Voters at the Wilmar Neighborhood Center on Madison's East side cast their ballots. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
A ballot measure in Wisconsin asking to change one word in the state constitution to prevent non-U.S. citizens from voting in any local, state or federal elections has passed. The effort was the Republican Legislature’s fifth attempt to amend the state constitution this year.
The Associated Press called the outcome at 9:42 p.m. Tuesday. With about 72% of the ballots counted by 11 p.m., “yes” was leading with 70% of the vote to 30% in opposition.
Republicans pointed to a handful of municipalities across the country that have allowed non-citizens to vote in municipal elections like school board races and said the amendment would prevent any Wisconsin communities from doing the same.
“Addressing this issue now will ensure votes are not diluted in the future,” Sen. Julian Bradley (R-Franklin) told Votebeat. “It’s best for the government to address this concern before it becomes a problem.”
Democrats and voting rights advocates said that non-citizen voting isn’t a real problem and that Republicans have shown no proof it is but continue to complain about it as part of their general anti-immigration push in this election. Plus, they said, making changes like this by trying to amend the constitution makes an end run around the normal legislative process and Gov. Tony Evers’ potential veto, while making the state vulnerable to future efforts to make it harder for legal voters to cast a ballot.
“First and foremost, we have a system that works, and I think this is a solution in search for problems,” T.R. Edwards, staff attorney at the voting rights focused Law Forward, said. “Secondarily, it shifts the burden to the voter. … But then third, I think it’s yet another vestige of our gerrymandered Legislature and an escape to actually go through the legislative process to do things that have an actual debate about what works for our state.”
Currently the state Constitution says that “every United States citizen age 18 or older” can vote. The amendment changes the word “every” to “only.”
“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?” the referendum asked voters.
Recently, Republicans have moved across the country to warn about large-scale non-citizen voting in ways that would swing elections. Yet studies of the voting system across dozens of communities involving millions of votes have found just a handful of cases of non-citizens casting ballots.
Earlier this year, Congress was unable to pass a federal budget over disagreements about a bill that would require citizens to prove their citizenship to register to vote.
Voters at the Wilmar Neighborhood Center on Madison's East side cast their ballots. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
On the ballot in Wisconsin this fall, voters will decide on a referendum asking to change one word in the state constitution to prevent non-U.S. citizens from voting in any local, state or federal elections. The effort is the Republican Legislature’s fifth attempt to amend the state constitution this year.
Republicans point to a handful of municipalities across the country that have allowed non-citizens to vote in municipal elections like school board races and say the amendment would prevent any Wisconsin communities from doing the same.
“Addressing this issue now will ensure votes are not diluted in the future,” Sen. Julian Bradley (R-Franklin) told Votebeat. “It’s best for the government to address this concern before it becomes a problem.”
Democrats and voting rights advocates say that non-citizen voting isn’t a real problem and that Republicans have shown no proof it is but continue to complain about it as part of their general anti-immigration push in this election. Plus, they say making changes like this by trying to amend the constitution makes an end run around the normal legislative process and Gov. Tony Evers’ potential veto, while making the state vulnerable to future efforts to make it harder for legal voters to cast a ballot.
“First and foremost, we have a system that works, and I think this is a solution in search for problems,” T.R. Edwards, staff attorney at the voting rights focused Law Forward, says. “Secondarily, it shifts the burden to the voter. … But then third, I think it’s yet another vestige of our gerrymandered Legislature and an escape to actually go through the legislative process to do things that have an actual debate about what works for our state.”
Currently the state Constitution says that “every United States citizen age 18 or older” can vote. If approved, the “every” would be changed to “only.”
“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?” the referendum asks.
Opponents to the referendum say it could lead to discrimination against Hispanic voters, who could be harassed and forced to prove that they belong in their communities. They also worry that changing the constitution could lead to future legislative attempts to require anyone registering to vote to prove they’re a citizen, which they say could disenfranchise legal voters who don’t have access to documents such as a birth certificate.
Edwards points to a recent Brennan Center study that found more than 21 million people across the country, 9% of voting age Americans, don’t have access to documents that would prove their citizenship.
“That number of people, including people like my grandmother when she first moved to the state, [would lose] one of our few things that I think makes us unique as a state, our ability to have same day registration, and we’ll put that in jeopardy,” Edwards says.
Recently, Republicans have moved across the country to warn about large-scale non-citizen voting in ways that would swing elections. Similar to other Republican claims about the election system, there is no proof that is happening. Studies of the voting system across dozens of communities involving millions of votes have found just a handful of cases of non-citizens casting ballots.
Earlier this year, Congress was unable to pass a federal budget over disagreements about a bill that would require citizens to prove their citizenship to register to vote.
State and local officials already have systems in place that determine if someone registering to vote is a citizen. In Wisconsin, people registering to vote must affirm they’re U.S. citizens. Lying about this when filling out the voter registration form is a felony that includes the penalty of deportation.
“We have so many checks and balances in this state, the people that are non-citizens, you think they would actually risk — like if they’re DACA recipients — do you think they would risk their status and get thrown in jail or even be deported just to go cast a ballot?” Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, says. “Like, think about how absurd that is.”
A 2017 report from the Brennan Center for Justice analyzed votes cast in 42 jurisdictions accounting for 23.5 million votes. That report found that in the 2016 presidential election, after which President Donald Trump first raised claims of massive numbers of illegal votes, 30 incidents of non-citizens voting were referred to prosecutors — accounting for 0.0001% of the 2016 votes.
The Republican attempts to amend the constitution this year have had mixed results. This spring, two proposed amendments to limit who can work on and provide funding for election administration in the state were approved. But in the August election — after Democrats and advocacy groups in the state waged a public-education campaign to oppose two more amendments — voters denied an attempt to remove powers from the governor allowing him to spend federal emergency dollars.
A proposal on November’s ballot to ban voting by noncitizens across Wisconsin would have little practical effect on who can vote under existing laws. But it would shut the door on an option that some advocates of wider voting access want to retain: letting municipalities open their local elections to noncitizens or younger voters.
Current laws already bar anyone who is not a U.S. citizen from voting in elections for federal or statewide Wisconsin offices. But supporters of the proposed constitutional amendment have pointed to municipalities in other states that let noncitizens vote in races for city council or school board, for instance. They say the amendment is key to making sure that such a thing doesn’t take hold in Wisconsin.
They also say heading off noncitizen voting at the local level would free local clerks from having to prepare separate ballots for those voters without the federal and state races, which could complicate election administration and lead to more errors.
The proposed amendment is part of a movement by Republicans nationwide to raise concerns about large-scale illegal voting by noncitizens in state and federal elections, even though experts say that’s not happening.
Similar measures are coming before voters in North Carolina, Iowa and several other states this November.
The measure is also the latest example of Republicans who control the Legislature using constitutional amendments to enact election-related policies and bypass Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat. Unlike normal bills, constitutional amendments can’t be vetoed by the governor.
“Practically speaking, it doesn’t seem like there’s going to really be an impact, other than to cut off the possibility that a locality would allow for noncitizens to vote,” said Bree Grossi Wilde, executive director of the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
Experts say there are no Wisconsin municipalities that currently extend voting rights to noncitizens or people younger than 18.
Opponents of the amendment say it could be the first step toward future legislation requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, a move that could disenfranchise some voters. Some also object to the state potentially blocking municipal experiments in extending the franchise to 17-year-olds and noncitizens who want to have a say in their community.
The current constitutional language on voting says that “every” U.S. citizen 18 or older has a right to vote. Under the proposed amendment, it would instead say that “only” a U.S. citizen 18 or older can vote in national, state and local elections — language that opponents say is less inclusive.
Bans on noncitizen voting have been proliferating around the country since 2020, when false claims of widespread noncitizen voter fraud spread across conservative circles and to the highest levels of the Republican Party. Former President Donald Trump, the GOP presidential nominee, urged House Republicans recently to force a shutdown of the federal government if Congress can’t pass legislation that would require all Americans to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections.
The broad category of noncitizens can include immigrants who are in the country illegally, people on work visas, as well as legal permanent residents, some of whom have lived in the U.S. for decades. Some are brand new to the communities they live in while others raised their children and owned businesses in them.
Noncitizen voting in federal elections is already illegal, and rare, because of robust systems at the state and local levels to check the eligibility of potential voters and the high risks for anyone who tries: Noncitizens who attempt to vote illegally — including legal permanent residents — can face felony charges, loss of residency status and deportation.
A Brennan Center for Justice analysis found that election officials overseeing 23.5 million votes across 42 jurisdictions in the 2016 general election referred about 30 incidents of potential noncitizen voting for further investigation or prosecution. A Heritage Foundation analysis of election fraud cases found two dozen prosecuted cases of noncitizens voting in the last 20 years.
But some areas do allow noncitizen voting in local elections. Washington, D.C., for example, allows it, and over 500 registered to vote in a recent district council election, The Washington Post reported. In San Francisco, some noncitizens can vote in school board elections. Some cities in Vermont and Maryland also offer noncitizens the chance to vote in local elections.
In Wisconsin, some Democrats have voiced support for letting local governments allow noncitizen voting.
Christine Neumann-Ortiz, the executive director of the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera Action, also supports extending the franchise to noncitizens in some local elections, saying, “it makes our democracy stronger, the more people are involved.”
Supporters of the amendment argue that every ballot cast by a noncitizen’s ballot serves to cancel out a citizen’s.
Such measures “dilute the rights of United States citizens by extending the scope of qualified electors to non-citizens and discouraging the naturalization process,” Jim Steineke, a Republican former lawmaker and Assembly majority leader, said in a public comment about the proposal.
“Addressing this issue now will ensure votes are not diluted in the future,” he said.
Sen. Julian Bradley, R-Franklin, who was the lead Senate author on the measure for its latest passage, said, “It’s best for the government to address this concern before it becomes a problem.”
Bradley disagreed with the premise voiced by some amendment opponents that some noncitizens should be able to vote in local elections because they’re tax-paying residents of their communities. Spending money in a place doesn’t entitle people to voting in that place if they’re not citizens, he said.
For 60 years after its founding, Wisconsin did allow noncitizens with a stated intention of becoming citizens to vote. In 1908, during one of the peaks of immigration into the U.S., voters approved an amendment rescinding voting rights for that demographic. That amendment didn’t explicitly ban municipalities from allowing noncitizen voting in local elections, as the current proposal would.
So far, neither opponents nor supporters of the amendment have engaged in major mail or ad campaigns to publicize the issue. Without the public attention, many political observers predict the measure will pass, as constitutional amendment ballot questions typically do.
“I think it’s very important that more be done,” Neumann-Ortiz said. “In the absence of more public education, voters are going to vote against their own interests.”
During its two passages through the Legislature, just one group, Wisconsin Family Action, registered in favor of it.
“Wisconsin Family Action, along with the vast majority of people, believe that voting should only be eligible for U.S. citizens,” Daniel Degner, the group’s interim president, said in a statement, referencing a 2021 poll.
Groups fear citizenship proof requirement to vote
Amid a broader debate over whether noncitizens should have any right to vote, opponents of the amendment are calling attention to how it could affect current voters.
The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and Neumann-Ortiz said the measure could be laying the groundwork for a future proposal requiring proof of citizenship at the polls. Such a measure at a national level could disenfranchise up to 10% of U.S. citizens, who don’t have readily available documents proving their citizenship, a Brennan Center analysis states.
In Wisconsin, people registering to vote are required to attest, under oath, that they are U.S. citizens and that they’ll be 18 by the time of the next election. They’re not required to show or send in proof of citizenship, but lying on the registration form is a felony. Wisconsin state agencies have additional checks designed to keep noncitizens from getting state-issued IDs to vote.
State law allows clerks challenging a voter’s registration form to ask that person to provide proof of naturalization, Wilde added, but it doesn’t require them to seek proof.
Proponents of the amendment dismissed the idea that the proposed constitutional amendment is a precursor to a stricter law on citizenship proof. And it’s not clear the amendment would be required for such a law to pass.
Nothing precludes the Legislature from enacting a citizenship proof requirement even now, before the amendment is passed, said Rick Esenberg, founder of the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.
“It is up to the (Legislature) whether and to what extent it wishes to require proof,” he said. “And it will continue to be up to them once this is passed.”
Bradley, the Senate author, said he believes that Wisconsin residents should have to prove their U.S. citizenship to vote, but that the amendment has nothing to do with that.
“We will address the next question in the next Legislature,” he said.
Federal law does not require documented proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. So any new requirement would set up a conflict like the one that has played out in Arizona for over 10 years.
Arizona passed a law that requires documented proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, but the U.S. Supreme Court blocked Arizona’s citizenship proof requirement from taking hold in federal elections. That means Arizona keeps a separate set of rolls for voters who haven’t provided such proof and who can cast ballots only in federal contests — for president and Congress.
A Votebeat analysis found that federal-only voters are disproportionately young adults living on or near college campuses — many of them likely college students from out of state who don’t have documents proving their citizenship readily available.
Would the new language weaken voter protections?
Some groups promoting voting access have raised another concern — that the new constitutional provision, if Wisconsin voters approve it, would weaken voter protections. They point to the language of the proposed amendment, which would say “only” U.S. citizens can vote, compared with what they see as more inclusive language in the current constitution stating that “every” citizen can vote.
“From there, there could be further limitations to the right to vote, and if there’s any legal challenges on those limitations, we won’t be able to go back to the constitution and say, ‘Well, the constitution guarantees that every citizen can vote.’ So it will not have the protection that it currently has,” said Eileen Newcomer, voter education manager of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin.
Dan Lenz, staff counsel at Law Forward, a group that seeks more inclusive voting policies, said there are other constitutional provisions that protect voting rights in Wisconsin. But he said the potential change to this one “makes it exclusive. And, however you look at it, that is something less than what we have now.”
Lenz said constitutional amendments are an improper vehicle for passing election policy because subsequent legislatures can’t quickly fix unintended consequences since the policy is enshrined in the constitution, not just state law.
“Instead, they have to restart the amendment process,” Lenz said, “and that takes a minimum of a number of years.”
Esenberg, from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, said he was skeptical that the amendment’s passage would authorize another voting restriction that couldn’t be enacted now.
“Given the history of the amendment (which is clearly aimed at noncitizen voting), it’s hard to imagine what limitation that is not possible today would sneak in,” he said. “This (viewpoint) seems like an effort to make the issue something other than noncitizen voting.”
It’s possible that the provision could be challenged in court in the future, with the Wisconsin Supreme Court getting the final word on whether the change from “every” to “only” is legally substantive, Wilde said.
Constitutional amendment proposals have to pass the Legislature in two successive sessions before going to voters for a final say. Republicans say the amendment process helps them protect and advance conservative policies that they fear the Wisconsin Supreme Court, currently with a liberal majority, or a future Legislature with a Democratic majority could otherwise reverse.
They’ve also used it to pass policies that Evers would almost certainly veto.
In April, voters approved two GOP-written constitutional amendments banning private grants for elections and restricting outside assistance for election officials during the conduct of elections. In August, voters rejected two GOP amendments that would have given the governor less control over federal funds.
Some voting rights advocates have criticized Republicans for backing constitutional changes to enact narrow policy changes.
“That’s not the way to do business. It’s not the way to legislate and make policy,” Newcomer said. “The constitution is a sacred document that protects our rights, and like any change that’s going to be made to the constitution, we need to take it really, really seriously.”
Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.
Welcome to primary election week — what is, perhaps unbelievably, only the appetizer for an election cycle meal that has just 85 days left.
While Vice President Kamala Harris’ ascendency as the Democratic standard bearer — and her subsequent running mate announcement — has dominated the news over the past three weeks, Wisconsin voters will weigh in Tuesday on just about everything but the presidential race.
Primaries for the state Legislature, county clerks and district attorneys, a pair of constitutional amendments and much more will be on Tuesday’s ballot. If you find yourself reading this and looking for more information about what you’ll be weighing in on Tuesday, Wisconsin Watch has you covered. Check out our 2024 primary voter guide.
In the meantime, here are three trends we’re keeping tabs on Tuesday.
Will ‘vote no’ succeed?
After a pair of constitutional amendments related to election administration sailed to approval in April with little notable opposition, Democrats and their allies, who opposed those changes, have mobilized a much more robust campaign against a pair of GOP-authored constitutional changes on Tuesday’s ballot.
The two amendments would remove the governor from spending decisions on federal funds. Under current law, the governor has authority in certain instances to accept and expend federal funds without participation of the Legislature. Under the amendments, the governor could not allocate federal funds without such approval. The Legislature would approve such allocations through joint resolutions or legislative rules that, unlike state statutes, do not require the governor’s approval.
Gov. Tony Evers, who has campaigned at several events in opposition to the amendments, said the changes would hamper the state’s emergency response capabilities, pointing to his use of federal funds provided to the state during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The goal of these amendments are plain and simple: Republicans in the Legislature want to take more power for themselves and erode the balances that exist at this time,” Evers said at an event in Madison, adding that if the changes pass, “me and any other future governor will be left without the tools they need — especially during times of crisis.”
Three groups opposing the amendments have raised more than $3.5 million, according to a tally from WisPolitics.com. One of those groups, Protect Wisconsin’s Constitution-Vote No, is running an ad that claims the amendments are a “power grab to give the MAGA politicians in the Legislature the sole power to distribute emergency funding.”
The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, which is supporting the amendments, is arguing the changes “will prevent the executive branch from unilaterally spending federal dollars towards their preferred projects and provide a necessary check on their power from the state legislature.”
We’re watching to see if Democrats’ mobilization effort will be enough to get voters to reject the amendments — which pass about 75% of the time. It’s an early test of the Democratic ground game in what will be a hotly contested state come November’s presidential election.
How many incumbents will be cast aside?
The state’s new legislative boundaries resulted in some 15 incumbent pairings (when two current lawmakers are drawn into the same district). While many lawmakers opted to retire or move into new districts to avoid facing one of their current colleagues, we have four instances where incumbents are running against incumbents on Tuesday.
In Assembly District 24, incumbent Rep. Janel Brandtjen, R-Menomonee Falls, faces a challenge from state Sen. Dan Knodl, R-Germantown. This race is a rematch of a special election in 2023, when Knodl easily beat Brandtjen in the GOP primary for his current Senate seat. Brandtjen, a fierce 2020 election denier who has been endorsed by Donald Trump, has felt the ire of Assembly Speaker Robin Vos in recent years. Assembly Republicans booted her from closed caucus meetings in November 2022.
In Assembly District 6, Reps. Peter Schmidt, R-Bonduel, and Elijah Behnke, R-Oconto, are set to square off, with the former’s hold on the seat in danger. Schmidt was censured and banned by the Republican Party of Shawano County in 2022 because of a criminal conviction, shortly after he had already won his first primary by only 63 votes. Behnke was drawn into the 4th District under new maps but decided to run in the 6th instead. He has the backing of the Shawano County GOP. This primary will test the power of a county Republican Party seeking to unseat a candidate it opposes.
In the 86th Assembly District, Reps. Donna Rozar, R-Marshfield, and John Spiros, R-Marshfield, find themselves at odds. The two have butted heads over who’s the true incumbent of the district, with a third candidate, Trine Spindler of Stratford, only making things more complicated.
Finally, in Milwaukee, will Democratic socialist Rep. Ryan Clancy be able to hold off a well-funded challenger with prominent backers? Clancy has been critical of the Biden administration’s response to the war in Gaza. Jarrod Anderson, meanwhile, says Milwaukee needs “Democratic unity,” not “headline-chasing.”
All in all, we’ll be keeping tabs on how many incumbents are effectively fired by their constituents on Tuesday — something that can be a telling signal for how voters are feeling about the status quo headed into November.
Who emerges in the 3rd Congressional District?
Finally, as we previously previewed, we’ll be watching to see which Democrat emerges in the 3rd Congressional District to take on Rep. Derrick Van Orden. The first-term congressman is the most vulnerable Republican in the Wisconsin delegation, and limited public polling shows a tight race.
The Democratic primary will likely be won by either nonprofit founder and former political fundraiser Rebecca Cooke or state Rep. Katrina Shankland, D-Stevens Point — and the contest has turned negative in recent weeks.
Cooke, who is trying to portray herself as an everywoman by leaning hard on her background as the daughter of dairy farmers, has suggested that voters in the district are more interested in electing someone they can relate to than a “career politician,” a barb at Shankland, who has served in the Legislature since 2013.
Shankland, meanwhile, is running on her time in the Legislature. In July, Shankland targeted Cooke in an ad that asks viewers: “Would you hire a barber who’s never cut hair before? So why send someone to Congress who’s never held public office?” Cooke has not held an elected position.
Late last month, Cooke posted an update on her website calling for assistance from outside groups to spread her message, WPR reported. But she denounced an outside group that recently started spending to support Shankland.
“For Katrina Shankland it’s do as I say, not as I do: She says she opposes outside spending but benefits from it,” said Alex Obolensky, Cooke’s campaign manager.
For a district Democrats would love to win back in November, there doesn’t seem to be much unity right at the moment.
See you at the polls on Tuesday.
Forward is a look at the week in Wisconsin government and politics from the Wisconsin Watch statehouse team.
Wisconsin voters will soon decide whether to give the Legislature more power to choose how federal funding is spent. Some warn the decision could have consequences for the child care industry.
Currently, state statutes allow the governor to accept and allocate federal funds that the state receives in certain circumstances, while other cases require legislative approval of some sort. The Aug. 13 primary ballot will carry two referendum questions that ask whether Wisconsin’s state Constitution should be amended to shift such power away from the governor.
The questions stem from Gov. Tony Evers having sole discretion over how to spend more than $3.7 billion of the $5.7 billion the state received in federal pandemic relief funding. The proposed amendments are the latest in a series of Republican lawmakers’ attempts to change the way future federal funds are allocated. The amendments, they say, will ensure no one person will have too much power over how federal funds are spent.
Some are raising concerns that the proposed amendments would instead concentrate too much control over federal funds in the Legislature. Brown County Democratic Party Chair Christy Welch, who is running for Wisconsin’s 88th Assembly District, called the amendments a “GOP power grab” at a press conference that urged people to vote “no” on the referendum questions.
But amendment authors note that that the same rules would be in place no matter what party controls the Legislature.
“I often hear from residents that ‘you need to work together in Madison.’ Well, that is exactly the goal of the referendum questions,” said Rep. Robert Wittke, R-Racine, who co-authored the amendments. “This is not a partisan issue, but a matter of good governance. It’s working together, not exclusively with one individual (deciding).”
Why would the amendments affect child care?
There are unanswered questions about the amendments — namely, the processes by which the Legislature would allocate the federal fundsin question— that make it difficult to pinpoint the effects the amendments would have.
What’s not in question is that the amendments would affect how the governor could use federal funding for child care, said Jason Stein, president of the Wisconsin Policy Forum, which published an analysis of the ballot questions.
Within the past few years, much of the support that Wisconsin has directed to child care has been via federal funding — specifically using pandemic relief funds.
How have federal funds been allocated to child care recently, and how would this have been different under the proposed changes?
Federal pandemic relief funds used for child care were funneled to Wisconsin via two main pathways.
The first was through existing federal block grants, which have more flexible requirements and can be used for broader purposes than most other federal grants. The Legislature’s Joint Committee on Finance must approve the allocation and spending of these funds.
The second method was through discretionary funding that the governor could direct without legislative approval, a power Evers — or any governor — would no longer have should the proposed amendments go through.
Child Care Counts, which directs stabilization payments to child care providers, is one of the most well-known child care supports born out of the pandemic. Since its inception, it has relied on both pathways, explained Britt Cudaback, communications director for Evers’ office.
The program was set to run out of money by January 2024 as federal pandemic relief waned and Republicans declined to devote state dollars to the cause. That is, until Evers used his statutory power in fall 2023 to allocate $170 million in federal pandemic-related emergency funding to extend its life through June 30, 2025.
Why are some concerned the proposed amendments would blow back on child care?
Opponents of the amendments argue that requiring the governor to gain legislative approval before allocating federal funds could slow getting help to those who need it.
This could be particularly critical in the case of crises — such as the pandemic, natural disasters and economic recessions. It could also affect the spending of federal funds in general, not just those related to emergencies.
Some opponents of the amendments say that, if Evers did not have the authority to funnel $170 million into extending Child Care Counts and the funding were to cease completely, an estimated 2,000 child care programs could have closed.
Corrine Hendrickson, a New Glarus child care provider and co-founder of the advocacy organization Wisconsin Early Childhood Action Needed, said the $170 million did not fix all of the industry’s problems and that more investment is needed, but it did keep many programs from closing. It also allowed them to maintain the pay raises they gave with previous rounds of Child Care Counts, she said.
Christina Thor, a Green Bay mom who advocates for what she sees as a family-friendly policy, questions whether the child care industry would see any meaningful help should the referendumspass.
“It’s giving more power to the Republicans who may not see (child care) as an investment in the workforce,” Thor said. “Historically speaking, and also from recent experience in leading and supporting care bills, especially child care and paid leave, they were not on board.”
Thor cited the Republican-controlledLegislature’s refusal to put Child Care Counts in the state budget and its quick adjournment of a special session called by Evers that was to be largely about child care issues.
The state’s 2023-25 biennial budget set aside $15 million to help child care providers; Cudaback said the fact that the GOP-controlled Joint Finance Committee did not release those funds per Evers’ request shows it is “not interested” in funding child care and that it cannot act quickly.
Republicans favored a different approach to addressing problems in the child care industry, arguing that grants will not solve the underlying issues within the industry. They introduced several proposals they hoped would be more sustainable, including changing regulations, opening more child care slots and creating a loan program. Few of their proposals made it to the governor’s desk, and even fewer were signed.
Republicans did, however, bring about some changes to help families pay for care. During the state budget process, the Legislature allocated millions in federal funding to expand Wisconsin Shares, the state’s child care subsidy program. Republican lawmakers also put forth a bipartisan plan to expand a state tax credit for care expenses, which Evers later signed into law.
How are amendments’ authors responding to these concerns?
A common argument against the amendments is that requiring the Legislature’s involvement could delay getting federal funds out the door. But, said Wittke, the Racine lawmaker, improvements in transportation and communication mean the Legislature can now gather more quickly than it could back in the 1930s, when the law giving the governor discretion to distribute federal money was enacted.
Involving the Legislature will better serve constituents, Wittke argued.
“The Legislature is the closest to the people, and it is their responsibility, under the Constitution, to hold the ‘power of the purse,’” Wittke said. “The taxpayers of Wisconsin should have a say in how their tax dollars are spent.”
Wittke also said that in non-crisis situations in which an influx of relief funding flows into the state, most of the federal funding Wisconsin receives for child care is via federal block grants that require legislative signoff. Wittke said this process of disbursing would remain even if the amendments are approved.
Sen. Howard Marklein, R-Spring Green, who co-authored the amendments with Wittke, did not respond to a request for comment.
This story is part of the NEW (Northeast Wisconsin) News Lab’s series covering issues important to voters in the region. The lab is a local news collaboration in northeastern Wisconsin made up of six news organizations: the Green Bay Press-Gazette, Appleton Post-Crescent, FoxValley365, The Press Times, Wisconsin Public Radio and Wisconsin Watch.
Login
