Reading Time: 7 minutes

This story was produced in partnership with the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Investigative Journalism class taught in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

Click here to read highlights from the story

• Wisconsin still allows 16- and 17-year-olds to marry with parental consent even though they aren’t legally adults.
• The number of child marriages has gone down significantly over the past 30 years, but there are still a couple dozen per year.
• A Democratic bill that would ban the practice hasn’t moved out of committees controlled by Republicans, who say the current law respects parental rights.
• Whether the bill passes next session will likely depend on who controls the Legislature after the November election.

Last month deep red Oklahoma became the 17th state to ban child marriage — the practice of allowing minors, typically 16- and 17-year-olds, to marry with parental consent.

“Oklahoma has a responsibility to protect children and make sure they have the opportunity to reach adulthood before making decisions that will shape the rest of their lives,” Republican state Rep. Nicole Miller said in a press release.

Most states that have banned child marriage to date are led by Democrats. Wisconsin, where Republicans control the Legislature, is not following their lead.

In Wisconsin 16- and 17-year-olds can still be married with written parental permission submitted to a county clerk along with a standard marriage license. Between 2015 and 2024, 297 minors were married in Wisconsin, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Notably, these teenagers can be married not just to other minors, but also to adults. State law also provides an exception to its rules on statutory rape: Sexual relations between an adult and a teenager are not a crime as long as they are married.

“These are marriages between a minor woman and an older man,” said state Rep. Ann Roe, D-Janesville, a co-author of recent legislation to ban the practice. “The behavior outside of marriage would be a felony. … Using this old law that’s still on the books that allows for child marriage is incredibly disturbing and incredibly dangerous for young women.”

In the 2025-26 legislative session, Roe joined Sen. Mark Spreitzer, D-Beloit, in his yearslong campaign to end child marriage in Wisconsin. Each time, the legislation has died in committee. It has never received a public hearing, much less reached a floor vote. Republican leadership has refused to move it, saying the proposed law infringes on the rights of parents to decide what’s best for their children.

Incremental changes

The rules for child marriage in Wisconsin have changed throughout history. The 1849 Wisconsin statutes set the minimum marital age for males at 18, and 15 for females. Males under the age of 21 and girls under the age of 18 still needed parental consent. By 1959, the minimum age for females was raised to 16. The law was amended again in 1971 to allow all men 18 or older to marry without parental consent, and girls under 18 but at least 16 to marry with parental consent.

A change to the law in 1959 allowed a man under 18 to obtain permission from a judge to be married if it would prevent a child he fathered from being born out of wedlock. That allowance was quickly repealed in 1961.

The distinction between sexes was eliminated in 1975, and no changes have happened since.

In 2018, as the #MeToo movement against powerful, abusive men was gaining momentum, Delaware and New Jersey became the first states to ban child marriage. Fifteen more states have since followed suit, including Minnesota and Michigan. Bans on child marriage have been introduced multiple times since 2019 in Wisconsin.

Numbers decline, but not to zero

Statistics paint a picture of how this practice has declined over time in the state.

According to the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, 27 minors were married in Wisconsin in 2024: eight 16-year-olds and 19 17-year-olds. That figure represents a steep drop from a peak of 421 child marriages in 1995.

Between 2010 and 2022, the vast majority of minors who married did so with adult spouses. From 2017 through 2019, every single minor who married in Wisconsin did so with an adult.

And from 1995 through 2013 (the last year for which gender data is available) girls made up the overwhelming majority of minors who married. In 2013, 23 16-year-old girls married, compared to just two boys the same age. Among 17-year-olds that year, the ratio was 39 girls to eight boys.

According to advocacy group Unchained At Last, those numbers are consistent with nationwide trends. The vast majority of minors married in the country are girls. Most of those girls married an adult male with the man on average being four years older.

“One of the things we wanted to look at is that, you know, is this young love? Is this two teenagers getting married?” Spreitzer said. “The answer seems to be primarily no. Primarily this is men over the age of 18, marrying girls under the age of 18. So that really heightened the concern.”

The law also includes a surprising twist: You can get married under 18, but you can’t get divorced.

Current law gives some provisions for minors to get an annulment, but there is no explicit statutory right for a married minor to file for divorce. Spreitzer and Roe’s proposed legislation would allow any minors married before their proposal takes effect to get a divorce.

Republicans oppose ban based on parental rights

Spreitzer and Roe’s legislation would prohibit marriage under 18 in all circumstances. More than a dozen states have passed similar outright bans over the years.

The Wisconsin effort was once bipartisan. Republican Reps. Ken Skowronski, R-Franklin, and Chuck Wichgers, R-Muskego, were co-sponsors of the bill as recently as 2020. That support has since evaporated.

In February 2024, former state Rep. John Macco, R-Ledgeview, sent a 2:59 a.m. reply-all email to fellow legislators linking the child marriage ban with restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors — a conflation that bill authors and advocates rejected.

“If you’re really serious about protecting minors I’ll add an amendment to also protect them from sex altering drugs and surgery and then cosponsor with you,” Macco’s email read.

Wichgers declined to comment on his previous support.

For a bill to pass into law, identical versions must pass the Assembly and Senate. After a bill is introduced, leadership in both chambers refers their respective versions to a relevant committee where it may receive a hearing and vote. If a committee chair never schedules a bill hearing, it can wallow until the legislative session ends.

During the most recent legislative session, the Senate and Assembly child marriage bills sat in committees led by state Sen. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield, and state Rep. Patrick Snyder, R-Weston. The bills died without a committee hearing, just like in past sessions.

Kapenga said he sees no reason to act.

“I cannot recall one constituent phone call or interaction where this issue has come up. I don’t have a problem with the current law that allows a 16- and 17-year-old to marry in the state of Wisconsin as long as there is consent from the parent or guardian. Parents know what’s best for their child — not the government,” he said.

Kapenga’s staff confirmed he has not received constituent contacts opposing child marriage, but other Wisconsin legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, have been contacted, according to public records.

Kapenga invoked a broader political philosophy to explain his position. “Frankly, we’ve seen an erosion of parents’ rights over the years by those on the left who believe that it’s the job of government to parent children,” he said. “Given the very low numbers of minors impacted, I do not believe this warrants the passage of this legislation.”

Cathy Myers, a spokesperson for Zonta of Janesville, a women’s advocacy group that worked with Spreitzer on the bill, said the decline in child marriage over time doesn’t justify ignoring the issue.

“We believe this is a pretty easy issue to wrap your head around,” she said. “One child married is one too many.” 

Snyder didn’t respond to a request for comment. Senate President Mary Felzkowski, R-Tomahawk, deferred to Kapenga’s comments. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, did not respond to requests for comment.

Advocates say they hear from supportive Republicans

Spreitzer and Roe said they have heard privately from Republican colleagues who agree

with the goal of ending child marriage, but will not say so publicly.

“I think there are many people across the aisle on several different issues, this being one of them …they nod their heads, they look at me, they’re like, ‘We get it, this is an issue,'” Roe said. “And I think when hopefully they feel less obligated to fall into lockstep with their current leadership, I think that offers us an opportunity to have better conversations and figure out how we can work together.”

Spreitzer said he hopes that some of the Republicans who believe in banning child marriage “would start moving that conversation forward within their own party. That’s how we build progress.”

Myers said her organization heard from supportive Republicans during a lobby day at the Capitol this year.

“Several legislators said they didn’t know that children could be married until we met with them,” Myers said. “However, several also said that until they get the green light from their leadership, the bill would not get to the floor and would not become law.”

Child marriage has long-term consequences

Advocates say the consequences for girls are lasting. Roe described a possible trajectory: a teenage girl, newly married to an older man, denied the normal social activities of a 16-year-old and cut off from educational and career opportunities.

“The intentions of that older man are not to establish more freedoms for this young woman,” Roe said. “This is a form of potentially trafficking. This is a form of dominance. That’s just not healthy.”

Studies have linked child marriage among girls to poor mental health outcomes, diminished educational opportunity and higher rates of poverty.

Lauren Papp, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of human development and family studies who studies intimate relationships and family dynamics, said adolescence is the wrong time to make a permanent legal commitment to another person — not because teenagers are incapable, but because they are still becoming who they will be.

Papp disagreed that parental consent provides a safeguard because parents may not be privy to all of the relationship dynamics. She, Roe and Spreitzer all noted there can be an imbalance in power dynamics between a child spouse and an older partner who is legally an adult.

“That is certainly just an extra layer of dependence on others,” she said. “There’s a whole host of ways that the younger person could be disadvantaged.”

Child marriage with parental consent is still legal in Wisconsin. Republicans have blocked Democratic efforts to change that. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

All public employees in Wisconsin must retain records, per the state’s open records law. Except one group. The ones who wrote that law.

State legislators have exempted themselves from the retention portion of the law. Some want to change that.

“The public should not have to worry about legislators having secret conversations or deleting emails,” said state Rep. Clinton Anderson, D-Beloit, who is introducing a bill that would close this loophole despite the fact that the state Assembly adjourned last month for the rest of the year.

Anderson released the bill Monday because it is the start of Sunshine Week, a nonpartisan collaboration among groups in the journalism, civic, education, government and private sectors that shines a light on the importance of public records and open government.

In Wisconsin, state legislators must comply with a records request, but if they have destroyed the record, they have nothing to send.

“Obviously, it’s troubling,” said Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council. “It allows legislators to make things go away that they would rather not see the light of day.”

State Rep. Rob Brooks, R-Saukville, told the Wisconsin Examiner in 2021 that his office “frequently deletes emails during the normal course of business each day.”

And he’s not the only one.

“My office does not delete records on principle, and we should make sure every elected official is held to that same standard,” Anderson said.

In 2025, Gov. Tony Evers stepped in to close this loophole – his 2025 budget proposal included a measure to “remove the Legislature’s exemption from open records law by requiring that records and correspondence of any member of the Legislature be included in a definition of a public record to provide greater transparency for the people of Wisconsin.” The proposal also would have allocated funds and opened a full-time position with the Legislative Technology Services Bureau to carry out this new requirement. But the Republican-controlled Joint Finance Committee removed it from the final budget.

State Sen. Chris Larson, a Democrat from Milwaukee, has introduced bills to close that exemption for state legislators multiple times and is doing so again in the Senate this week in tandem with Anderson.

Before his election to the state Senate in 2010, Larson served on the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors. As a public official, he had to maintain all his records there and assumed the same when he arrived in the Legislature.

But as his email inbox filled up and ran low on space, Larson said he was told by IT staff to simply delete old messages.

“People often wonder why so many wildly popular policies go session after session without a vote or even a public hearing, while special interest slop rises to the top of the agenda,” said Justin Bielinski, Larson’s spokesman. “The Wisconsin Legislature’s exemption from record retention requirements creates a perverse incentive to do the people’s business in secret. If lawmakers aren’t going to be responsive to their constituents’ needs, the least we can do is allow people to find out who they are listening to, and whose voices they choose to ignore.”

Larson’s bills to close the loophole have been ignored by Republicans who control the Legislature, he said. The majority party generally pays little attention to bills from the minority.

But the fact the Wisconsin Legislature is even subject to the open records law, albeit with a caveat, makes it one of the more transparent states. Nearly a quarter of all states — 12 in total — do not even allow records from the Legislature to be accessed by the public, according to a study from The Journal of Civic Information. Congress has also excluded itself from open records requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

The exemption for legislators here “completely undermines Wisconsin’s public records law and the ability for citizens to trust their Legislature,” said David Cuillier, director of the University of Florida’s Brechner Freedom of Information Project. “It’s really quite bizarre and an outlier in the United States. The right thing to do is remove it and restore accountability and credibility to the institution.”

The Badger Project is an independent, reader-supported newsroom in Wisconsin.

This article first appeared on The Badger Project and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

A loophole lets Wisconsin lawmakers delete public records is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that highlights how judges can apply different interpretations of the law and constitution to suit their ideological viewpoints.

The case resulted from disagreements between the Republican-led Legislature and Attorney General Josh Kaul following the 2018 lame-duck session that limited the powers of the incoming Democratic administration. 

The lawsuit, which the Legislature filed in 2021 when there was a conservative majority on the state Supreme Court, focuses on who has oversight of the dollars the state receives from legal settlements. The Legislature argues the 2018 law requires the attorney general to put money from a financial settlement in the general fund, which state lawmakers control. Kaul argues that he can put settlement funds in accounts that the Department of Justice oversees and still comply with the law.

In December 2024, the 2nd District Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling reversed part of a circuit court decision that said Kaul could continue to direct settlement dollars into DOJ-controlled accounts.

The Appeals Court opinion was written by Judge Maria Lazar, a conservative who is running for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April against liberal Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor. Lazar ruled the language in the 2018 law aligns with the Legislature’s arguments that settlement dollars belong in the general fund. 

“Despite the legislation expressly designed to bring all settlement funds under legislative control and despite the simple and plain language of that legislation, the Attorney General has continued to act precisely in the manner which the Legislature sought to end,” Lazar wrote.

But in a dissent, retiring Appeals Court Judge Lisa Neubauer, the only liberal on the Waukesha-based District 2 Court of Appeals, criticized Lazar for basing her decision on what the Legislature intended, rather than a strict reading of various clauses in the law that may give the attorney general wiggle room.

The oral arguments this week follow a series of decisions in recent years on lawsuits challenging the separation of powers between the Legislature and the executive branch. In June, the court unanimously struck down a portion of the 2018-era lame-duck laws that required the attorney general to receive approval from the Legislature’s budget-writing committee to settle most civil cases. For the 4-3 divided liberal-majority court, the rulings in these cases have shown agreement among the justices over the need for clear boundaries between the core powers of the branches of government, legal experts said. 

Where this latest lawsuit differs is the debate seems focused more on the language of the law than the separation of powers, said Chad Oldfather, a professor at the Marquette University Law School. Typically the conservative approach to statutory interpretation has been to focus on the basic meaning of the law while the liberal approach has been to examine the law’s intent. That has been the opposite in this case, Oldfather said.  

“The advocates are kind of flipping a little bit the usual ideology of the statutory interpretation approach,” Oldfather said. “And all that’s going on while it’s clear that there are some people on the court who want to fundamentally shift the way the court does statutory interpretation. So there’s a real interesting mix of issues going on in this case.” 

The law in question has been wrapped up in a yearslong debate over separation of powers that has made its way to justices in recent years, said Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. In many of those cases, the Supreme Court opinions have shown the justices interested in balanced branches of government. 

“There seems to be an inclination to reinstate greater separation of powers between the branches and preserve the important roles of various actors, whether that’s the attorney general or the governor or the Legislature,” Godar said. 

For example, in a 6-1 decision in 2024, with Justice Annette Ziegler dissenting, the court ruled the Legislature’s Republican-led budget-writing committee could not block spending by the Department of Natural Resources for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund. 

“While the legislature’s motivation for overseeing the public fisc may be well-intentioned, fundamentally, the legislature may not execute the law,” Justice Rebecca Bradley, a member of the conservative bloc, wrote in the majority opinion. “The people gave the executive alone this power.”

In the 7-0 decision last June on the Legislature’s approval of the attorney general’s civil case settlements, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote that the constitution does not give lawmakers the ability to execute the law when there are financial decisions. 

“If the Legislature has a constitutional interest in the execution of the laws every time an executive action involves money, there would be virtually no area where the Legislature could not insert itself into the execution of the law,” Hagedorn wrote. 

There are still areas of disagreement among the court in these types of cases. Last July, the court reached a 4-3 decision in a lawsuit between Gov. Tony Evers and the Legislature, which determined 2018 lame-duck legislation that gave a legislative committee the ability to delay rules and policy changes from executive agencies was unconstitutional.

In that case, the court’s four liberal justices were in the majority. Hagedorn wrote an opinion both concurring and dissenting with the majority’s decision, while Bradley and Ziegler dissented.

“The majority has created a grave constitutional imbalance by strictly construing, and thus confining, the constitutional powers of the legislative branch while not doing the same when it comes to the power of the executive branch,” Ziegler wrote.

Latest Wisconsin Supreme Court case flips the script on which judges strictly interpret the law is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Seventy-two Wisconsin school districts are going to referendum in April seeking just over $1 billion from taxpayers at a time when voters indicate they are less likely to support increased funding for schools. 

A record high 60% of registered voters said reducing property taxes was more important than increasing spending on public schools, according to the recent Marquette University Law School poll conducted in February. Fifty-seven percent of voters in the same poll said they would vote against a school referendum, same as October, but a reversal from six years ago when 57% said they would support one. 

The public concern about property taxes creates an especially difficult environment this year for the school districts seeking financial approvals from voters. Sixty-two districts are pursuing operational referendums this spring, according to data from the Department of Public Instruction. Operational questions ask voters to approve whether school districts can increase taxes to pay for things such as educational programs, technology and transportation services. 

The rest of the referendums in April would allow districts to borrow money for capital construction projects. Two districts, Howard-Suamico and Sauk Prairie, are asking voters to approve both capital and operational referendums. 

Approval rates for districts have declined since 2018, according to research from the Wisconsin Policy Forum. A record number of school districts proposed referendum questions to voters in 2024, but the 70% approval rate was the lowest passage rate for referendums in a midterm or presidential election year since 2014. More than 20% of the districts going to referendum this April are returning to voters after failed referendums in 2025. 

In the meantime, debates continue at the Capitol over state funding for public schools. Gov. Tony Evers and Republican legislative leaders are expected to continue negotiating over how to use the state’s $2.4 billion surplus and what amount should be used to lower property taxes and support public schools. Just last week, a group of Wisconsin parents, four teacher unions and five school districts sued the Legislature arguing it’s failing to fund public schools. The Necedah Area School District, one of the plaintiffs in the case, is asking voters in April to approve a $5.8 million operational referendum across the next four school years. 

Meanwhile, Wisconsin school districts continue to battle with the financial impacts of declining enrollments and rising costs as district leaders say state funding they receive has not kept up with inflation. The Appleton Area School District is seeking a $60 million operating referendum spread out over the next four years, which would fund efforts to help students struggling with poverty and mental health issues and plug a $13 million operating deficit that formed over three years of high inflation rates that outpaced available funding, Superintendent Greg Hartjes said. 

“Certainly the timing is not good,” Hartjes said of Appleton’s operating referendum. “But it is because of that three years of high inflation that we can’t sustain another year. If we don’t pass a referendum, we are going to cut $13 million from our budget next year. And that’s a lot of services for kids.” 

Why a school district goes to referendum

The two main sources of revenue for Wisconsin school districts are state funding and property taxes. In 1993, Wisconsin lawmakers put limits on how much school districts can increase funding from those two revenue sources. State law allows districts to go to referendum to ask voters to exceed the revenue limits with additional property taxes. 

“It sometimes gets talked about as if it’s a fluke, or if it necessarily means that something bad is happening. That isn’t always the case,” said Sara Shaw, the deputy research director at the Wisconsin Policy Forum. “You might have an instance where a local community says, ‘Actually we’re fine with this. You tax us more. We have the means to be taxed more and we have the desire to fund education more.’” 

School district revenue limits were connected to inflation until 2009, during the Great Recession, when a Democratic-controlled Legislature and Democratic governor chose to decouple them. Since then, as Republicans took control of state government in 2011, state education spending has not kept pace with inflation or the national average, according to the Policy Forum. 

In recent years, the lack of inflationary increases to revenue limits and declining school district enrollment are among the main reasons why districts have gone to referendum, said Dan Rossmiller, the executive director of the Wisconsin Association of School Boards.

“At the same time, your fixed costs, such as transportation, heating, lighting, insurance, health insurance for your employees and the salaries of your employees and the portion you pay toward their retirement are all coming up generally,” Rossmiller said. “So that puts school districts in a bit of a vice.” 

The Wisconsin Rapids School District, which is asking voters to support a $19 million operating referendum over the next five years, is one of those examples. The district has an existing five-year operating referendum approved in 2021 that expires this school year, but was boosted by pandemic-related funds that are no longer available. Inflation, rising insurance costs and declining enrollment have put the district in a difficult position, said Wisconsin Rapids Superintendent Ronald Rasmussen. 

“The district is in a situation now where our expenses exceed our revenue,” Rasmussen said. 

But referendums are about compromise, Sen. Romaine Quinn, R-Birchwood, said at a February meeting of the Legislature’s budget-writing committee. It’s also not just schools that are feeling the impacts of inflation, Quinn said. 

“There isn’t anybody in their family budget, a local entity unit of government or state government that can afford to keep up with the inflation that we’ve had to endure over the last four to six years,” Quinn said.

What about the 400-year veto?

During the 2023-25 state budget process, Evers used the governor’s veto powers to provide an annual $325 per pupil increase to school district revenue limits for 400 years.

Republicans have repeatedly slammed the veto and advanced proposals seeking to limit the governor’s partial veto powers in the future. In February, the Legislature added to the November ballot a constitutional amendment to prevent the governor from using veto powers to increase taxes or fees. It’s unclear if the proposed language would have affected the 400-year veto because the veto didn’t directly increase taxes or fees. Instead, it gave school districts more discretion to increase property taxes.

School leaders say they’re appreciative of the revenue authority coming from the 400-year veto, but it doesn’t make up for the lack of consistent inflationary increases since 2009. Districts are also still dependent on how the Legislature acts on revenue limits or general state aid. 

“The more state aid we get means we get less property taxes,” Rasmussen said. “And this year, the revenue limit changed by $325, but the aid we got from the state that line stayed the same, so the difference was made up by local property taxes.” 

Hartjes and Rasmussen said they are approaching frustration about property taxes by trying to inform residents about the basics of school funding, being transparent with potential voters about district finances and breaking down the cost of the referendum on a typical home in their community. 

Districts across the state that are going to referendum this spring are holding similar information sessions to answer questions from potential voters and creating webpages for people seeking more information. 

It’s not an easy task, especially as the cost of living remains the top issue for Wisconsin voters this year. 

“Your price of everything else that you have to buy as a consumer is difficult,” Hartjes said. “And then to ask to have your property taxes raised? We understand the challenge for families.”

The election is April 7. Early voting starts March 24.

A 400-year veto, $1 billion in referendums and now a lawsuit: School districts demand more funding is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 8 minutes

The final days of the Wisconsin Legislature’s 2025-26 legislative session are near.

The Assembly gaveled out for what could be the chamber’s final session day Friday preceded by a dramatic 24 hours that included longtime Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, announcing his retirement and a concession from Vos to allow votes on bills to extend Medicaid funding for low-income mothers and require insurance companies to cover screenings for women at increased risk of breast cancer. The bills have stalled in the chamber for months. 

Lawmakers could still return for a special session on tax cuts as negotiations continue with Republican leaders and Gov. Tony Evers. Democratic lawmakers and Evers have called on Republicans to continue work at the Capitol in Madison instead of turning to the campaign trail ahead of elections later this year. Evers this week also said he plans to call a special session in the coming months for lawmakers to act on a constitutional amendment to ban partisan gerrymandering.  

The Senate will continue to meet in March. 

Here’s a rundown of what is still being debated, what is heading to the governor and some of the key items to get signed into law this session. 

What is still being discussed? 

Tax cuts 

The context: State leaders learned in January that Wisconsin has a projected $2.4 billion surplus. Evers at the start of the year called for bipartisan action on property tax cuts for Wisconsinites. Republicans have agreed with the idea that those funds should be returned to taxpayers. But both sides have yet to officially agree on how. 

Republican arguments: In a letter to Evers on Feb. 16, Vos and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, said they would agree to Evers’ request for $200 million to boost the special education reimbursement rate and provide an additional $500 million to schools through the school levy tax credit. In return, Republican leaders wanted to see an income tax rebate in the form of $500 for individuals and $1,000 for married couples who filed their taxes in 2024, reducing state revenues by $1.5 billion. “We are trying to be bipartisan,” Vos told reporters after Evers said the proposal doesn’t balance what he wants to see for schools. “We accepted his number and actually went higher than he requested.”

Democratic arguments: Evers told WISN-12 that he would not sign the Republican plan Vos and LeMahieu sent him. He wants to see more money for schools, specifically general equalization aid, which are dollars that schools can use without as many constraints. The 2025-27 budget Evers signed last summer kept that aid flat from the previous year, which coupled with fixed revenue limit increases under Evers’ previous 400-year veto gives school districts more latitude to raise property taxes. 

Latest action: Assembly Majority Leader Rep. Tyler August, R-Walworth, said Republicans are still intent that Evers should take the deal that was offered. “It checks a lot of boxes, if not all the boxes on the things he had previously asked for,” he said. 

Knowles-Nelson Stewardship  

The context: In 2024, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the Legislature’s top financial committee could not block the Department of Natural Resources spending for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund that was created in 1989 for land preservation. Republicans did not reauthorize funds to keep the program going in the 2025-27 budget, which puts the fund on track to expire this summer. Bills led by Rep. Tony Kurtz, R-Wonewoc, and Sen. Patrick Testin, R-Stevens Point, would extend the program until 2028, but also pause the majority of land conservation projects for two years and require the DNR to study and inventory government-owned land for nature activities.

Republican arguments: Republicans blame the court’s decision for limiting legislative authority over how the dollars are spent. During a public hearing earlier this month, Testin said he understood the bills were imperfect but action was necessary. “If we do nothing, Knowles-Nelson Stewardship is dead,” Testin said. 

Democratic arguments: Senate Democrats on Wednesday said stopping money for land conservation projects would essentially kill the program. Democrats had been participating in negotiations on the future of the fund, but the Republican proposal had only gotten “significantly worse.” “We cannot and will not support a bill this bad,” said Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein, D-Middleton. In September, Democrats introduced a proposal to reauthorize the program until 2032. 

Latest action: The Senate was scheduled to vote on the bills during a floor session on Feb. 18, but removed the bills from its calendar. The bills already passed the Assembly in January. After Senate Democrats said they would not support the current proposal, Testin told WisPolitics he would have to drum up support from Senate Republicans to determine the fate of the fund. 

Toxic forever chemicals (aka PFAS) 

The context: Republican lawmakers and Evers in January announced they were optimistic about a deal on legislation about the cleanup of toxic forever chemicals referred to as PFAS. The 2023-25 state budget included $125 million for addressing PFAS contamination, but the Legislature’s finance committee has yet to release those funds to the Department of Natural Resources. In January, Evers and Republicans said bipartisan agreements so far included the release of the prior funds, protections for property owners who are not responsible for PFAS contamination and a grant program to help local governments with remediation projects. 

Republican arguments: Republican Sen. Eric Wimberger, R-Gillett, has sought protections from the state’s spills law and financial penalties for “innocent landowners” who did not cause PFAS contaminations and seek help from the Department of Natural Resources. 

Democratic arguments: The Environmental Protection Agency has previously issued health advisories on PFAS in drinking water. Evers in January argued that the state has a responsibility to provide safe and clean drinking water across Wisconsin. 

Latest action: The Assembly passed the legislation, Assembly Bills 130 and 131, on 93-0 votes Friday evening. The Senate has yet to consider the bills, but Wimberger in a statement Thursday night said amendments in the Assembly “will help us get this vital legislation across the finish line in the Senate and signed into law by the Governor.” 

Online gambling

The context: Legal gambling in Wisconsin can only occur in-person on tribal properties, which means individuals who place online bets on mobile devices are technically violating the law. A proposal from August and Sen. Howard Marklein, R-Spring Green, would legalize online gambling if the server or device that a wager is placed on is located on tribal lands. 

Supportive arguments: The bills from August and Marklein have bipartisan support. Lawmakers argue it provides clarity on what is legal in Wisconsin and protects consumers from unregulated websites. 

Opposing arguments: The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty in a November memo argued that the bills would violate the Wisconsin Constitution and the federal Indian Gaming Act and provide a “race-based monopoly to Tribal gaming operations.” 

Latest action: The Assembly passed the bill Thursday on a voice vote, meaning lawmakers didn’t record individual votes. It now heads to the Senate.

Funding for a public affairs network

The context: WisconsinEye, the nonprofit public affairs network that has filmed legislative proceedings since 2007, went dark in mid-December due to not raising the funds to operate this year. The Legislature previously approved a $10 million endowment that could only be accessed if WisconsinEye raised matching dollars equal to its request of state lawmakers. Legislative leaders approved $50,000 to bring WisconsinEye back in February, but the Assembly and Senate had opposing views of how to provide transparent viewing of legislative processes going forward.  

Senate arguments: Senate Republicans specifically have been wary of providing funds to WisconsinEye and expressed frustrations at how the nonprofit spends its dollars. Senate Republicans proposed a bill that would seek bids for a potential public affairs network, which could go to WisconsinEye or another organization. “Maybe we are getting the best value currently with WisconsinEye, but we greatly don’t know,” LeMahieu told reporters this month.

Assembly arguments: Assembly Democrats and Republicans proposed a bill that would place the previously allocated matching dollars in a trust and direct earned interest to WisconsinEye. That could generate half a million dollars or more each year for an organization with a $900,000 annual budget. Assembly leaders said they wanted to ensure continued transparency at the Capitol.

Latest action: The Assembly earlier this month passed its bill 96-0 that would provide long-term funding support to WisconsinEye, but the Senate has yet to consider the bill. The Senate passed its bill on requesting bids for a public affairs network on Wednesday. The Assembly did not take up the Senate proposal before gaveling out for the year. 

What is heading to Evers? 

Postpartum Medicaid 

Lead authors: Sen. Jesse James, R-Thorp/Rep. Patrick Snyder, R-Weston

What it does: The bill extends postpartum Medicaid coverage in Wisconsin for new moms from current law at 60 days to a full 12 months after childbirth.

The context: Wisconsin is just one of two states that have yet to extend postpartum Medicaid for new mothers for up to one year. The proposal has been brought up in the Legislature for years, but Vos has long been the roadblock for getting the bill across the finish line, often objecting to the idea as “expanding welfare.” “Anybody who’s in poverty in Wisconsin today already gets basically free health care through BadgerCare. If you are slightly above poverty level, you get basically free health care from the federal government through Obamacare,” Vos told reporters earlier this month. “So the idea of saying that we’re going to put more people onto the funding that the state pays for, as opposed to allowing them to stay on the funding that the federal government pays for, it doesn’t make any sense to me.” 

How they voted: The Senate passed the bill on a 32-1 vote in April, with Sen. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield, voting against. The Assembly voted 95-1 Thursday to send the bill to Evers’ desk, with Rep. Shae Sortwell, R-Two Rivers, as the lone vote against. Vos voted to pass the bill.

Dense breast cancer screenings 

Lead authors: Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara, R-Fox Crossing/Rep. Cindi Duchow, R-town of Delafield

What it does: The bill requires health insurance policies to cover supplemental screenings for women who have dense breast tissue and are at an increased risk of breast cancer, eliminating out-of-pocket costs for things like MRIs and ultrasounds. The proposal has been referred to as “Gail’s Law,” after Gail Zeamer, a Wisconsin woman who regularly sought annual mammograms but was diagnosed with stage three breast cancer at age 47. 

The context: The proposal has been stuck in the Assembly for months after near-unanimous passage in the Senate last year. Some Republicans had concerns about the bill being an insurance mandate. Vos told Isthmus in January that federal regulations might not make the bill necessary in Wisconsin, but ultimately allowed a vote on the Assembly floor.

How they voted: The Senate passed the bill in October on a 32-1 vote. The Assembly passed the bill Thursday on a 96-0 vote. 

Key bills signed into law (outside the state budget)

Wisconsin Act 42 – Cellphone bans during school instructional time

Lead authors: Rep. Joel Kitchens, R-Sturgeon Bay/Cabral-Guevara

What it does: The law requires Wisconsin school boards to adopt policies that prohibit cellphone use during instructional time by July 1. By October districts must submit their policies to the Department of Public Instruction. 

How they voted: The bill passed the Assembly along party lines in February 2025 and passed the Senate on a 29-4 vote in October. 

When Evers signed the bill: October 2025.

Wisconsin Acts 11, 12 – Nuclear power summit and siting study

Lead authors: Sen. Julian Bradley, R-New Berlin/Rep. David Steffen, R-Howard

What it does: The laws created a board tasked with organizing a nuclear power summit in Madison and directed the Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities, to study new and existing locations for nuclear power and fusion generation in the state. In January, the Public Service Commission signed an agreement with UW-Madison’s Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics to complete the siting study. 

How they voted: The Senate passed and the Assembly passed the bill in June 2025 on a voice vote. 

When Evers signed the bills: July 2025

Wisconsin Act 43 – Candidacy withdrawals for elections 

Lead authors: Steffen/Sen. Van Wanggaard, R-Racine

What it does: The law gives Wisconsin candidates a path other than death to withdraw their name from election ballots. The bill was proposed in the wake of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s effort to withdraw his name from the ballot in Wisconsin after he exited the presidential race in 2024 and endorsed President Donald Trump. 

How they voted: The Assembly passed the bill in June. The Senate approved the bill on a 19-14 vote in October.

When Evers signed the bill: October 2025

Wisconsin Act 48 – Making sextortion a crime 

Lead authors: Snyder/James

What it does: The law makes sexual extortion a crime that bans threatening to injure another person’s property or reputation or threatening violence against someone to get them to participate in sexual conduct or share an intimate image of themselves. Lawmakers named the bill “Bradyn’s Law” after a 15-year-old in the D.C. Everest School District who became a victim of sextortion and died by suicide.

How they voted: The Senate passed and the Assembly passed the bill on a voice vote. 

When Evers signed the bill: December 2025

Wisconsin Act 22 – Informed consent for pelvic exams for unconscious patients

Lead authors: Sen. Andre Jacque, R-New Franken/Rep. Joy Goeben, R-Hobart

What it does: The bill requires that written consent is obtained from a patient before medical professionals at a hospital perform a pelvic exam while that person is unconscious or under general anesthesia.

How they voted: The Senate and the Assembly passed the bill on a voice vote. 

When Evers signed the bill: August 2025

Wisconsin Assembly is done legislating for the year. Here’s what lawmakers did and what’s unfinished. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.