The Legislature wraps up 2025 with new crimes, new bills, and proposals that keep ticking along

The Wisconsin Assembly on Sept. 19, 2025. The Assembly adjourned again last week and will reconvene in January 2026. Photograph by Margo Kirchner.

By Alexandria Staubach

The final floor period in 2025 for the Wisconsin Legislature just wrapped up, with legislators passing a new crime for retail theft and an increased penalty for impersonating law enforcement.
 
In addition, a bill with potential to provide voters more clarity when casting their ballots on constitutional amendments passed in the Assembly and finally had a public hearing in the Senate.  
 
All summaries below are quotes from the analysis provided by the Legislative Reference Bureau unless italicized (WJI’s additions). The titles are WJI’s summaries of the often lengthy and sometimes misleading titles provided by the bills' authors.

When the bills in the Assembly and Senate are generally the same, WJI links to just one. 
 
An asterisk * denotes a bill substantially similar to one introduced in a previous session but which either failed to pass or was vetoed by the governor.
 
For a refresher on the lifecycle of a bill, you can find that here. The rough progression of a successful bill is: introduction → referral to committee → passage by committee → vote by full chamber → transfer to the other chamber to go through the prior three steps there, too → to the governor for signature. An “enrolled” bill is one headed to the governor’s desk.
 
Bills headed to Gov. Tony Evers for signature or veto:

AB89/SB92 — Retail theft enhanced penalties 
Under current law, the penalty for the crime of property theft varies by the value of the property taken…. Similarly, the penalty for the crime of retail theft varies by the value of the merchandise or service that is taken….

This bill specifies that, if, in a six-month period, a defendant commits more than one violation of property theft or more than one violation of retail theft, the value of items taken at each violation may be aggregated and the crimes may be prosecuted as one property theft crime or one retail theft crime. The penalty for the crime would be determined by the aggregated value of the items taken.

Creates a new crime.

Status: Enrolled.
 
AB136/SB132 -- Impersonating an officer
Under current law, a person may not impersonate a peace officer, a fire fighter, an emergency services medical practitioner, or an emergency medical provider with the intent to mislead others into believing that the person is actually an officer, a fire fighter, or emergency personnel. Current law classifies the crime as a Class A misdemeanor. This bill changes the classification to a Class I felony.

Status: Enrolled.
 
SB202/AB165 -- Guaranteed income prohibition
This bill prohibits a political subdivision from expending moneys of the political subdivision for the purpose of making payments to individuals under a guaranteed income program. “Guaranteed income program” is defined under the bill to mean a program under which individuals are provided with regular periodic cash payments that are unearned and that may be used for any purpose. Programs under which an individual is required to perform work or attend training are not “guaranteed income programs” under the bill.
 
Status: Enrolled.
 
New bills:

AB667/SB679 — Prohibiting law enforcement agency from accessing personal data without a warrant in exchange for payment
Under current law, no law enforcement officer may identify or track the location of an individual’s communication device, such as a phone or another device that transmits communications, unless the law enforcement officer has a warrant or an exception applies such as for exigent circumstances or with consent of the owner. This bill prohibits a law enforcement agency from requesting, obtaining, or receiving access to any individual’s personal data in exchange for payment or a thing of value without a warrant. The bill creates the same exceptions to the prohibition for exigent circumstances or with consent of the owner. The bill defines “personal data” as information collected from or generated by an individual as part of a consumer transaction or as part of the use of a product or service, including billing information, demographic data, Internet search history, or use of applications.

Status: Introduced in Assembly and Senate.
  
Progressed since last update:
​
AB207/SB205 — State referendum disclosure note
Current law requires that each proposed constitutional amendment, contingent referendum, advisory referendum, or other proposal requiring a statewide referendum that is passed by the legislature include a complete statement of the ballot question to be voted on at the referendum. The ballot question may not be worded in such a manner as to require a negative vote to approve a proposition or an affirmative vote to disapprove a proposition. Also under current law, the attorney general must prepare an explanatory statement for each proposed constitutional amendment or other statewide referendum describing the effect of either a “yes” or “no” vote on each ballot question.

This bill eliminates the requirement that the attorney general prepare such an explanatory statement. Instead, the bill requires that each proposal for a constitutional amendment or other statewide referendum that passes both houses of the legislature contain a complete state referendum disclosure notice that includes all of the following:
1. The date of the referendum.
2. The entire text of the ballot question and proposed constitutional amendment or enactment, if any.
3. To the extent applicable, a plain language summary of current law.
4. An explanation in plain language of the effect of the proposed constitutional amendment or other statewide referendum.
5. An explanation in plain language of the effect of a “yes” vote and the effect of a “no” vote.

Under the bill, the content under items 3 to 5 combined may not exceed one page on paper not less than 8 1/2 inches by 11 inches and printed in at least 12-point font.

Under the bill, the complete state referendum disclosure notice agreed to by both houses of the legislature must be included in the type C notice entitled “Notice of Referendum” that each county clerk must provide prior to any referendum. Current law requires that the text of the type C notice be posted at polling places on election day in such a manner as to be readily observed by voters entering the polling place or waiting in line to vote. As such, the complete state referendum disclosure notice must be so posted at the polls on election day. Additionally, for at least 30 days prior to the date of a statewide referendum, the complete state referendum disclosure notice must be published by the Elections Commission on the website used for voter registration, currently titled MyVote Wisconsin, or other voter public access website maintained by the commission and must be posted by each county clerk at the county clerk’s office and published by the county clerk on the county clerk’s website. Finally, the notice must be included with absentee ballots provided to voters for voting in a statewide referendum.

Status: Passed in the Assembly; public hearing held in the Senate.

SB188/AB188 — Reduction of penalty surcharge when certain fines or forfeitures are reduced
Under current law, when a court imposes a fine or forfeiture for certain violations of state law or municipal or county ordinances, a penalty surcharge in the amount of 26 percent of the amount of the fine or forfeiture is also imposed. Current law provides that when a fine or forfeiture is suspended in whole or in part, the penalty surcharge must be reduced in proportion to the suspension. This bill requires the same rule to be applied for reduction of a fine or forfeiture. Under the bill, when a fine or forfeiture to which the penalty surcharge applies is reduced, the penalty surcharge must also be reduced in proportion to the reduction.

Status: Passed in the Assembly; public hearing held in the Senate.
 
SB270/AB268 — Right of appeal regarding decisions of the Wisconsin Elections Commission concerning the conduct of election officials 
Current law authorizes any complainant who is aggrieved by an order of WEC on the complaint to appeal the commission’s decision in court. The law does not specifically define the term “aggrieved” for purposes of this right of appeal. However, in Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a complainant not receiving a favorable decision from the Elections Commission on a complaint is aggrieved, and therefore has a right to appeal that decision in court, only if the complainant has suffered an injury to a legally recognized interest as a result of the decision. This bill provides that a complainant must be considered aggrieved for purposes of that right of appeal regardless of whether the complainant has suffered an injury to a legally recognized interest and that a complainant may appeal any commission order that dismisses the complaint or otherwise does not grant the relief requested in the complaint.

Status: Passed in the Assembly; passed through committee in Senate and available for scheduling a full Senate vote.
 
SB432/AB412 — Mandatory reporting requirements and referring cases of suspected child abuse to law enforcement 
Under current law, certain individuals are required to report suspected child abuse or neglect to the county child welfare department or to the police if the individual has reasonable cause to suspect that a child seen by the individual in the course of professional duties has been abused or neglected or has been threatened with abuse or neglect (mandatory reporter). Generally, if a report is for threatened or suspected child sexual abuse or trafficking, the child welfare department must within 12 hours refer the case to the police. A child welfare department is required to adopt a written policy regarding how it refers to police reports of other forms of threatened or suspected child abuse or neglect, but it is not required by law to refer such cases to police. This bill requires a child welfare department generally to refer to police all reports of threatened or suspected abuse.

Status: Passed in the Senate; referred to committee in Assembly.
 
SB448/AB447 — 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. 

Status: Passed in the Senate; public hearing held in the Assembly.
 
SB459/AB458 — Admissibility of expert witnesses
This bill updates the current statutory rule of evidence relating to testimony by experts to conform with recent changes made to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702 intended to clarify the court’s gatekeeping role with respect to expert testimony. Current law parallels FRE 702 prior to its amendment, allowing the testimony of an expert witness if the witness’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact at issue in the case, but limiting the testimony of an expert witness to testimony that is based on sufficient facts or data, that is the product of reliable principles and methods, and that is based on the witness applying those principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Similar to the changes made to FRE 702, the bill confirms that the proponent of the testimony is required to demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that the witness’s testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, that it is the product of reliable principles and methods, and, finally, that the witness’s opinion reflects a reliable application of those principles and methods to the facts of the case.
 
Status: Passed in the Senate; public hearing held in the Assembly.