Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) told reporters ahead of the session that his caucus was seeking to address affordability with the legislation. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner).

The Wisconsin Assembly — seeking to align state policy with Trump administration initiatives — passed bills Thursday to exempt overtime pay and tips from income tax. Lawmakers also passed bills to make English the official language of the state as well as school related bills.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) told reporters ahead of the session that his caucus was seeking to address affordability with the legislation, though Democratic lawmakers argued the bills would not help address the issue in an effective way.

AB 38 would implement an income tax exemption for cash tips paid to an employee that would sunset in 2028. President Donald Trump signed a law in July to allow workers to deduct up to $25,000 in tips annually from their federal taxable income. Those earning more than $150,000 aren’t eligible for the deduction. 

The Wisconsin bill would apply the same policy when it comes to the state income tax. The deduction would apply to tips whether paid by cash or credit. 

Bill coauthor Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) said the tips tax cut is for the working and middle class. The bill passed 61-33 with a handful of Democrats joining Republicans. Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Appleton) and Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa) abstained from the vote.

“Tips are primarily earned by the working class and the lower middle class and tips should never have been taxed. A tip is a gift, it’s not income,” Tusler said. “Tips are not mandatory; they are a way to say thank you to someone.”

Tusler told reporters that his legislation wasn’t permanent because legislators want to “watch and see how it works out.” 

“I think it would be a great idea for it to become permanent someday. I hope it does,” Tusler said.  

Tusler also called on the Department of Revenue (DOR) to “get to work right away” should the bill become law to ensure it has forms ready. 

“This bill is going to pass, and it’s going to get signed by the governor, but if the Department of Revenue doesn’t get ready for that, they will not have their forms ready for the tip earners come tax time. Those tip earners will wind up paying their taxes for 2025 and then they’ll have to refile their taxes to pay it to get their tip refund back. That’s not something we should be asking working-class and middle-class taxpayers to do.”

Evers told reporters Monday that he is open to looking at Republican proposals to eliminate taxes on overtime and tips but wants to consider more “universal” forms of tax relief. He has proposed property tax relief as well as exempting certain items from the sales tax including diapers and over-the-counter medications. 

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) tried to introduce an amendment to bring tipped employees, who can make a minimum wage of $2.33, up to the minimum wage of $7.25. He said it would’ve helped raise the standard of living for workers across the state. 

“Restaurant workers, hotel cleaners, bartenders, and too many other Wisconsin workers still rely on the inconsistent generosity of their customers just to survive. This is a terrible system that primarily benefits bosses and corporations – it’s also rife for abuse, leading to frequent unethical and sometimes illegal behavior like forced pooling of tips, assigning of non-tipped work assignments to tipped employees, and outright tip theft by bosses and managers,” Clancy said in a statement. 

His amendment was rejected by Republican lawmakers.

The Assembly also passed AB 461 in a 61-35 vote. It would create an income tax subtraction for certain overtime compensation. Single filers could claim up to $12,500 per year under the subtraction, while joint filers could claim up to $25,000. Unlike the “no tax on tips” bill, this policy change would be permanent.

Bill coauthor Rep. Paul Melotik (R-Grafton) noted that overtime work can be essential to communities and also take a toll on family life. He said the bill would help support the “hard-working people of Wisconsin, who put out extra effort… whether it’s nurses working double shifts, deputies filling in on weekends, line workers staying late to meet production goals or service employees keeping the doors open.  

Bill to make English the official language.

AB 377 would make English Wisconsin’s official language and allow state agencies to use artificial intelligence translation tools instead of providing an interpreter to people during court proceedings.

The bill passed 51-43. Rep. Jessie Rodriguez (R-Oak Creek) voted with Democratic lawmakers against the bill.

Rep. Priscilla Prado (D-Milwaukee), who chairs the Wisconsin Hispanic Legislative Caucus, delivered her opposition to the bill in Spanish — telling lawmakers that after that they could “use Google to translate that.” Prado stood again later to deliver her remarks in English, saying she would help lawmakers out.

“You want to make it legal to use AI as a translator, which might be useful for ordering lunch, but certainly not sufficient for legal hearings, official forms and civil rights — not to mention that this implementation of AI would, quite literally, take jobs away from Wisconsinites who work as translators,” Prado said. “If efficiency were the goal, we would be talking about improving language access, not political symbolism. Wisconsin does not lose its identity because Spanish or another language is spoken. What it does lose is credibility when it ignores a substantial part of its population.” 

Rep. Nate Gustafson (R-Ormo) said he didn’t think the bill was stripping people of their identity, but would instead give people a “tool in the toolbox.” 

“It allows our legal system to move efficiently and forward instead of waiting on, let’s say, a limited pool of resources that aren’t there again,” Gustafson said. “We have declining birth rate. Our absolute workforce  is obviously diminished at this point, but we’re still reliant on people at the end of the day. There is a point where we need to give the people who are doing these jobs the tools to be more efficient.”

Bill coauthor Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville), speaking after Prado, said the speech represented a failure to communicate as most people in the Assembly did not understand what she said.

“One of the important things about having an official language for society is language draws people together, and I think it’s really important to give a society cohesiveness with people that speak the same language. Now, that doesn’t mean that this bill in some way makes it illegal, or you know, somehow, impeaches your ability to to speak another language, however  I think we are making a mistake here that if you speak English in the society — it’s a huge advantage to you.” 

School revenue and lunches

AB 457, coauthored by Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) and Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), would require Wisconsin school districts’ financial reports to the Department of Public Instruction on time before they are able to go to referendum. It passed 52-44 with Republicans for and Democrats against. 

The bill was introduced in response to Milwaukee Public Schools’ financial scandal where the district was months late in submitting financial documents to the state. The news was unveiled just weeks after voters had approved a historic referendum for the state’s largest school district.

Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) said that the bill was a “distraction” from other issues that school districts and property taxpayers are facing. 

Wisconsin taxpayers’ December bills included the highest increase since 2018. The increase followed  a controversial line item veto by Gov. Tony Evers , which extended a one-time increases to school revenue limits for the next 400 years. State  lawmakers did not provide additional state aid to schools, pushing many districts to use their additional taxing authority and others to go to referendum to ask local residents to raise their own taxes.

“The Department of Public Instruction is already working through any financial issues that they need to work through with the Milwaukee Public Schools,” Phelps said. “Educators and property taxpayers just are not buying the Republican spin. They can see the impact of what this building has done on the services in our public schools and their property tax bills, so it is frankly a waste of taxpayer-funded time for us to debate this silly bill that isn’t going anywhere.” 

Referencing the acronym for the school district, Nedweski called her bill the MPS bill — saying it  stood for “maximizing public scrutiny.” Nedweski said her bill is “straightforward” and would ensure that school districts are transparent before seeking to raise property taxes. 

“Public trust was shattered,” Nedweski said of the Milwaukee schools financial reporting failure. She also asked whether the outcome of the Milwaukee referendum would have been different if voters had known about the absent financial reports. 

“As property taxes continue to rise thanks to that 400-year Democrat property tax increase, it’s imperative that voters have complete information about the financial outlook of their school district before voting to further raise their own taxes,” Nedweski said. “This bill does not ask school districts to do anything new. It is not one new hoop they have to jump through… They are already supposed to be completing and submitting their financial information on time in accordance with state law.” 

AB 226 would prohibit Wisconsin public schools, independent charter schools, and private schools participating in a parental choice program serving meals that contain certain ingredients. Some of the food additives that would be prohibited include brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, azodicarbonamide and red dye No. 3, which can be found in candy, fruit juices and cookies.

The bill is another instance of GOP lawmakers seeking to align state policies with Trump administration efforts. The exclusion of the additives is meant to target “ultra processed foods,” which were one of the top concerns outlined by Health Sec. Robert F. Kennedy and a report the Trump administration commissioned. 

It passed 53-43. A handful of Democrats, including Reps. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay), Jill Billings (D-La Crosse), Brienne Brown (D-Whitewater) and Renuka Mayadev (D-Madison), voted for the bill, while a handful of Republicans voted against the bill including Reps. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls), Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) and Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego).

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Deputy State Superintendent Tom McCarthy speaks to Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) after delivering testimony on AB 678. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin school districts would be required to establish policies on appropriate communication between students and staff members before the next school year, under a bill that received a public hearing Thursday. 

The bill comes in reaction to a report from the Capital Times in November that found over 200 investigations into teacher licenses due to allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023. Another bill coauthored by Nedweski, AB 677, making grooming a felony crime in Wisconsin received a public hearing earlier this week.

“Many of these cases begin with the erosion of professional boundaries when a school employee starts communicating with the students inappropriately often outside of school hours and without parent knowledge usually through the use of text messaging and social media,”  Nedweski told the Assembly Education Committee. “While the vast majority of school staff use these tools responsibly, a small number have exploited that access — sometimes leading to devastating consequences.”

AB 678 would require Wisconsin school boards to adopt a policy on appropriate communications between students and employees or volunteers in the school district.

“This bill preserves local control. It does not mandate a one-size-fits-all policy; instead it allows each school district to determine what communication policies work best for its own community,” Nedweski said.

The policies would need to include specific consequences for staff who violate the policy and specify that it applies to communications during and outside of school hours. The policy would need to include standards for appropriate content and methods of communication.

An amendment to the bill, which Nedweski said came at the request of the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and other stakeholders, would require annual training for employees on identifying, preventing and reporting grooming and professional boundary violations. 

The Department of Public Instruction has worked with Nedweski on the legislation and supports it. 

“We think this is a good effort to get the conversation started,” Deputy State Superintendent Tom McCarthy said, noting the agency has been working on policy related to appropriate communication for over eight years. He said there are a lot of districts that are using technology for software that allows them to track communications. 

“There’s a bit of a dichotomy with this issue. We know that in order to educate kids we need to foster and build relationships with students and families, and so we do encourage appropriate communication in every school district,” McCarthy said, adding that the policy and training would be critical. “You will find some circumstances where you’re going to want communication and it might not be as neat and tidy as you’d expect it to be. There are always emergency circumstances where a teacher might need to call a student directly… so we want some policies to be flexible to address those areas.” 

Chris Kulow, director of government relations for the Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB), said the organization had some concerns about the language in the bill related to consequences. He testified for information only, noting the issue of communication between staff and students is not new to school districts. 

“Although recent news coverage and increased interest from state policymakers may make this appear to be a new issue, it is not new to schools. School boards have long recognized the need for policies addressing appropriate communication and professional boundaries between pupils and staff. Many districts have already adopted such policies,” Kulow said. “This bill may require some districts to update existing policies to reflect its specific language and to the extent it prompts boards to review and strengthen policies is beneficial.” 

Kulow said complying with the provision related to consequences as currently written would be challenging as violations can vary widely and require a wide range of responses. The organization wanted the provision removed, but said Nedweski wanted something related to be included in the bill. 

“Attempting to predetermine specific consequences for every specific scenario may be impractical and could complicate the disciplinary process,” Kulow said. “We suggested revising the language in the bill to read that ‘the school board shall include in the policy a range of consequences up to and including termination.’”

The bill currently only covers Wisconsin public schools, though Nedweski told Democratic lawmakers, who expressed concerns about the bill not including the state’s private voucher schools, that she is working on an amendment. 

“We need to protect all kids. This is such a growing problem. We’ve seen just an increase in inappropriate communication,” Nedweski said.

Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), also asked whether lawmakers would be open to including funding for school districts to support the implementation of the bill. 

Nedweski said she hasn’t had any requests for funding from schools or the DPI throughout the development of the bill.

“I think it’s a serious enough issue, a weighty enough issue, that all schools can find the resources to craft a policy and do some training to make sure they are protecting children,” Nedweski said, adding that DPI already has modules related to this type of training.

McCarthy said additional funding, including the release of $1 million set aside for the agency in the state budget, could help speed along the process. Those funds, which sit in a supplemental fund, can only be released by the Joint Finance Committee. He said without the funds the agency could potentially have to cut down on staff and other areas of its operations, which could affect how quickly work is done.

Under the bill in its current form, school boards would need to adopt a policy by July 1, 2026. 

McCarthy said DPI would like to see an amendment that would move the deadline for policy adoption to a later date, saying DPI may need a longer “runway” to ensure the agency has time to change and update policies and training if needed. He told the Wisconsin Examiner that some of the changes could be necessary if Nedweski’s grooming bill becomes law. 

Rich Judge, assistant state superintendent for the division of government and public affairs, also noted that school boards would need to have time to meet, develop and approve policies. 

Nedweski said in a written statement to the Examiner that she is taking the agency’s suggestion under consideration and is discussing potential dates. One potential date could be Sept. 1, 2026, she said. 

“If AB 678 is signed into law, the goal is for school districts to have these policies in place for the 2026–27 school year,” Nedweski said. She noted that some of the agency’s concerns are tied to her other bill. “This only underscores the importance of passing AB 677 and getting it signed into law promptly to ensure that districts across Wisconsin can take the necessary steps to better protect students in school.”

Colbey Decker, a WILL client who alleges her white son who struggles with dyslexia faced racial discrimination in the Green Bay Area School District, testified in favor of a proposed amendment to the state constitution outlawing government programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Two constitutional amendment proposals that could be on Wisconsinites’ ballots in November received public hearings on Tuesday, including one to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs from state and local governments and one to bar the governor from issuing partial vetoes that increase taxes. 

Constitutional amendment proposals in Wisconsin must pass the state Legislature in two consecutive sessions and receive majority approval from voters to become law. Each proposal is on its second consideration, meaning if they pass the Senate and Assembly, each would appear on voters’ ballots in November alongside a slate of consequential races including for governor, Congress and the state Legislature.

One of the proposed constitutional amendments, SJR 94, takes aim at DEI programs throughout state and local government in Wisconsin. Republicans have been targeting DEI programs for years and have at times found success, including when they elicited concessions from the University of Wisconsin system in 2023. 

If the proposal passed the Senate and Assembly, voters will see on their ballots the question “Shall section 27 of article I of the constitution be created to prohibit governmental entities in the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration?”

Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) told the Senate Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs Committee that the proposal would “ensure that we hire, promote, select, and admit people to our unit, public universities, schools and government agencies the same way we choose people for our Olympic team, military and sports teams — through merit, character, ability and hard work without regard to race, sex color, ethnicity or other immutable characteristics.” 

Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) asked the authors of the proposal how they define “preferential treatment” and whether they know about the types of programs the amendment would eliminate.

“I don’t know how deep it is in hiring, contracting… I would say if the criteria for making your choice deals with race or sex, then that’s not appropriate,” Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville) said.

Drake brought up the state’s Supplier Diversity Program, which was established in the 1980s and certifies minority-owned, service-disabled veteran-owned and woman-owned businesses to provide better opportunities for them to do business with the state of Wisconsin. 

“Everyone should have access to opportunity. The reality is that our state historically has not shown that. That [program] was created because we have minority-owned businesses that were seeking opportunities for state contracting and they weren’t getting them, and that was based on relationships, it was based on race… and so this was implemented as a protective measure to ensure that people weren’t being discriminated against,” Drake said. “We’re pushing this forward when we still haven’t addressed what’s happening. If we’re doing this based on merit, then I would argue that there’s plenty of different minority-owned businesses that would be more than qualified, but they don’t get them, and you have to ask why.”

“They may be qualified, but are they the most qualified?” asked Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield). “And what this does is it takes away… the sex, the gender all of those items that the U.S. Constitution lays out as this is something that you can’t discriminate against. If you discriminate against a male because he’s a male, that’s still discrimination.” 

Dan Lennington, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty’s managing vice president and deputy counsel, said the bill would help to ensure that Wisconsin is “color blind.”

Lennington leads the conservative legal organization “Equality Under the Law Program,” and spoke to the number of lawsuits they’ve engaged in on the issue.

“We sued [former President] Joe Biden 12 times. We have five lawsuits pending against President [Donald] Trump right now based on race discrimination. We have a lot of things in the pipeline against the state of Wisconsin… We’d love to sue over the Minority Supplier Program. We haven’t gotten to it yet” Lennington said. “A constitutional amendment would, especially a new attorney general, would wipe all this clean and enforce the law as it’s already written, and would really help bring this to an abrupt end. Otherwise, there’s going to be decades more of this litigation.” 

Colbey Decker, a WILL client who alleges her white son who struggles with dyslexia faced racial discrimination in the Green Bay Area School District, testified in favor of the proposed amendment. The Trump administration launched an investigation into the school district over the allegations last year. 

Decker told the committee that her son wasn’t able to receive reading services because he is white, saying that she found that the school’s “success plan” included a policy related to “prioritizing resources to First Nations, Black and Hispanic students.”

“When an educational system’s moral compass is calibrated by a child’s skin color, the system has fundamentally failed. Our family’s story has forever changed after witnessing firsthand the casual callousness of sorting my son, color-coding him and then deprioritizing him based on his race,” Decker said. “The brutal reality of DEI is that it robs all children of the dignity and respect of individuality.” 

Curtailing executive partial veto power

SJR 116 would limit the governor’s partial veto power by prohibiting any vetoes from “creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee.”

Lawmakers introduced the proposal last session in response to Gov. Tony Evers’ partial veto on the last state budget that extended school revenue increases for an additional 400 years. He did so by striking two digits and a dash from the years to extend the annual increases through 2425. The action was upheld by the state Supreme Court in April 2025. 

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said the school revenue increases that are resulting from the partial veto are “unaffordable” and “unsustainable” for Wisconsinites.

“No governor, Republican or Democrat, should be able to single-handedly raise taxes on Wisconsin families with the stroke of his pen. The governor is not a king,” Nedweski said. “This constitutional amendment reigns in that power, restores the proper balance between the branches of government and ensures taxpayers are protected from runaway tax increases in the future.”

A recent Wisconsin Policy Forum report found that Wisconsin property taxpayers’ December bills included the highest increase since 2018 and warned property taxpayers could see similar increases to their property taxes in the future.

“We did all get a kick in the pants with property taxes this year… we’re gonna get another wack in 2026 in December,” Nass said during the hearing. 

Drake said the bill appeared to be a “grab for power.” 

Kapenga, one of the proposal authors, pushed back on the comment, saying if he were governor, he would sign a bill from Drake eliminating the governor’s ability to levy such a veto. 

“I do not like the power that the governor has in this state, regardless of who it is,” Kapenga said. “The power of the people should be vested in the Legislature, not in the executive branch.”

The question voters would see is: “Shall section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the constitution be amended to prohibit the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto authority, from creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee?”

Constitutional amendments have been used to limit the partial veto power in a couple other scenarios, including in 1990 when voters approved the prohibition of the “Vanna White” veto, or eliminating single letters within words, and in 2008, when voters approved, eliminating the “Frankenstein veto” — or the ability for governors to create new sentences by combining parts of two or more sentences.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

“The strong penalties in AB 677 serve as a stern warning and deterrent to bad actors," Rep. Amanda Nedweski said. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

A bill that would establish child grooming as a felony crime in Wisconsin received a public hearing Tuesday.

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) and Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) introduced the bill late last year after a report from the Capital Times found that there were over 200 investigations into teacher licenses stemming from allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023. 

Nedweski spoke about the case of Christian Enwright, a former Kenosha teacher who pleaded guilty last year to over a dozen misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct after he had an inappropriate relationship with a 14-year-old student, during the Assembly Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee hearing. 

“Unfortunately, the Christian Enwright story is all too common. For too long, these cases have been swept under the rug and child victims were put through a lifetime trauma, often knowing that the person who preyed upon them is likely out there doing it to another child,” Nedweski said. “The strong penalties in AB 677 serve as a stern warning and deterrent to bad actors. The bill ensures that adults who exploit positions of trust to manipulate and prey upon children can no longer hide behind misdemeanor charges or technical gaps in state law.” 

Under the AB 677, grooming would be defined as “a course of conduct, pattern of behavior, or series of acts with the intention to condition, seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child for the purpose of producing distributing or possessing depictions of the child engaged in sexually explicit conduct.” 

Examples of behavior that would constitute grooming include verbal comments or conversations of a sexual nature directed at a child, inappropriate or sexualized physical contact; communication over text and social media to lure or entice a child; promising gifts, privileges, or special attention to lower a child’s inhibitions or create emotional dependence; and acts intended to isolate a child from family or peers.

While the bill was spurred in part due to cases involving teachers, the bill authors told the Assembly Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee that the bill would not just address grooming happening in the school arena. 

“It is important to remember that grooming can happen anywhere — grooming can happen anywhere, not just in our schools. This bill is not targeted at schools, but at grooming whenever and wherever it might happen,” James said. “I believe that it will have a strong deterrence effect. Clear criminalization of grooming behavior sends a strong message that predatory conduct will not be tolerated in Wisconsin.” 

A person convicted of a grooming charge, under the bill, would be guilty of a Class G felony. The charge would increase to a Class F felony if the person is in a position of trust or authority, and to a Class E felony if the child has a disability and to a Class D felony if the violation involves two or more children. A convicted person would need to register as a sex offender.

During the hearing, Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) said she thinks the bill is important, but expressed some concerns about whether it could result in a “chilling effect” that would discourage people from taking on mentorship roles or interacting with children. She said she wanted to ensure that lawmakers got the definition of grooming correct.  

“I think that this is a bill that if we get it right, we are going to protect so many kids and if we get it wrong, we are going to put a lot of people at risk,” Emerson said. 

Nedweski said legislators should remember that the bill would be related to a pattern of behavior, not a one-time occurrence, that there would need to be the intention to “entice” a child and it would be up to a prosecutor to decide whether a person’s behavior fits the crime. 

“That’s why we work so hard to get the definition as right as we can,” Nedweski said, adding that she and her colleagues  have worked with law enforcement and prosecutors to develop the bill and looked at what other states have done. “Nothing is ever going to be 100% perfect, but I think we’re pretty darn close.” 

Rich Judge, DPI assistant state superintendent for the division of government and public affairs, registered in favor of the bill on behalf of the agency, though he did not provide testimony. DPI Superintendent Jill Underly has previously said defining grooming is one of the top steps the state can take to work to address the issue.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE