Take action now and spread the word: VoteRiders helps Wisconsinites overcome voting barriers7/13/2026 Wisconsin has important elections coming up on Aug. 11 (primary) and Nov. 3 (general), with strict photographic identification requirements in place by law. Now is the time to make sure you, your family members, friends, and even acquaintances have a valid ID for voting. Check your own documents and let others know about the services VoteRiders provides for those who need help obtaining an acceptable voting ID.  By Erik Reinthaler WJI Intern Although for many eligible Wisconsin voters bringing photo identification to the polls is simply another step in the voting process, for others, obtaining the identification now required by law can be a significant obstacle to casting a ballot. VoteRiders is a valuable resource for overcoming that barrier. Spread the word. The VoteRiders nonprofit provides free, one-on-one assistance to eligible voters who need help obtaining identification or supporting documents. Wisconsin is one of the organization's eight priority states because of its long-standing voter ID law. Assistance includes helping people navigate the necessary processes, getting them rides to where they need to go, and even paying for government documents. Every voter's situation is different, and VoteRiders tailors its assistance accordingly. "We provide 100% free resources to people in order to get their ID or other underlying documents, like a birth certificate or Social Security card, cover transportation by getting them round-trip rides through rideshares, things like that," Wisconsin State Director Jake Spence told Wisconsin Justice Initiative in a recent interview. Spence works with voters facing ID obstacles every day. One of the biggest misconceptions, Spence told WJI, is that obtaining an acceptable voter ID is straightforward. In reality, replacing identification can become far more complicated than many people expect. For example, Spence said, ordinary life events can suddenly leave eligible voters without the identification they need. "We've had flooding in Milwaukee, and people are like, 'Oh yeah, I lost my birth certificate in the flood. I just moved to a new place like six months before the flood and hadn't updated my ID yet, so my ID no longer has my current address.'" Replacing lost identification often brings unexpected costs. "IDs don't grow on trees, so they do have to get paid for,” he said. “The voters don't pay anything…We will take care of all those costs," Spence said. “Folks think, 'Oh, I lost my ID. It's not a big deal. I can afford that.' But not everybody is in the same situation, and then when you couple that fact with the fact that we have this voter ID law, I mean, very clearly, some people are being pushed aside and are unable to cast a ballot, even if they want to, because they may be facing these monetary barriers or these bureaucratic barriers." Those are precisely the hurdles VoteRiders aims to eliminate. The burden falls unevenly Although anyone can lose an ID, Spence said the burden of replacing one is not shared equally. According to a national survey fielded in the fall of 2023 by VoteRiders, in partnership with the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland, the Brennan Center for Justice, and Public Wise, an estimated 34.5 million voting-age U.S. citizens either lack a driver's license or state-issued ID, or they have one that does not reflect their current name or address. The survey also found that communities of color are disproportionately affected by these barriers. Although comparable Wisconsin estimates are unavailable, Spence said he sees the same patterns across the state. "It tends to be a lot of the marginalized communities,” he said. Those communities include Black and brown voters, Indigenous voters, young voters, students, voters with disabilities, newly naturalized citizens, and transgender and nonbinary voters. He said name changes, disabilities, and other individual circumstances can create additional challenges to securing acceptable voter identification. Students face unique obstacles because not every Wisconsin college issues student IDs that automatically satisfy the state's voting requirements. "Some of our largest institutions like UW–Madison don't offer that as the regular ID," Spence said. "A lot of places will allow you to get that voting-compliant ID ... but students are unaware of that information." Spence said that ID barriers disproportionately affect younger voters, particularly those between the ages of 18 and 29. He believes a lack of public awareness is one of the biggest reasons why. “These things aren't really taught to people. They're not taught in schools. And so, every year there's new people turning 18 and becoming new voters that just don't know, don't understand." Even when voters understand what they need, obtaining the necessary documents can still be difficult. Spence said the biggest barriers are often not the cost of replacement documents themselves but the transportation expenses and bureaucratic hurdles involved in obtaining them. "I think it's, again, really easy for folks to think, 'Okay, this isn't such a big deal. But when you break it down to a person-by-person level, people have all kinds of stuff going on in their lives," he said. People experiencing homelessness often face those challenges even more acutely. "I've seen a lot of folks in homeless shelters. And unfortunately, those aren't always the most secure places,” Spence told WJI. “I've heard a lot of people talking about, 'Okay, somebody went into my wallet and stole my ID or stole my Social Security card, things like that.' And that's just something that some folks are exposed to and have more risk around than other people." Much of VoteRiders' work happens through partnerships with homeless shelters, schools, community organizations, and nonprofits across Wisconsin. Rather than expecting voters to travel to VoteRiders, the organization tries to take its resources to places more convenient for the people who need the help. Removing the barriers Spence urges voters to call or text VoteRiders' helpline (866-432-8683) or visit voteriders.org as soon as they realize they may not have acceptable identification. VoteRiders staff determine what documents or assistance each voter needs and guide them through the process. Some voters can resolve the issue in minutes with VoteRiders’ help. "Let's say it's a situation where somebody lost their ID and they just need a renewal. I can go online on DMV's website, get that taken care of, get you that printout receipt that has the picture of the ID on it that says this must be accepted for voting purposes, and I can print that out for you in five minutes also." Other voters may wait weeks for replacement documents from another state. While organizations like VoteRiders can help voters navigate the process, Spence said the best time to make sure everything is in order is well before Election Day. "As soon as you're starting to think about, 'Oh, there's an election coming up,' start thinking about the ID. It's never too soon." Not everyone who contacts VoteRiders is planning to vote, and that is okay. People can still use the nonprofit’s expertise. Many people first seek help because they need government-issued identification to obtain housing or access other services. "I work with people who've told me, 'I don't plan to vote. I don't care, but I need this ID to get into this housing program,'” Spence said. “We will help you today.” Often, helping one person leads others to seek assistance as well. One woman Spence met at a Milwaukee shelter called about a month after receiving help obtaining an ID. She said her son needed an ID as well and wondered whether VoteRiders could help him. "Absolutely, sure, let's get connected,” Spence said. A few months later she called again, saying her brother-in-law and his son needed help as well. "You can see the ripple effect of, you know, helping one person actually led them to remember the help we provided, to talk to other people, to ask them if they had the ID that they needed. And that was just such a perfect story to hear,” Spence said. Preparing before election day Spence encourages Wisconsin voters to check their registration before every election, particularly if they recently moved or have not voted in some time. He recommended using MyVote.wi.gov to verify registration, request an absentee ballot, view upcoming ballot information, and find the polling place. He encourages readers to check whether friends and family have the identification they need and to let them know that VoteRiders provides free help. Notwithstanding Wisconsin's voter ID law, many of the barriers voters face can be overcome with enough time and assistance, Spence said. For anyone who believes obtaining an acceptable voter ID is out of reach, Spence offered a simple message: "We're here to support you. We believe in you. We want to make sure that your voice is heard. This democracy only works if everybody is participating." BEFORE YOU VOTE: A WISCONSIN VOTER ID CHECKLIST Taking a few minutes now can help you avoid problems at the polls.
"We're here to support you. We believe in you. We want to make sure that your voice is heard. This democracy only works if everybody is participating."
0 Comments
By Erik Reinthaler, WJI Intern
A Dane County judge heard arguments in early June in a case that could expand absentee voting options for thousands of Wisconsin voters with print disabilities. At the heart of the dispute is whether voters who cannot independently read or mark a paper ballot must reveal their choices to another person to vote absentee. Disability Rights Wisconsin, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, and four Wisconsin voters brought the case against the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The case, assigned to Dane County Circuit Judge Everett D. Mitchell, could reshape how Wisconsin administers absentee voting for voters with print disabilities. At the hearing, the plaintiffs argued that Wisconsin's current absentee voting system denies them the same independence enjoyed by other absentee voters. Most absentee voters may cast a ballot from home privately and independently. But voters with print disabilities often must rely on another person to read, mark, or return a paper ballot. "We're here today because plaintiffs and the print-disabled voters of Wisconsin cannot vote on the same terms as all other Wisconsinites," Scott Thompson of Law Forward told the court. "That is discrimination." Thompson discussed plaintiffs Stacy Ellingen, who has cerebral palsy and cannot mark a ballot on her own; Tyler Engel, whose spinal muscular atrophy prevents him from independently completing a paper ballot because of weakness in his hands; and Michael Christopher and Donald Natzke, both legally blind, who rely on others to assist them with absentee voting. "The point really is not whether they can or cannot vote at all," Thompson said. "It's about whether they're having the same opportunities and benefits of the service provided." Other Wisconsin voters take for granted that they can cast a ballot without disclosing their choices to another person. He described the ability to vote from home without disclosing ballot choices to another person as being "at the heart of American democracy." He also pointed to Wisconsin's constitutional guarantee of a secret ballot. Thompson argued that the ADA requires public entities to provide people with disabilities meaningful access to the benefits of a public program. He said that means voters with print disabilities should access Wisconsin's at-home absentee voting system on the same terms as voters without disabilities. WEC rejected that characterization, saying that plaintiffs’ case comes down to preference rather than access. Assistant Attorney General Rachel Bachhuber pointed to multiple avenues for disabled voters to cast ballots. Absentee voting with assistance, in-person absentee voting, and Election Day voting all provide meaningful access to Wisconsin's voting system, she argued. While plaintiffs seek a private and independent method of voting absentee from home, the ADA does not entitle voters to their preferred accommodation, Bachhuber argued. Bachhuber said state law already provides meaningful access to voting and that the accommodation sought by plaintiffs would require Wisconsin to build an entirely new voting system. Although Wisconsin provides electronic ballot delivery to certain military and overseas voters, electronic ballot delivery differs from electronic ballot return, she said. The latter would require creation of a new service rather than an expansion of an existing one and would raise cybersecurity concerns. Plaintiffs dismissed those concerns as speculative, arguing that election officials had identified no evidence that electronic absentee voting systems had been used to alter election outcomes. They maintained that accessible electronic voting technologies already exist and could be implemented without fundamentally altering Wisconsin's election system. Bachhuber, though, argued that internet ballot return introduces vulnerabilities that do not exist in Wisconsin's current paper-based absentee voting system and that election officials "should not have to wait for a compromised election to take concerns seriously." She said that implementing a secure system would require substantial development, testing, training, and ongoing maintenance and could cost millions of dollars. Thompson repeatedly cited estimates suggesting that approximately 110,000 Wisconsin voters may have print disabilities and could benefit from the requested accommodation. Bachhuber questioned the reliability and significance of those estimates and argued that even a limited electronic voting system would introduce cybersecurity risks and administrative burdens extending beyond the voters who would ultimately use it. The hearing concerned motions for summary judgment filed by both sides in the case. At the end of the hearing, counsel agreed to remove upcoming trial dates from the calendar while Judge Mitchell considers the pending motions. Mitchell indicated that he expects to issue a decision in August. Note: If this case sounds familiar, you may have heard about prior proceedings in the matter. Mitchell in 2024 issued a temporary injunction, ordering WEC to provide electronically delivered, accessible ballots for print-disabled voters who requested them. However, his decision was reversed by District II of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in 2025. The appellate court sent the case back to Mitchell for further proceedings.  By Alexandria Staubach
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed the conviction of Kimberly Zapata, the former deputy director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission, who unsuccessfully urged the court to overturn her convictions for voter fraud and public-office misconduct, arguing she was a whistleblower. A unanimous jury convicted Zapata in March 2024. The charges included one count of felony misconduct in public office and three misdemeanor counts of making a false statement to obtain or vote an absentee ballot. Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Kori Ashley sentenced Zapata to nine months in jail, stayed in favor of 12 months of probation and 120 hours of community service. The opinion, written by Judge Sara Geenen and joined by Chief Judge Joseph Donald and Presiding Judge Pedro Colón, outlines Zapata’s scheme. Frustrated by the ease with which individuals could obtain absentee military ballots, Zapata requested three, one each for a fictitious Holly Jones, Holly Adams, and Holly Brandtjen. She assigned each a random home address in Milwaukee, Shorewood, and Menomonee Falls. She picked municipalities where she thought the clerks would not notice fraud. Then, using “WisVote”—a secure, employee-access, statewide voter registration database—Zapata retrieved the home address of “a state legislator because the legislator was the most vocal election fraud politician that she knew.” She had the absentee ballots mailed to the legislator. Clerks in all three municipalities mailed absentee ballots to the legislator’s address. Zapata presented a two-fold argument to the Court of Appeals. First, she contended that her conduct was not “for the purpose of obtaining” an absentee ballot because she intended that the absentee ballots be acquired by someone else. Second, she argued there was insufficient evidence to convict her of misconduct in public office because she was acting as a concerned private citizen demonstrating a loophole. Regarding whether Zapata generated the false ballots “for the purpose of obtaining” absentee ballots, Zapata argued that “obtaining” an absentee ballot meant physical possession. But the court agreed with the state that “obtaining” included constructive possession. “(B)y requesting the ballots, Zapata set off a series of actions she knew the ballots would be subjected to," Geenen wrote. While Zapata argued for a more rigid definition of “obtaining,” which is not defined by the statute, she “knew that by requesting the ballots, the ballots would be generated under the fake names that she provided” and “that the ballots, once generated per her request, would be sent to the address that she provided,” Geenen said. “Zapata controlled both the names under which the ballots would be generated and the destination to which those ballots would be sent.” Whether Zapata acted in her official capacity required “a material connection between the public official’s duties and powers and the forbidden act,” Geenen wrote. The court found such a connection. Zapata used her work laptop to request the ballots, her employee credentials to access the WisVote administrative website, and her administrative knowledge to target specific municipalities for sending ballots. All weighed against Zapata’s argument that she acted as a private citizen. “In our view, the State established a material connection between Zapata’s election fraud and the powers and duties inherent to her public office,” wrote Geenen. The court’s decision comes several weeks after another individual, Harry Wait, was convicted of fraud and identify theft after requesting ballots on behalf of Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Racine Mayor Cory Mason in the same election cycle. Wait also purportedly sought to illuminate vulnerabilities in the voting system.  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 WJI and a coalition of groups are working to get the word out: If you have a felony conviction and you’re “off paper,” you can vote. Wisconsin restores voting eligibility when someone is “off paper,” meaning after full completion of all portions of a sentence, including incarceration, supervision, and payment of all fines, fees, and restitution. In Milwaukee, the League of Women Voters, Souls to the Polls, and EXPO (Ex-incarcerated Persons Organizing) lead efforts to educate and register eligible voters with felony records. Disenfranchisement upon felony conviction is nothing new. Its history extends back to the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment and Southern Reconstruction. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses (laws allowing old activities to persist despite new laws) have largely been disavowed among the 50 states, but felony disenfranchisement remains. Christal Arroyo Roman of Milwaukee lost her right to vote because of conviction and incarceration, but has been off paper since 2020. Arroyo Roman, who serves on the WJI board, is now a paralegal, Marquette University student, and criminal justice organizer. In an interview with WJI, Arroyo Roman said that voting in 2020’s election “felt liberating.” For so long she felt her voice was suppressed. Prior to incarceration, she thought that politicians did not care about her community, so she did not vote. When she went to prison and felt the “laws and legislation that were being enacted against [her],” she became aware of the importance of voting. “Even if I feel like my community isn’t being heard, it feels good to have a voice,” she said. Arroyo Roman highlighted that the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) wants formerly incarcerated people to participate in pro-social behaviors like paying taxes. “If the government wants us to participate, we should be able to vote,” she said. Maine, Vermont, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico do not participate in felony disenfranchisement. But some form of felony disenfranchisement persists in 48 states, according to the federal government website vote.gov. Twenty-four states permit a person to vote immediately after release from prison, and 13 states may preclude one from voting even after full completion of a sentence. Wisconsin and 11 other states fall in the middle, restoring eligibility to vote after full completion of the terms of a sentence and being “restored to civil rights.” According to the Wisconsin Legislative Council, the Wisconsin Legislature constitutionally “may enact laws excluding a person who has been convicted of a felony from voting until he or she is restored to civil rights,” and the law “precludes permanent felony disenfranchisement but does not define or describe what constitutes restoration of civil rights.” By statute, a convicted individual must sign a DOC form acknowledging that they may not vote. DOC is required by law to transmit to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, on a continuous basis, a list of each living person who has been convicted of a felony and is ineligible to vote, plus the date on which DOC anticipates the person’s voting rights will be restored. The commission then forwards that list of ineligible people to municipal clerks. Clerks are responsible for notifying each person on the list in their municipalities that their voter registration is inactive until the person is eligible to vote again. Restoration under Wisconsin law occurs automatically upon completion of the terms of any sentence imposed, the Legislative Council says. No separate hearing or procedure occurs; no signed document from any entity is required or provided to prove restoration of the vote. Once a person is off paper, the person must re-register to cast a ballot. The DOC is required to inform an individual when their sentence is complete, civil rights have been restored, and they can vote, says the Legislative Council. An election clerk may nevertheless believe that someone with a felony record is ineligible to vote. In that case, the clerk must allow the person to cast a ballot. The ballot will then be marked for closer inspection, which could lead to a challenge. After an election, each election clerk generates and forwards a list of all persons who voted in their county to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The commission then checks that list against the information provided by DOC. The commission may refer any instance of voting by a disenfranchised person to the district attorney for prosecution in the county where the ballot was cast. Despite the lackluster framework around restoration of voting rights, providing false information on a voter registration form is a class I felony, as is voting in an election when one is not qualified. In recent years, organizations including EXPO, Wisdom, ACLU of Wisconsin, Project Return, Wisconsin Voices, Justified Anger (Madison), and Just Leadership USA, developed a package of legislation that sought to “Unlock the Vote.” The bill package addressed issues from prison gerrymandering (counting those in prison as residents of the prison location rather than as residents of their communities before incarceration) to restoring the right to vote to people who are out of prison yet still on supervision. The bills were introduced in 2022 by Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) and Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee), who earlier this year left the Legislature after appointment as a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge. The bills were referred to legislative committees but did not reach committee votes. The bills were not reintroduced in the next legislative session.   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 Alexandria Staubach
In honor of National Voter Registration Day and Constitution Day, WJI is highlighting two new complaints filed by Law Forward. WJI believes that fair and equitable access to the ballot box is a fundamental right of every citizen of Wisconsin. If you still need to register to vote we encourage you to do so here. The Law Forward impact litigation law firm has filed two complaints with the Wisconsin Election Commission (WEC) alleging that the Town of Thornapple and its town clerk violated state and federal law when conducting the April and August elections. The complaints seek orders forcompliance with the law for future elections. Both complaints request expedited review in time for November’s election. State and federal law require access to voting systems that permit those with disabilities to cast their ballots independently and securely. The new complaints to the Wisconsin Election Commission say Thornapple, in Rusk County, is breaking these laws after abandoning electronic voting. According to the complaints, the April election was conducted in Thornapple by paper ballot and then hand counted, with no alternative or accommodation for the visually impaired or those who otherwise cannot privately and independently vote on paper. After the April election, a July 8, 2024 letter from the U.S Department of Justice warned that Rusk County needed “at least one direct recording electronic voting system or other voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities available at each polling place.” Nevertheless, Thornapple's August election took place on paper as well. Wisconsin law provides for compliance reviews for any elector of a jurisdiction or district served by an election official who seeks to contest perceived abuses of election administration. One complaint requests a compliance review on behalf of Erin Webster, a Thornapple voter, who ran for Rusk County Board of Supervisors in the spring election and was provided a paper ballot on which her name did not appear, according to the complaint. Webster cast her ballot electronically in every prior election since 2009, and the town had otherwise used electronic voting machines. Under Wisconsin law, municipalities may elect to administer elections by paper ballot if they have populations below 7,500. Webster’s complaint alleges that the same law that permits paper ballots for municipalities under 7,500 people also prohibits reversion back to hand counting of paper ballots without the WEC’s permission, which Thornapple did not receive. The second compliance review complaint was brought on behalf of Disability Rights Wisconsin. The complaint alleges that federal and state law require a municipality to make voting accessible to voters with disabilities. Further, the complaint alleges, federal law requires any voting system to have a means to notify voters if they have selected more than one candidate for a single office, plus the opportunity to redress the error. “By ceasing to use electronic voting equipment and instead exclusively using paper ballots completed and tabulated by hand, Respondents are no longer using voting systems that are accessible for individuals with disabilities in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation (including privacy and independence) as for others,” the Disability Rights Wisconsin complaint asserts. It mentions visually impaired voters and those who may struggle to fill out a ballot by hand being disenfranchised by the paper system. The Ladysmith News, a local paper in Ladysmith, Wisconsin, this summer covered the Rusk County Board’s decision to count ballots by hand. The article described a July presentation given by Mark Cook of Hand Count Road Show, supposedly a one man “subject matter expert on election vulnerabilities who had traveled the county in his camper trailer, educating folks about election systems and how they can go wrong.” According to the reporter, “a number of local governmental officials were in the audience and saw how Cook showed exactly how voting machines can be easily manipulated.” The Webster complaint is available here. The Disability Rights Complaint is available here. Note: We are crunching Supreme Court of Wisconsin decisions down to size. The rule for this is that no justice gets more than 10 paragraphs as written in the actual decision. The “upshot” and “background” sections do not count as part of the 10 paragraphs because of their summary and necessary nature. We’ve also removed headings, citations, and footnotes from the opinion for ease of reading but have linked to important cases cited or information about them. Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which are also italicized. In this case, emphasis included in the dissent has been underlined.  Walsh Bradley The case: Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Commission Majority: Ann Walsh Bradley (23 pages), joined by Justices Rebecca Frank Dallet, Jill J. Karofsky, and Janet C. Protasiewicz Dissent: Rebecca Grassl Bradley (24 pages), joined by Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Brain Hagedorn The upshot The pertinent Wisconsin statute (§ 6.87(4)(b)1.) allows the use of ballot drop boxes. . . . (W)e determine that the court's contrary conclusion in Teigen (v. Wisconsin Elections Commission) was unsound in principle, and as a consequence, we overrule it. Our decision today does not force or require that any municipal clerks use drop boxes. It merely acknowledges what the statute has always meant: that clerks may lawfully utilize secure drop boxes in an exercise of their statutorily-conferred discretion. Background In 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in the Teigen case that statute § 6.87 precludes the use of drop boxes for the return of absentee ballots to municipal clerks. The petitioners (in the present case) challenged several election procedures. Part of their claim was a contention that "the Wisconsin Supreme Court should revisit its decision in Teigen and confirm that the statute allows the use of drop boxes consistent with the statutory text and constitutional principles." WEC and the legislature moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the petitioners did not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The circuit court denied the motion in part and granted it in part. As relevant here, it agreed with WEC and the legislature and granted dismissal with respect to the drop-box claim. Specifically, the circuit court determined that it "doesn't have the authority to revisit the soundness of the statutory interpretation in Teigen." It continued: "Even if I agree that Teigen was incorrectly decided, I must follow the Teigen precedent and I leave any revisiting of that decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court." The petitioners appealed and asked the supreme court to take the case, skipping the court of appeals. The supreme court granted the petition to bypass the court of appeals on the single issue of whether to overrule Teigen. The pertinent statute, entitled "Absent voting procedure," sets forth requirements for the return of absentee ballots and the envelopes containing those ballots. The statutory language at the center of this case . . . is not extensive: "The envelope shall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots." There is no assertion here that using a drop box is "mailing" a ballot, so we focus on the requirement that the ballot be "delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots." In Teigen, the majority interpreted this provision to ban drop boxes, concluding that "[a]n absentee ballot must be returned by mail or the voter must personally deliver it to the municipal clerk at the clerk's office or a designated alternate site." Specifically, the Teigen majority highlighted the phrase "to the municipal clerk," determining that "[a]n inanimate object, such as a ballot drop box, cannot be the municipal clerk. At a minimum, accordingly, dropping a ballot into an unattended drop box is not delivery 'to the municipal clerk[.]'" The guts We begin our independent analysis of the language of the statute by observing that the statute requires that a completed absentee ballot be "mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots." In the petitioners' view, delivering a ballot to a drop box is a means of delivering it in person "to the municipal clerk." Taking a contrary position, the Teigen court drew a distinction between an inanimate object like a drop box and a "municipal clerk," a person to whom delivery must be made. Yet, it also dismissed a distinction of even greater import—the distinction our statutes make between a "municipal clerk" and the "municipal clerk's office." *** . . . . Synthesizing . . .information regarding the "office" of the clerk with the statutory definition of "municipal clerk" leads to the conclusion that the two terms are distinct. Put simply, the "municipal clerk" is a person, while the "office of the municipal clerk" is a location. *** By mandating that an absentee ballot be returned not to the "municipal clerk's office," but "to the municipal clerk," the legislature disclaimed the idea that the ballot must be delivered to a specific location and instead embraced delivery of an absentee ballot to a person—the "municipal clerk." Given this, the question then becomes whether delivery to a drop box constitutes delivery "to the municipal clerk" within the meaning of the statute. We conclude that it does. A drop box is set up, maintained, secured, and emptied by the municipal clerk. This is the case even if the drop box is in a location other than the municipal clerk's office. As analyzed, the statute does not specify a location to which a ballot must be returned and requires only that the ballot be delivered to a location the municipal clerk, within his or her discretion, designates. *** Reading "to the municipal clerk" to reference a person rather than a location entrusts some discretion to municipal clerks in how best to conduct elections in their respective jurisdictions. Such discretion is consistent with the statutory scheme as a whole, under which Wisconsin's 1,850 municipal clerks serve the "primary role" in running elections via our "decentralized" system. By endorsing a one size-fits-all approach, the Teigen court arrived at a conclusion that runs counter to the statutory scheme as a whole. *** Had the legislature wanted to impose a rule of statutory construction on the absentee balloting statutes, it certainly knows how to do that. In several other areas of the law, the legislature has explicitly directed that statutes should be either liberally or strictly construed. . . . The legislature did nothing of the sort with regard to absentee balloting, and it would be error to read in such a restriction where none is present. *** "Fidelity to precedent ensures that existing law will not be abandoned lightly. When existing law is open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will, with arbitrary and unpredictable results." Accordingly, any departure from stare decisis (the principle that requires courts to stand by their prior decisions) requires "special justification." However, stare decisis is "neither a straightjacket nor an immutable rule." It is not an "inexorable command." Indeed, "[w]e do more damage to the rule of law by obstinately refusing to admit errors, thereby perpetuating injustice, than by overturning an erroneous decision." *** An underlying purpose of strong adherence to stare decisis where a statute is involved is to protect reliance interests attendant to a precedential opinion. Here, no such reliance interests counsel in favor of upholding an erroneous interpretation of the statute. Teigen has neither fostered reliance nor created a settled body of law. Accordingly, we determine that the court's conclusion in Teigen that the subject statutes prohibit ballot drop boxes was unsound in principle, and as a consequence, we overrule it. Because the complaint sets forth allegations, which if true, would entitle the plaintiff to relief, the motion to dismiss the drop-box claim was wrongly denied.   Grassl Bradley The dissent
The majority again forsakes the rule of law in an attempt to advance its political agenda. The majority began this term by tossing the legislative maps adopted by this court in Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, for the sole purpose of facilitating "the redistribution of political power in the Wisconsin legislature." The majority ends the term by loosening the legislature's regulations governing the privilege of absentee voting in the hopes of tipping the scales in future elections. Just two years ago, in Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, this court held "ballot drop boxes are illegal under Wisconsin statutes[,] [and] [a]n absentee ballot must be returned by mail or the voter must personally deliver it to the municipal clerk at the clerk's office or a designated alternate site." Three of the justices making up today's majority dissented. The same dissenters, joined by the newest member of the court, form a majority in this case to overrule Teigen, converting the Teigen dissent into the new majority opinion and holding absentee ballots may be delivered virtually anywhere a municipal clerk designates. To reach this conclusion, the majority misrepresents the court's decision in Teigen, replaces the only reasonable interpretation of the law with a highly implausible one, and tramples the doctrine of stare decisis. I dissent. *** This court has declared: "'Stare decisis is the preferred course of judicial action because it promotes evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles,” and "permits society to presume that bedrock principles are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals . . . ." The decision-making process of this court cannot "become a mere exercise of judicial will . . . ." When the court "frequent[ly]" and "careless[ly]" overrules its prior decisions, its credibility suffers. *** Our cases have customarily required a "special" or "compelling" justification before overturning a prior decision of this court. In the past, this court has identified five special justifications for overruling precedent: "(1) the law has changed in a way that undermines the prior decision's rationale; (2) there is a "need to make a decision correspond to newly ascertained facts;" (3) our precedent "has become detrimental to coherence and consistency in the law;" (4) the decision is "unsound in principle;" or (5) it is "unworkable in practice." Predictably, the former dissenters, who now find themselves in the majority, abuse the rule of law, replacing the majority opinion in Teigen with Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's dissent. They decree the decision "unsound in principle," emptying the phrase of any meaning and making it merely a mechanism to tip the scales of justice toward their preferred outcomes. *** Although the majority purports to "assum[e]" "'stare decisis concerns are paramount where a court has authoritatively interpreted a statute[,]'" the majority discards that principle as an inconvenient obstacle to its policy preferences. According to the majority, stare decisis receives heightened force only if reliance interests are present because "[a]n underlying purpose of strong adherence to stare decisis where a statute is involved is to protect reliance interests attendant to a precedential opinion." That is a gross misrepresentation of the principle the majority claims to apply. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh recently explained, stare decisis is "comparatively strict" for statutory interpretation cases "because Congress and the President can alter a statutory precedent by enacting new legislation." Like the United States Supreme Court, this court has said stare decisis should receive extra consideration in statutory interpretation cases because the legislature may correct any errors in this court's interpretation. Scholarly sources are in accord. *** Going forward, whether decisions that interpreted statutes receive extra stare decisis protection will depend solely on the will of four and the extent to which respecting or discarding the doctrine favors their preferred outcome. The majority may revive statutory stare decisis whenever the four find it convenient. Such manipulations of the doctrine will only prove what a "result-oriented expedient" today's decision is. *** . . . . Another election statute (§ 6.84) provides a statement of legislative policy for absentee voting: . . . . The legislature finds that the privilege of voting by absentee ballot must be carefully regulated to prevent the potential for fraud or abuse; to prevent overzealous solicitation of absent electors who may prefer not to participate in an election; to prevent undue influence on an absent elector to vote for or against a candidate or to cast a particular vote in a referendum; or other similar abuses. . . . Interpretations directly contradicting this statement that "voting by absentee ballot must be carefully regulated" are less favored than plausible interpretations of the statute in harmony with the statement. *** Aside from mischaracterizing Teigen in order to deem it "unsound in principle," the majority fails to put a dent in Teigen's interpretation of the statute. The pertinent statute requires an absentee ballot to be returned to the municipal clerk one of two ways: "The envelope shall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots." Teigen held the statute does not allow offsite, unattended drop boxes. . . . "(M)unicipal clerk" is defined as "the city clerk, town clerk, village clerk and the executive director of the city election commission and their authorized representatives. Where applicable, 'municipal clerk' also includes the clerk of a school district." Interpreting the clear text, Teigen recognized the pertinent statute requires an absentee voter to either send the absentee ballot by mail or "deliver[]" the ballot "to the municipal clerk"—a person, not an inanimate object—"in person." To "deliver[]" something "to" another person, "in person," requires a person-to-person exchange. That is what the statute means, and what it has always been understood to mean. Requiring person-to-person transmission of the ballot . . . obviously precludes the use of unattended drop boxes. *** Nothing relevant has changed since this court decided Teigen two years ago. There have been no intervening changes in the facts or law to warrant overruling the decision. Nor has any evidence emerged demonstrating the decision is detrimental to the coherence of the law or unworkable in practice. The policy-laden arguments against this court's decision in Teigen have not changed either; the majority in this case has simply recycled the dissent in Teigen, rebranding it the opinion of a court. It does not deserve the title. *** Whatever can be said of the majority's decision, it "is not the product of neutral, principled judging." Although the majority attempts to package its disagreements with Teigen as legal, the truth is obvious: The majority disagrees with the decision as a matter of policy and politics, not law. The members of the majority believe using drop boxes is good policy, and one they hope will aid their preferred political party. Teigen upheld the historical meaning of Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1., which bars the use of offsite, unmanned drop boxes. The majority in this case overrules Teigen not because it is legally erroneous, but because the majority finds it politically inconvenient. The majority's activism marks another triumph of political power over legal principle in this court. I dissent.  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." |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed