsin. He instead refenced only the legally permitted noncitizen voting in Maryland and possible noncitizen voting in Washington, D.C., as a basis for the Wisconsin proposed constitutional amendment. “Article III is one of the provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution that protects the fundamental right to vote. There is no need to amend it,” Chris Donahoe, staff counsel at Law Forward, told WJI. So why here? And why now? Ellis suggests that history may be repeating itself. “Before the early 20th century, citizenship wasn’t treated as that strict of a requirement for voting,” he said. “It was the rise of the nativist movement of the early 1900s, as we saw waves of immigration from southern and eastern Europe, when noncitizen voting became an issue.” Then, mass migration and concerns about the American working class becoming more diverse tilted toward populist politics, and states began to pass legislative amendments to limit voting to citizens, he said. “One way of reading this amendment is to stir up the specter of noncitizen voting following that patten of attempting to malign social and political interests that were sympathetic to noncitizens,” Ellis told WJI. Ellis noted a potential harm of the proposed change, as the new language may “frustrate someone from voting who might otherwise be permitted to vote.” Bans on noncitizen voting are increasing. Six states (Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Ohio) have adopted the same or a similar amendment. The same or similar amendment is also on the ballot in seven other states (Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Carolina) this November. According to a recent article in The Guardian, Republicans nationwide are trying to make concerns about alleged noncitizen voting a focal point of this election, notwithstanding little to no evidence of noncitizen voting being a problem. Meanwhile, they are ensnaring citizens in their attempts to purge noncitizens from voting rolls, forcing voters to prove their citizenship. The proposed constitutional amendment passed the Legislature in November 2023 along party lines: 21 Republicans for and 10 Democrats against in the Senate, 60 Republicans for and 34 Democrats against in the Assembly. Wisconsin’s Legislature has offered seven proposed constitutional amendments just since the spring of 2023. More than a decade ago Wisconsin joined other states with heavily restrictive voter ID laws, which have already made it more difficult for U.S. citizens, let alone noncitizens, to vote. Some things voters should keep in mind regarding constitutional amendment ballot questions:
 By Margo Kirchner
In part 1 of this series, Wisconsin Justice Initiative described some general guidelines when considering constitutional amendment ballot questions. Now, on to the two specific ballot questions Wisconsin voters statewide will see in the August 2024 election. Wisconsin Justice Initiative urges “no” votes on the two referendum questions on the Aug. 13 ballot seeking amendments to the Wisconsin Constitution. The two proposed amendments relate to the governor’s spending of state and federal funds. One amendment would prohibit the Legislature from delegating its authority to control spending. The other would prohibit the governor from spending money received by the federal government without the Legislature’s approval or direction. Although the Wisconsin Legislature controls the spending of tax dollars through the budget process and has retained its right to approve funds received under block grants, Wisconsin Statute § 16.54 authorizes the governor to accept and allocate federal funds provided to the state “for the education, the promotion of health, the relief of indigency, the promotion of agriculture or for any other purpose.” With some exceptions, the statute authorizes the governor to designate the state board, commission or department to administer such funds, and the designated board, commission or department to then spend them. The statute permits the governor in his discretion to stipulate to conditions placed on the funds so long as he considers them to be in the public interest. Examples of such funds include the disbursement of federal aid after weather disasters, or, as occurred during the pandemic, federal pandemic-related money under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). The statute allows for the acceptance and use of money relatively quickly, as the governor should be able to act more swiftly than the Legislature in a crisis. Generally, the Legislature meets for about 14 or 15 months then takes several months’ break until after the next election. Further, agreement in the Legislature on use of funds would be subject to the political process. Also, the governor is responsible for and accountable to all people in the state, not just constituents in a certain district. He may have a broader perspective on a spending decision for the good of the state than those elected to look out for the interests of a smaller constituency. In the joint resolution calling for the two questions, the Legislature identified the problem it was addressing as follows (emphasis added): “Under current law under the statutes, the governor has authority to accept federal moneys on behalf of the state and to allocate federal moneys without the specific approval or participation of the legislature.” As noted in the resolution itself, the asserted problem arises from current statutes, not from constitutional necessity. Statutes can be changed through statutory amendments; constitutional provisions are not necessary. Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Racine) wrote in support of the amendments that “(b)illions of federal dollars poured into our state in the last couple of years. These supplemental federal funds were important to our state’s economic wellbeing, but only Governor Evers made the determination for allocation of all that money without legislative consideration.” The amendments will “restore a balance to how Wisconsin manages supplemental federal money we receive,” Wittke said. Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) wrote in support that the amendments will “increase() accountability, efficiency, and transparency in the expenditure of funds received from the federal government by restoring the legislature’s role in approving those expenditures.” Marklein noted that prior to the 1930s and 1940s the Legislature had “final say over the spending of all funds in the state treasury, no matter their source.” However, as federal money became a greater share of state funds, “legislators abandoned that important responsibility” and gave authority to the governor to allocate federal funds. “I believe the only permanent solution is to have the voters in Wisconsin approve an amendment to the state constitution that will restore the legislature’s role in the allocation of federal funds,” Marklein wrote. During the 2021-2022 legislative session, Gov. Tony Evers vetoed numerous bills in which the Legislature sought to direct ARPA funding. In his veto messages, Evers stated versions of the following: I object to the bill and am vetoing it because it limits the ability to use federal funds with the flexibility necessary to confront the variety of challenges posed by recovery from the COVID−19 global pandemic and respond to Wisconsin’s changing needs over the course of the pandemic and our recovery. In Wisconsin, the role of the Governor to oversee use of federal funds under Section 16.54 of the Wisconsin Statutes is clearly established and has been in place for decades, a fact that was confirmed by legislative leadership in a letter they sent to me in April 2020. In lieu of this bill, I will continue to utilize the authority provided to the Governor under Section 16.54 of the Wisconsin Statutes to oversee use of federal funds and will allocate these funds in a manner that is transparent and consistent with both Wisconsin’s needs and federal law. Wittke’s comments and Evers’ veto statements point to the “problem” these amendments are purported to solve: the governor’s rejection of the Legislature’s attempt to control federal pandemic-related funds. When the most recent Legislature approved sending these ballot questions to voters, only Republicans voted for it. (In the Assembly, 63 Republicans voted in favor and 35 Democrats voted against; in the Senate, 22 Republicans voted in favor and 10 Democrats against.) Wouldn’t a truly good policy benefiting all Wisconsinites for decades to come have had bipartisan support? Question 1 on the August ballot reads: “Delegation of appropriation power. Shall section 35(1) of article IV of the constitution be created to provide that the legislature may not delegate its sole power to determine how moneys shall be appropriated?” Ask yourself why this is necessary. Through the state budget process, the Legislature continues to control the spending of vast amounts of state money. Regarding the delegation of power to appropriate federal money, the Legislature has not been forced to delegate its power. Prior Legislatures chose to do so. The Legislature could change the delegation of power to the governor over federal funds by changing the statute. Why does the Legislature need to prohibit in the constitution its own power of delegation? This appears to be the Legislature attempting to get around the governor’s veto of such a statutory change. Importantly, what if a future Legislature believes that it again should delegate authority to the governor or another official to spend certain money? If the ballot question passes, that future Legislature would be barred by the state constitution from doing so. Thus, this amendment can be seen as an attempt to bar future legislatures from giving power back to the governor in the event the legislature ever has a Democratic majority. Also ask how far this provision, if passed, will reach and whether its effects are known. This amendment appears to go beyond just the statute permitting the governor to direct federal funds, extending to any type of delegation. How much will the Legislature extend its reach into the other branches of government to control how executive agencies or courts spend their budgeted funds? Question 2 reads: “Allocation of federal moneys. Shall section 35(2) of article IV of the constitution be created to prohibit the governor from allocating any federal moneys the governor accepts on behalf of the state without the approval of the legislature by joint resolution or as provided by legislative rule?" This change is aimed specifically at § 16.54. Again, the change could be achieved by changing a statute rather than the state constitution. What is the Legislature’s plan for approving or making rules regarding acceptance and distribution of federal emergency aid, especially when the Legislature is not in session? Will Wisconsinites impacted while the Legislature is on break during the last 10 months of a legislative term need to just make do until the Legislature is back in session? The Legislature met just once in 2020 to address needs during the pandemic. This Legislature broke in March 2024 and is not expected to return in full until January 2025. When the Legislature returns to session, how long will Wisconsinites wait if the Legislature disagrees with the governor’s proposals and the use of funds devolves into politics? Money meant to help Wisconsinites could sit unused while people suffer. And will Wisconsin miss out entirely on federal money that has a deadline for acceptance? If the Legislature is out of session or disagrees with the governor and the deadline passes, what then? Jennifer Giegerich of the Wisconsin Conservation Voters wrote in written testimony to the Legislature before it passed these amendment proposals: The current system allows for a governor to act quickly when it is required. Voters are not asking the legislature to formally change the constitution to create a new level of oversight in these limited circumstances. While there may be a theoretical argument to be made, the reality is it will create unnecessary burden and hoops to jump through for those waiting for funds to rebuild or communities dealing with significant public health issues. On the state government website noting lobbyists’ positions on these amendments, organizations urging a “yes” vote included only the Badger Institute and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. Numerous organizations lobbied for a “no” vote, including, among others, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Education Association Council, Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments & Boards, Wisconsin Conservation Voters, Wisconsin Public Health Association, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, The Nature Conservancy, Clean Wisconsin, and Wisconsin Farmers Union. For all of these reasons, WJI believes the answer to both ballot questions is "no."  The Wisconsin Constitution in the Capitol rotunda in Madison. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Margo Kirchner
Voters in the Aug. 13 partisan primary election will see two referendum questions on the ballot seeking approval of constitutional amendments. The proposed amendments relate to the governor’s spending of state and federal funds. One amendment would prohibit the Legislature from delegating its authority to control spending. The other would prohibit the governor from spending money received by the federal government without the Legislature’s approval or direction. Some general rules are helpful to keep in mind whenever you see constitutional amendment ballot questions, as there have been several recently with more to come (seven constitutional amendment questions just between April 2023 and November 2024). First, in a 2023 decision the Wisconsin Supreme Court gave the Legislature free rein to describe proposed amendments vaguely or misleadingly. Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote for the majority that the state constitution’s provision about amendment procedure “does not require any substantive discussion of the amendment in the ballot question submitted to the people. No explanation or summary is constitutionally commanded.” A ballot question would violate the constitution’s requirement that an amendment be submitted to the people for ratification “only in the rare circumstance that the question is fundamentally counterfactual such that voters were not asked to approve the actual amendment,” he said. In a concurring opinion, Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley wrote that the test boils down to “Did the ballot question contain clearly false information?” She said that the “constitutional purpose of a ballot question . . . is not to educate voters.” “Voters are trusted to inform themselves,” she wrote. (WJI published portions of the justices’ opinions in blog posts here, here, and here. Full disclosure: WJI brought the case at issue, arguing unsuccessfully that the April 2020 ballot question was invalid because voters were insufficiently informed and even misled by its wording.) As a result, voters must beware and must assess proposed amendments carefully. Voters need to know what the constitutional amendments are before they walk into the polls, because the questions themselves may be confusing or misleading. Second, know that constitutional amendment referendum questions are framed and worded for a “yes.” The Legislature has passed these provisions, and the legislators who passed them want you to approve them as well. The question may make you think that voting "yes" is common sense. But what do you think about the Legislature? Do you generally agree or disagree with what it does? Third, look for other reasons why a question is on the ballot. One big reason is an attempt to get around the governor when the Legislature and governor are not from the same party. When the governor and Legislature are in accord, statutes are easier to enact. When the parties differ, the governor can block legislation through veto. Constitutional amendments bypass the governor. What is passed by the Legislature goes to the people rather than to the governor. The governor has staff to vet and analyze proposed laws; the people do not. Today, Republicans in the Legislature may be using the constitutional amendment process to accomplish policy changes in a way that avoids or essentially overrides a veto by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. But the same could be true if the parties were reversed. Another reason for an amendment ballot question may be an effort by the Legislature to draw voters to the polls in certain elections. By focusing on attention-grabbing issues, the proposed amendment may cause certain people to be sure to vote. So look for the reason for the constitutional amendment. Is there an actual problem being fixed? If the problem isn’t clear or as set forth makes you skeptical, maybe there isn’t a problem to be fixed at all. Fourth, consider whether the state constitution should be filled with provisions that exist better as statutes than in the legal document that is the very base for state law. Constitutions often set forth broad rights, principles, and policies, while statutes get into the finer details. When those finer details are in the state constitution they take longer to reverse if unforeseen problems arise or times change. Constitutional amendments must be approved with identical language by two consecutive Legislatures and then wait for an election. Nothing requires that constitutional amendments be approved by the Legislature only after a study of the long-term impacts or the difficulty of reversing course. The April 2024 amendments changing election law come to mind, as elections officials have recently grappled with whether ballot printing can be outsourced and who exactly can work at polling locations. Look for the next post on the two specific ballot questions voters statewide will see in the August election. Read part 2 here. By Alexandria Staubach
On Wednesday, a Dane County Circuit Court judge heard oral arguments on whether she should dismiss a case challenging two cash-bail constitutional amendments passed by voters in April 2023. The lawsuit asks the court to toss the results of the election on procedural grounds. The plaintiffs allege that the Legislature and Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) failed to timely file the Republican-backed resolutions calling for the voter referendums, so the questions should not have appeared on the ballot. One amendment expanded the situations in which cash bail could be imposed, while the other expanded conditions for release on cash bail. Notably, in the same year that Wisconsin voters expanded cash bail, Illinois became the first state to abolish it. The plaintiffs are WISDOM—a statewide network of mainly faith-based organizations—and EXPO Wisconsin. Both groups work to end mass incarceration. They “advocated strenuously” against the amendments, according to court filings. WISDOM and EXPO allege they were deprived of opportunities to organize against the resolutions. State law requires the Legislature to file ballot questions “with the official or agency at least 70 days before the election,” making the deadline for the Apr. 4, 2023 election Jan. 25, 2023. The lawsuit involves questions about who the appropriate “official or agency” is and the stricture of the 70-day rule and whether substantial compliance is enough. WISDOM and EXPO allege the law required the Legislature and WEC to submit ballot questions to county clerks and the Milwaukee County Board of Election Commissioners (MCBEC), as the entities who prepare ballots, on or before the deadline. The ballot questions were not received by county clerks and MCBEC until Jan. 26, 2023. Oral arguments occurred before Judge Rhonda L. Lanford at the summary judgment stage of litigation. Plaintiffs maintain that procedural impropriety motivates the suit. “Those who run our elections have to follow the law,” said Jeff Mandell of the LawForward law firm, which represents EXPO and WISDOM. WEC’s attorney, Charlotte Gibson, argued that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the lawsuit and that the Legislature substantially complied with the requirements for filing. The 70-day deadline is “not mandatory,” she said. “The gerrymandered Wisconsin Legislature must respect the proper procedures for amending the state constitution,” and “attempts to push through constitutional amendments without the established legislative process are yet another example of legislative overreach,” said Mandell after oral arguments. Many working to end mass incarceration remain strongly opposed to the amendments. "The problem with the recent constitutional and statutory changes on bail is they move us away from an evidence-based system and more toward a system in which the charged offense drives the bail decision,” said criminal defense attorney Craig Johnson (who also is WJI’s board president). “Even a person accused of a serious offense maintains a presumption of innocence. If the evidence shows they carry a low risk of re-offending or missing court, they should be entitled to release. We always have to keep in mind that holding people on cash bail unnecessarily can cost them their jobs, their housing and their families. The cash bail system also unfairly impacts indigent and low-income defendants," Johnson told WJI. The nonprofit LawForward began in 2020 “with a mission of protecting democracy,” according to the firm’s website. Since then it has been involved in litigation regarding voting rights and ballot access, redistricting, and election administration, among other issues. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed