It's a wrap—the legislative session (mostly) comes to a close

The Wisconsin Senate chamber (left) and Assembly chamber (right). Photographs by Margo Kirchner.

By Alexandria Staubach
 
Even though 2026 recently started, the Legislature’s 2025-2026 session has for the most part come to an end.
 
While a “limited-business” floor period is scheduled for April, and special sessions may be called, most of the work on legislation has finished and won’t pick back up in earnest until January 2027.
 
A mixed bag of bills is headed to Gov. Tony Evers for signature, with culture-war issues continuing to pepper the Legislature’s business.  Among them is a suite of five bills aimed at regulating transgender individuals, whose total state population is around 1.2%.

A hard-fought win for advocates seeking postpartum Medicaid coverage occurred this session, after the popular bill struggled to get a vote for years.
 
The Legislature passed three constitutional amendment referendums that will appear on November ballots. They appear in this post, but WJI will also provide more in-depth discussion on them in the fall.
 
Competing visions for the continued funding of WisconsinEye, the state’s version of C-SPAN, ended in a stalemate between the Assembly and the Senate.

WisconsinEye is a nonprofit entity separate from government. It has been experiencing financial difficulties and was offline at the end of 2025 and earlier this year after running out of operating funds.

Earlier this month, the Assembly unanimously passed a bill to fund WisconsinEye by creating a $10 million endowment. But instead of taking up the Assembly’s bill, the Senate passed an alternative bill requiring the Department of Administration to seek bids for a new public affairs network in Wisconsin.
 
The failure to pass either bill in both chambers means the network and its valuable archive could go dark again in March. 
 
Three other bills WJI has been tracking remain in limbo. One would expand court capacity, one could provide continuity of care for incarcerated persons approaching release, and a final one would provide an age cap on members of the high court.
 
All hurriedly passed in the Assembly on the last days of the general session but failed to get a vote in the Senate before the floor period ended.
  
In this first of two posts on the legislative wrap-up, we’ve included the constitutional referendums and bills impacting the courts. Part two will include other bills we’ve monitored, from new and modified criminal statutes to new requirements for circulation of candidate nomination papers.
 
All summaries below are quotes from the analysis provided by the Legislative Reference Bureau unless italicized. Italics are WJI’s additions. The titles are WJI’s summaries of the often lengthy and sometimes misleading titles provided by the bills' authors.
 
The constitutional amendment referendums go from the Legislature to the people, rather than the governor, for approval.

Except for the constitutional amendments, the following are headed to the governor’s desk for signature or veto.

For a refresher on the lifecycle of a bill, you can find that here. The general progression of a successful bill is: introduction → referral to committee → passage by committee → vote by full chamber → transfer to the other chamber to repeat the prior three steps → to the governor for signature.
 
Constitutional referendums for the November ballot
 
SJR 116: Concerning the governor’s partial veto power
This constitutional amendment provides that the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto power over an appropriation bill, may not create or increase or authorize the creation or increase of any tax or fee.
 
Currently, in exercising the partial veto power, the governor is limited only in that he or she 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 two or more sentences of the enrolled bill. In Bartlett v. Evers, 2020 WI 68, the Wisconsin Supreme Court further restricted the governor’s partial veto power, but there was no agreement by the court on the reasons for the new restrictions. The new restriction on the governor’s partial veto power contained in the amendment is in addition to the current restrictions in the constitution.
 
AJR 10: Freedom to gather in places of worship during a state of emergency
This constitutional amendment provides that the state or a political subdivision of the state may not 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.
 
AJR 102: Prohibiting governmental entity discrimination (anti-DEI law)
This proposed constitutional amendment prohibits 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.
 
Bills about the courts
 
AB 225: Venue determinations
Under current law, with certain exceptions, venue in civil actions or special proceedings must be in either the county where the claim arose, the county where the real or tangible personal property, or some part thereof, which is the subject of the claim is situated, the county where a defendant resides or does substantial business, or, if none of the foregoing apply, in any county designated by the plaintiff. This bill provides that, for the purposes of determining whether a county is a proper venue based on where a defendant resides or does substantial business, a court may not consider the participation of a party joined to the civil action or special proceeding because their joinder is needed for just and complete adjudication, as provided under current law, or a party joined to the civil action or special proceeding whose joinder is permissive, as provided under current law. Further, this bill provides that, for the purposes of determining where a business entity resides or does substantial business, a business entity shall be deemed to reside in the place of incorporation or organization and shall be deemed to do substantial business only in the county of its principal place of business.
 
AB 443: Increasing the maximum fee for court costs collectible in a municipal court action
Under current law, with certain exceptions, the municipal judge in a municipal court action must collect a fee of not less than $15 nor more than $38 on each separate matter. The fee is to be imposed whether there is a default of appearance, there is a plea of guilty or no contest, on issuance of a warrant or summons, or the action is tried as a contested matter. Current law requires that the municipal treasurer pay monthly $5 from each fee received to the secretary of administration for deposit in the general fund and retain the balance for the use of the municipality. The bill increases the maximum fee on each separate matter from $38 to $48.
 
SB 448: The use of videoconferencing technology in certain civil actions
Under current law, a circuit court generally may allow the use of videoconferencing technology during pretrial, trial or fact-finding, or post-trial proceedings, subject to certain technical standards and criteria. However, current law provides that a defendant in a criminal case (defendant) or a respondent in certain civil actions that could result in loss of liberty or fundamental rights with respect to the respondent’s children (respondent) is entitled to be physically present in the courtroom during his or her trial and at his or her sentencing or other dispositional hearing. Currently, if a defendant or respondent objects to the use of videoconferencing technology regarding a proceeding that the defendant or respondent has a right to attend in person, the court must sustain the objection. If a defendant or respondent objects to the use of videoconferencing technology regarding any other proceeding, current law allows the court to exercise its discretion in determining the objection.
 
This bill establishes a new exception to provide that, for objections by a respondent relating to the testimony of an expert witness by videoconference technology in matters relating to certain admissions, placements, or commitments, including for involuntary commitment and protective placement proceedings, even if a respondent is entitled to attend the proceeding in person, the court may exercise its discretion in determining the objection.
 
SB 459: Admissibility of expert witness testimony
This bill updates the current statutory rule of evidence relating to testimony by experts to conform with recent changes made to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702 intended to clarify the court’s gatekeeping role with respect to expert testimony. Current law parallels FRE 702 prior to its amendment, allowing the testimony of an expert witness if the witness’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact at issue in the case, but limiting the testimony of an expert witness to testimony that is based on sufficient facts or data, that is the product of reliable principles and methods, and that is based on the witness applying those principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Similar to the changes made to FRE 702, the bill confirms that the proponent of the testimony is required to demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that the witness’s testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, that it is the product of reliable principles and methods, and, finally, that the witness’s opinion reflects a reliable application of those principles and methods to the facts of the case.