|
Wisconsin voters will encounter three constitutional amendment referendum questions on the Nov. 3 ballot. In a series of posts, Wisconsin Justice Initiative will help you understand constitutional amendment referendum questions generally, and the Nov. 3 election questions specifically. This is part five in the series. Find prior posts here.  By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner Ballot question 3 is the most destructive proposed constitutional amendment voters will face on Nov. 3; it's a regressive ploy. The proposed amendment is anti-equity masquerading as anti-discrimination. Despite supporters' sales pitch, the amendment targets far more than higher education admissions or what we teach in schools. Voters will be asked whether the government shall be prohibited from “discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” The amendment, though, is really about banning consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin when creating programs, services, opportunities, and targeted health care. If enacted, the question 3 constitutional amendment threatens to eliminate long-standing initiatives based on identity-conscious designations that address persistent inequalities in health care, public education, housing, government contracting, and more. The amendment would apply to every level of government. It could enshrine in the state’s constitution a total ban on targeted support for women and minority communities. Wisconsin Justice Initiative and Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action encourage voters to say “NO.” The proposed constitutional amendment appears on the ballot as “Governmental Entity Discrimination Prohibited Referendum—QUESTION 3.” Although the referendum question is titled as being about prohibiting discrimination, discrimination is already prohibited in laws regarding housing, employment, education, and myriad other areas. What this amendment adds is prohibitions against “preferential treatment.” The ballot question asks voters: “Shall section 27 of article I of the constitution be created to prohibit governmental entities in the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration?” The actual amendment is longer than the question and is shown in the box below. The key language of the proposed amendment, though, indeed is: “A governmental entity may not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration.” However, there is a key carve-out, not mentioned in the question, allowing for sex-based decisions if a “bona fide qualification” based on sex is “reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration.” It is entirely unclear who would decide that sex is a bona fide qualification necessary for the job or benefit at issue and how that would be policed. Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty is the only organization registered in support of the amendment, but it is putting in overtime trying to win a “yes” from voters. Two advertisements produced by WILL, featuring “Colbey, a Wisconsin mom,” and “Richard, a Wisconsin parent,” say “every Wisconsin kid deserves an equal shot” and “race or gender should never give anyone an advantage or disadvantage,” respectively. WILL frames the measure as a natural reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which eliminated affirmative action in higher education in 2023. But using the tagline “Discrimination is Discrimination,” WILL takes the position further on its website, saying that “governments may not use race to cure societal discrimination, systemic racism, or to advance modern-day notions of diversity and equity.” The proposed amendment would affect more than simply education. Instead, ballot question 3 is a backdoor into the wholesale elimination of a host of programs that anti-DEI proponents would love to see sunset. In written testimony when the Legislature most recently considered the proposed amendment on second consideration (an amendment must pass the Legislature twice, in consecutive sessions), WILL expressly pointed to the following programs it expects will be prohibited:
While WILL is pitching the constitutional amendment as an education initiative, it has compiled a list of Wisconsin laws, programs, and policies that it claims are discriminatory. (The firm has also published lists of federal programs and federally funded health initiatives that it claims discriminate based on race.) Tasked by the 2025 Government Operations, Accountability, and Transparency Committee, Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) compiled a list of every “DEI” initiative in the state. The exhaustive list includes everything from sensitivity training for state adoption agencies, to targeted library intern positions in communities of color, to county health equity plans. Think about the end to programs like
Anti-discrimination sounds like a non-partisan no-brainer, and WILL has recently claimed that a “statewide survey” (of just 750 registered Wisconsin voters) demonstrates “majority support across party lines.” However, the Legislature passed the amendment exactly along party lines. Further, there is shockingly little preserved about its passage, compounded by WisconsinEye’s blackout last winter. The resolution passed through the Assembly’s Committee on Judiciary in November 2025. While the resolution received a public hearing before WisconsinEye shutdown temporarily, the event wasn’t covered. At the hearing, committee member Rep. Andrew Hysell (D-Sun Prairie), one of the few attorneys in the Legislature, warned of the many unintended consequences this amendment may have. In a recent phone call with WJI, Hysell specifically noted the proposed amendment’s exception allowing sex discrimination when “reasonably necessary.” “What does 'reasonably necessary' mean?” he asked at the hearing. It’s an important question for Hysell, who believes the language would insert discriminatory language directly into the state constitution—that the “reasonably necessary” phrase is intended to insert a “bona fide occupational exception” into the amendment. “The idea of a bona fide qualification based on sex is from the 1960s,” he told WJI and the Judiciary Committee. “It’s been used to argue in the 1970s that men shouldn’t be flight attendants and women shouldn’t be prison guards,” he said. Sex discrimination issues have long been resolved by the courts, but placing the language in the state constitution, detached from the context and years of corresponding jurisprudence, “would turn a statutory exception policed and limited by the courts into a constitutional limitation on your right to be free from sex discrimination,” he explained. By the time the resolution made it to the Senate, where it received a public hearing in the Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs Committee, WisconsinEye was offline. After the hearing, Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) said in a press release that “Legislative Republicans had the opportunity to expand economic and educational opportunities for all Wisconsinites over a decade, yet they chose not to. Now, as many Wisconsinites are struggling more than ever, they are attempting to eliminate historically bipartisan programs and guardrails by claiming that they provide preferential treatment based on race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.” Drake said the authors admitted they conducted no research on the impact to these established programs. She said they "promote manufactured discrimination and conceal their incompetence and neglect to help all Wisconsinites.” “This proposed ballot measure is designed to not name specific programs or provide legislative solutions but to mislead voters and blame women and Wisconsinites of color for the struggles this body refuses to solve,” she said in the press release. On second consideration, written testimony in support was received only from WILL, the amendment’s authors, and two individuals. Sponsor Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville) stated in written testimony that the proposed amendment “Restores FAIRNESS—No one gets an unfair advantage; no one is unfairly held back” and “Restores EQUALITY—Equal opportunity for all, not forced equal outcomes (“equity”) that ignore ability.” Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) stated that “(p)ast discrimination, however wrong, cannot be corrected with more discrimination.” For a deeper dive, the Senate hearing materials are here and the Assembly hearing materials are here. WJI reached out to WILL to ask what the amendment would do to enhance equality. WJI has received no response to date. After it was clear the “anti-discrimination” question would appear on the Nov. 3 ballot, the Wisconsin Supreme Court released its opinion in Rabiebna v. Higher Educational Aids Board. In that case, WILL argued a challenge under Students for Fair Admissions to small ($500-$2,000) race-based technical college scholarships. While the justices ruled the program was now unconstitutional, they questioned the decision they had to make. In a concurring opinion, Justice Jill Karofsky wrote, “Why have we not learned from our past? Why are we not willing to recognize the harms this country has caused to those who are marginalized, disempowered, or disenfranchised?” The answer she said, “appears to be because we have failed to fully recognize how societal and governmental practices have long continued to enforce a preference for White Americans and to burden Black Americans and those of other disadvantaged races or backgrounds.” WJI encourages voters to ask themselves whether they believe identity-conscious health care is in fact discriminatory, whether equality means only equal inputs (everyone gets the same) rather than equal outputs (people get what they need to similarly succeed), and whether banning support for people long subject to discrimination is something we want enshrined in Wisconsin’s foundational document. The proposed amendment, which is more detailed than the ballot question: [Article I] Section 27 (1) In this section, “governmental entity” means the state, its political subdivisions including municipalities, the University of Wisconsin System, the Technical College System, any public college or university, any public school district, and any office, department, independent agency, board, commission, authority, institution, association, society, or other body in state or local government created or authorized to be created by the constitution or any law, including the legislature and the courts. (2) A governmental entity may not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration. (3) This section does not prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the governmental entity. (4) Nothing in this section prohibits bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration. (5) If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with the United States Constitution or federal law, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the United States Constitution and federal law permit. Any provision of this section held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.  
0 Comments
Wisconsin voters will encounter three constitutional amendment referendum questions on the Nov. 3 ballot. In a series of posts, Wisconsin Justice Initiative will help you understand constitutional amendment referendum questions generally, and the Nov. 3 election questions specifically. This is part four in the series. Find parts one, two, and three here, here, and here.  By Margo Kirchner Wisconsin legislators are asking voters to approve a constitutional amendment purportedly about religious liberty, but which many religious leaders themselves are not supporting. The proposed amendment seeks to get around a governor’s veto and may reduce government flexibility in responding to emergencies. Wisconsin Justice Initiative and Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action advocate a "no" vote. This proposed constitutional amendment appears on the ballot as “Freedom to Gather in Places of Worship During an Emergency Referendum—QUESTION 2.” The ballot question asks voters: “Shall section 18 of article I of the constitution, which deals with religious liberty, be amended to prohibit the state or a political subdivision of the state from ordering the closure of, or forbidding gatherings in, places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including a public health emergency?” Article 1, § 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution addresses Wisconsinites’ religious liberties. It currently provides in full: “The right of every person to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries.” The proposed amendment would add the following language before the period of the current provision: “; nor shall the state or a political subdivision of the state order the closure of or forbid gatherings in places of worship in response to a state of emergency at the national, state, or local level, including an emergency related to public health.” The amendment thus would create a new limitation on any state governmental official or entity—such as the governor or local health departments—to close places of worship or forbid gatherings in them because of any state of emergency. Although public health emergencies are expressly named, the provision would apply more broadly to any type of emergency—including flooding, tornadoes, or civil unrest. The provision contains no exception for the severity of the emergency. If passed, the amendment would not prevent congregations from voluntarily closing during a state of emergency. The proposed amendment is a reaction to Gov. Tony Evers’ orders in early 2020 regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, prohibiting any large gatherings. Evers’ orders prohibited any public or private gathering of 10 people or more in an enclosed space, including at schools, theaters, museums, and arenas. Questions exist about whether the proposed amendment would be legal and how it would be interpreted. Courts would ultimately have to resolve any ambiguities or issues with the proposed provision’s scope or application. For instance, could places of worship legally remain open even when comparable secular gathering places are closed? That could be seen as giving preferences to religious organizations over secular ones, when just two clauses before the new language, § 18 states that no preference can be given to religious establishments or modes of worship. Could government officials still impose lesser restrictions, such as capacity or distancing requirements, even though closure could not be ordered? Of note, legislators attempted without success to pass a similar provision as a statute. Although the bill was approved in both the Assembly and Senate, Evers vetoed it in 2021. Amendment sponsors Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) and Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee) submitted written testimony in favor of the resolution when it passed through the Legislature on second consideration. (A proposed constitutional amendment must pass through the Legislature twice, in consecutive legislative sessions. It then goes to voters.) Tusler argued that houses of worship were shuttered in 2020 while liquor stores, bars, and casinos were deemed essential and remained open. He pointed to spiritual communities being “lifelines” and a source of stability and connection during times of crisis. Tomcyzk pointed to a West Bend church service in April 2020 being interrupted by law enforcement. He said he found it “disturbing and unacceptable” that the service was stopped because “the government decided that a virus was more important than the constitutional rights of Americans.” Wisconsin Family Action wrote in testimony that the right to worship freely “should never be subject to the force of government control based on the whim of a state of emergency.” It continued: “It doesn’t take much imagination to foresee scenarios where the government could declare an emergency for any kind of reason thereby granting itself the ability to infringe upon our right to worship.” Many Wisconsin religious leaders and organizations, though, do not appear to be exhorting their congregations and members to approve the amendment. The Wisconsin Catholic Conference, which responds to issues common to the five Catholic dioceses in the state, registered as neutral when the proposed amendment was first introduced in the Legislature, and it remains neutral. Executive Director David Earleywine told WJI that the organization discussed possible changes with the resolution’s authors when the provision was first introduced, but the suggestions were not included in the passed version. Earleywine said on behalf of the conference that “Freedom to gather for worship is only one important aspect of religious liberty and religious conduct, both of which extend beyond the four walls of a house of worship.” The Wisconsin Council of Churches has taken no position on the proposed amendment. And when registering its neutral position with the Legislature when the amendment was considered the second time, the council questioned the amendment’s wisdom and asked why existing constitutional language is not sufficient. “Making good choices about what to do in a public emergency requires closely attending to the particular circumstances at hand and using the best information and understanding available at the time. Trying to define the options in advance, without any clear idea of exactly what we could be facing in the future, is unwise,” the council wrote. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America also has stayed neutral. The Lutheran Office for Public Policy in Wisconsin, though, issued a voter guide that examines all three Nov. 3 ballot questions through the lens of ELCA social teachings. Regarding this proposed amendment, the voter guide says “ELCA social teaching emphasizes that God intends humans to work for the ‘common good’ and says that the government is serving God’s purposes of justice and good order when it cares for the most vulnerable in society,” adding that being responsible and loving includes doing no harm and promoting others’ well-being. Kacy Kostiuk, director of the LOPPW, told WJI that the voter guide is meant to help Lutherans understand how this proposed amendment relates to their church’s social teachings. “The guide examines both the amendment and the church’s social teaching and concludes that the amendment is not consistent with ELCA commitments to the common good, care for our neighbors, health as a shared endeavor, and responsibility for a just society,” she said. The Freedom from Religion Foundation provided WJI with the following statement from Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the organization: "Religious beliefs can never justify endangering the public. Viruses don’t distinguish between crowds singing in a church or at a bar. Why would any church or place of worship want to endanger worshipers and, by extension, the public, by knowingly flouting emergency orders?" At least one organization outside Wisconsin supports the proposed amendment. The Center for Christian Thought and Ethics, a religious think tank out of Florida, says on its website the proposed amendment “keeps the state in its lane and not in our pews.” Wisconsin Justice Initiative and WJI Action oppose the amendment. Constitutional amendments should be reserved for matters that are truly necessary, after long-term implications have been considered. If passed, this proposed amendment could reduce the flexibility of government officials to respond to the emergencies we can’t even predict at this time—whether health crises and pandemics, floods, fires, blizzards, or myriad others. That several religious leaders and significant religious organizations have not called for and are not supporting this amendment—taking a neutral position or even advocating for a “no”—is telling. The Legislature has proposed an amendment regarding religious worship that several religious leaders and organizations are not endorsing. Further, the proposed amendment is an extension of a political fight between a legislature of one party and a governor of the other. In response to a veto, legislators can override with a two-thirds majority. If they cannot override, that is how the process goes. As with the proposed partial veto amendment, there is no need to react with a constitutional amendment each time a governor vetoes a bill. If the public does not like the result of failed legislation, the solution is to elect different legislators or governor, not to amend the state constitution.    Wisconsin voters will encounter three constitutional amendment referendum questions on the Nov. 3 ballot. In a series of posts, Wisconsin Justice Initiative will help you understand constitutional amendment referendum questions generally, and the Nov. 3 election questions specifically. This is part three in the series. Find parts one and two here and here.  By Margo Kirchner Wisconsin legislators want you to join them in overreacting to Gov. Tony Evers’ use of executive partial veto power with a constitutional amendment. Don’t fall for it. This proposed constitutional amendment appears on the ballot as “Partial Veto Referendum—QUESTION 1.” The referendum question asks voters the following: “Partial veto. Shall section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the constitution be amended to prohibit the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto authority, from creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee?” Historically, Wisconsin governors have had broad partial veto powers regarding appropriations bills compared to governors in other states. Article V, § 10 of the Wisconsin Constitution currently allows the governor to modify an appropriations bill in part, provided the change does not create a new word by striking individual letters from words or create a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences. The proposed amendment would add language to that provision, prohibiting any change by a governor that would create or increase, or authorize the creation or increase, of any tax or fee. In the 2023-2025 biennial budget process, the Legislature passed funding provisions for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years. Evers then used his partial veto power to strike words, digits, and dashes to extend school districts’ ability to increase revenue limits from two years to 402 years (from 2023 through 2425). Outraged, the Republican Legislature proposed this constitutional amendment in response. In 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the veto. In a 4-3 decision, the court found that the partial veto limitations as currently written apply to words and letters, but not digits. Further, the partial veto satisfied the veto power principles discussed in prior case law. As noted by the court, the Legislature could have overridden the partial veto with a supermajority vote. The Senate voted to override, but the Assembly did not. The Legislature has had the power to pass subsequent laws repealing the 400-year revenue limit extension, but it has not been successful. A bill this past legislative term would have eliminated the yearly school revenue limit increases after 2026. The bill passed both chambers, but Evers vetoed it and the Legislature again failed to override his veto. Republican lawmakers are now pursuing a parallel route of amending the constitution, arguing that a proper balance of power between Legislature and governor requires this constitutional change. Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) submitted written testimony when the proposed amendment passed through the Legislature on second consideration. (A proposed constitutional amendment must pass through the Legislature twice, in consecutive legislative sessions.) She wrote that the proposed amendment “restores the proper balance between the branches of government, and ensures taxpayers are protected from runaway tax increases in the future.” Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) wrote that Evers’ 400-year extension “was a deeply egregious move,” which the amendment aims to stop from happening again. Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce wrote that Evers’ 400-year extension “is making Wisconsin unaffordable” and the amendment will “keep Wisconsin free from tax- and fee-increasing kings.” If passed, the amendment will affect governors of any party. Courts would ultimately have to resolve any ambiguities in the provision’s scope or application. Wisconsin Justice Initiative and WJI Action oppose the amendment. The constitution already includes procedures for the Legislature to override a veto or pass subsequent legislation. We should avoid filling our constitution—a source of individual rights and the basis of our state government—with provisions that side-step usual government processes. In essence, the proposed amendment is an extension of a political fight between this Democratic governor and the Republican-led Legislature. The state constitution should not be a battlefield for political fights between the Legislature and governor when the parties differ. Political disagreements should not shift the balance of power between the Legislature and governor that has existed for almost 100 years as backlash to one veto. The governor’s partial veto power was added to the Wisconsin Constitution by amendment in 1930, and this is not the first time voters have been asked to restrict the provision after a governor’s use of it. After Republican Gov. Tommy Thomspon used the partial veto to strike individual letters in words to create new words (nicknamed the “Vanna White veto”), voters approved a letter-striking restriction in 1990. After Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle used fragments from multiple sentences to create a new sentence (nicknamed the “Frankenstein veto”), voters approved another partial veto restriction in 2008. But we do not need to react with a narrow constitutional amendment each time the partial veto is used by a governor to the Legislature’s displeasure.   By Alexandria Staubach
Wisconsin Justice Initiative is providing an in-depth look at the constitutional amendments Wisconsin voters will see on their Nov. 3 ballots. This is part two in a series, providing the full text of each ballot question and each proposed amendment as well as the effect the amendment has on the document’s current wording. Part one in the series provides guidelines for evaluating any proposed state constitutional amendment. A deep dive into each proposed amendment, covering the amendment’s history, sponsors, and analysis, will follow, so stay tuned. If you need to register to vote you can do so here. If you want to see your sample ballot, you can do so here. To see who represents you in state government, visit this website. A constitutional amendment has the power to add something new to the constitution, subtract from something already in the document, or modify the document. This year, each amendment consists of an addition to the constitution in some form. We note the precise changes below. To dig into the legislative history, click on the "AJR" or "SJR" link. AJR 102: – Anti-equity amendment The ballot question “Shall section 27 of article I of the constitution be created to prohibit governmental entities in the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration?” Effect on Wisconsin Constitution Adds a new section to article I of the Wisconsin Constitution, which is Wisconsin’s Declaration of Rights. The amendment arguably would modify § 1, which currently states: “All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Full text of the addition to the constitution [Article I] Section 27 (1) In this section, “governmental entity” means the state, its political subdivisions including municipalities, the University of Wisconsin System, the Technical College System, any public college or university, any public school district, and any office, department, independent agency, board, commission, authority, institution, association, society, or other body in state or local government created or authorized to be created by the constitution or any law, including the legislature and the courts. (2) A governmental entity may not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration. (3) This section does not prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the governmental entity. (4) Nothing in this section prohibits bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration. (5) If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with the United States Constitution or federal law, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the United States Constitution and federal law permit. Any provision of this section held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section. SJR 116: Amendment to restrict the governor’s partial veto The question Shall section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the constitution be amended to prohibit the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto authority, from creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee?” Effect on Wisconsin Constitution Adds to current language found in article V, § 10, which outlines the power of the governor to approve or veto bills, to reduce the governor’s partial veto power. Full text of the proposed addition to the Constitution (changes in red) [Article V] Section 10 (1) (c) In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill, and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences of the enrolled bill, and may not create or increase or authorize the creation or increase of any tax or fee. AJR 10: Amendment banning closure of places of worship during states of emergency The question “Shall section 18 of article I of the constitution, which deals with religious liberty, be amended to prohibit the state or a political subdivision of the state from ordering the closure of, or forbidding gatherings in, places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including a public health emergency?” Effect on Constitution Adds to current language found in article I, § 18, governing the declaration of rights regarding religious worship, to prohibit any government from banning group gatherings in places of worship during national, state, and local emergencies. Full text of the addition to the Constitution (changes in red) [Article I] Section 18. The right of every person to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries; nor shall the state or a political subdivision of the state order the closure of or forbid gatherings in places of worship in response to a state of emergency at the national, state, or local level, including an emergency related to public health. Next in the series: an in-depth look at the proposed partial-veto amendment.  The Wisconsin Constitution display in the Capitol in Madison on Sept. 18, 2026. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Margo Kirchner Wisconsin voters will encounter three constitutional amendment referendum questions on the Nov. 3 ballot. In a series of posts over the next two weeks, Wisconsin Justice Initiative will help you become an informed voter on constitutional amendment referendums generally and the Nov. 3 election questions specifically. Because constitutional amendment ballot questions alone do not sufficiently inform you about the proposed changes, ensure you’re up to speed before mailing your ballot or heading to your polling place. Here are tips to prepare for all constitutional amendment ballot referendums. As a start, it’s helpful to know the process for amending the Wisconsin Constitution. The Legislature must pass a proposed constitutional amendment twice, first during one two-year legislative term (“first consideration”), and then again during the next two-year legislative term (“second consideration”). The Legislature then submits the amendment to voters at an upcoming election of its choosing. If voters approve, the amendment then becomes part of the constitution. The governor is not involved in the process. When the Legislature passes the proposed amendment on second consideration, it also passes the wording of the ballot question that will ask voters to approve the change and names the election at which voters will see the question. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the Legislature has broad leeway in writing the question. The question may be vague, confusing, or even misleading, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that’s OK under the state constitution. In a case brought by Wisconsin Justice Initiative, challenging an amendment ballot question as insufficient and misleading, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2023 ruled that the Legislature’s “submission” of the proposed amendment to the people “does not require any substantive discussion of the amendment.” “No explanation or summary is constitutionally commanded,” Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote for the court. Hagedorn said a ballot question is only deficient “in the rare circumstance that the question is fundamentally counterfactual such that voters were not asked to approve the actual amendment.” In a concurring opinion, former Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley wrote that the court’s test boils down to, “Did the ballot question contain clearly false information?” The purpose of an amendment referendum ballot question “is not to educate voters,” she said. “Voters are trusted to inform themselves.” So how do you do that? Here are guidelines for any election with a constitutional amendment ballot question. The short version is in the block immediately below. Read on for a more in-depth discussion. Voter guidelines for constitutional amendment referendums: 1) Know that the short ballot question is not the actual amendment. 2) Know that constitutional amendment ballot questions are framed and worded for a “yes.” 3) Look for other reasons why this question is on the ballot. 4) Consider whether this is something better addressed in the form of a statute than a constitutional change. 5) Think about the impacts—known and unknown. 6) If you don’t understand an amendment ballot question or what the amendment itself is, perhaps have a general rule to vote “no,” or do not vote on it at all. 1) Know that the short ballot question is not the actual amendment. The amendment itself can be quite long. It could add a new provision to the constitution, add new language to a current provision, or delete language from the constitution. Look for a copy of the actual amendment on the Legislature’s website under constitutional “enrolled joint resolutions.” Or, Ballotpedia has a page with ballot measures in various states—scroll down to Wisconsin, click on the link for the amendment and look for “text of measure.” 2) Know that constitutional amendment ballot questions are framed and worded for a “yes” answer. The Legislature has passed this amendment, twice. Legislators want you to pass it as well. They write the question, and the question will make you want to say “yes.” So what do you think about this Legislature? Do you generally agree or disagree with what it does and wants? Sleuths among our readers can look up which legislators voted in favor or against the proposed amendment. What do you think of them? Legislative votes can be found by clicking on the initial Assembly or Senate joint resolution on the Legislature’s website. (An example is here.) The vote tally should be near the top. If you click on the vote tally it will show how the lawmakers voted. 3) Look for other reasons why this question is on the ballot. For instance, is this an attempt to get around the governor when the Legislature and governor are from different political parties? Has the governor vetoed an attempt to pass a statute on the same subject? The pace of constitutional amendments has increased. From 2006 to 2022, voters saw six constitutional amendment ballot questions. Since 2023 there have been 11, including the three coming up. Clashes between the Legislature and Gov. Tony Evers may explain the uptick. Remember the governor is not part of the amendment process. When the governor and Legislature are in accord, legislation is relatively easy to enact because the governor often approves what the Legislature has passed. But when the parties differ, a bill may get the governor’s veto. In this climate, the Legislature may turn to constitutional amendments to bypass the governor. Question 2 on the November ballot (banning closure of places of worship during a state of emergency) exemplifies this. Evers vetoed a bill on the same point in 2021. The Legislature may seek to cement something into the constitution in case control of the Legislature changes or it does not like the makeup of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Voters can also examine whether the Legislature is using this question to bring voters to the polls. Constitutional amendments are often hot-button issues. This year’s questions include whether the governor’s partial veto should be limited following Evers’ adjustment to school district funding for 400 years, restrictions on places of worship during a state of emergency following the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency restrictions by the Evers administration, and anti-DEI sentiment. By focusing on attention-grabbing issues that stir up strong feelings, the proposed amendment may drive certain demographics to the polls, while keeping the topic in the news. Many recent amendments have been about elections, which is an ongoing hot-button issue. The Legislature could have chosen the April 2026 election for some of these provisions but waited for the November election instead. Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee) accused Republicans of placing amendments on the November 2026 ballot to boost conservative turnout, comparing the strategy to Wisconsin’s 2006 same-sex marriage ban amendment. Is there really a problem that needs fixing, or is this a political issue? Has the Legislature backed the proposed amendment with evidence? Sponsors of the 2025 voter-identification constitutional amendment (which passed) provided little to no evidence that voter impersonation occurs. Wisconsin already had a strict statute requiring voter identification. Meanwhile, a study noted by the ACLU of Wisconsin found just 31 credible voter impersonation cases nationwide out of more than 1 billion votes from 2000 to 2012. Voter identity “protections” were a solution in search of a problem. So why did we need a constitutional amendment? As reported in Ballotpedia, Rep. Rob Kreibich (R-New Richmond) provided one reason: “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.” 4) Consider whether this is something better addressed in the form of a statute than a constitutional change. Constitutions generally set up government structures, provide guarantees of rights, and talk in broad terms that can stand through time. Statutes are generally where we hash out where the rubber meets the road. That’s because statutes are easier to change. Undoing a constitutional change can take three to five years. The more detail that is in a constitution, the more government officials’ hands may be tied when times and circumstances change. 5) Consider the impacts—known and unknown. The Legislature is not required to conduct studies before proposing constitutional amendments. Voters should ask whether this purported solution to a proposed problem has been studied. What has happened in other states that have passed similar constitutional provisions? The consequences may be unknown because they are unstudied, or they can be known but not widely discussed before voters go to the polls. Examples of unintended consequences can be seen from recently passed amendments. For instance, the April 2020 victims’ rights amendment has allowed police officers who fatally shoot someone to claim that they were victims acting in self-defense, entitling them to the right to privacy and to keep their names from the public. The April 2024 ban on government entities receiving outside election funds or equipment affects cities that previously obtained grants from nonprofit sources to purchase voting machines. Taxpayers will now have to foot the bill for new equipment or repairs to old equipment. 6) If you don’t understand an amendment ballot question or what the amendment itself is, perhaps a general rule is to vote “no,” or do not vote on it at all. If you do not know what you’d be agreeing to with a “yes,” or if you haven’t identified an issue with the status quo, leaving things as they are may be the best answer. A legislative bill that would have made the Legislature provide voters with reliable information on constitutional amendment ballot questions failed to pass the Senate during the last legislative session. The bill, AB 207, would have required a one-page disclosure notice with the entire text of the actual proposed constitutional amendment (not just the ballot question), a plain language summary of existing law, and a plain language explanation of the effect of the proposed amendment. The notice would have been posted on the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s voter registration website for at least 30 days before an election, posted on each county clerk’s website, mailed with absentee ballots, and posted at the polls on election day. WJI will advocate for passage of a similar provision this coming legislative session. We encourage you to do the same. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed