Wisconsin Republicans are pushing to eliminate diversity initiatives throughout the state with a constitutional amendment that will likely go to voters this fall and through a government efficiency effort that seeks to cut DEI training and programs. | Illustration by stellalevi/Getty Images Creative

Republican efforts to target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs throughout Wisconsin are advancing this week with a constitutional amendment likely to appear on ballots this fall following a Wednesday Senate vote. 

For the last several years, Republican lawmakers have sought to limit DEI in Wisconsin including by introducing bills that were vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers, holding hostage pay raises for the University of Wisconsin system employees during negotiations to limit DEI, and now, placing a constitutional amendment before voters. The efforts come as the Trump administration has also targeted DEI in the federal government and throughout the country.

“It’s just a larger attack that we’re seeing in this country against anything that uplifts our most marginalized communities…,” Chair of the Legislative Black Caucus Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) told the Wisconsin Examiner in an interview. “This started even before, you know, President Trump was elected. There’s just been a pushback with these programs and it’s because we’re starting to see some progress.” 

The Wisconsin State Senate will vote this week on a constitutional amendment that would prohibit local governments from “discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to” anyone based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. The proposal was first introduced and passed by the Republican-led Legislature in 2024. It is one of three constitutional amendment proposals that voters may have the final say on in November.

Drake has been seeking to increase awareness of the anti-DEI constitutional amendment over the last week.

Constitutional amendment proposals must pass two consecutive sessions of the state Legislature before they are  placed on ballots. In recent years, Republicans have, with mixed results, relied on constitutional amendment proposals to bypass Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

If AJR 102 passes on Wednesday, voters will see the following question on their ballots in November: “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?”

Authors of the amendment, including Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville), have said the proposal will restore “merit, fairness and equality to government practices from the state Capitol, all the way down to our school boards and everything in between.” It passed the Assembly last week. 

Drake counters that Republican lawmakers are misleading Wisconsinites. 

“Legislative Republicans had the opportunity to expand economic and educational opportunities for all Wisconsinites. They’re the ones that have power, and yet they chose not to,” Drake said. “They are now trying to pin the reason why people are struggling on Black and brown people, women and other minority Wisconsinites for their failures by misleading people with what this ballot measure would do.”

Drake brought together Black leaders in Milwaukee including Mayor Cavalier Johnson and Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who is running for governor, to speak against the constitutional amendment proposal. 

Johnson said at the press conference that the city complies with state and federal law. 

“As mayor of a majority-minority city, I know firsthand that when every resident has the tools and every resident has the resources at their disposal to succeed, the entire community is strong,” he said. 

Drake has spoken about the risk of losing programs including 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. She also says she thinks the proposal could have farther reaching consequences. For example, she said, she thinks the Holocaust education bill that lawmakers passed and Evers signed last session could be disallowed. That effort was approved in the same year that the state enacted legislation to require education on Hmong and Asian American history in schools.

“The reality is in the constitutional amendment resolution they’re putting forth, it applies for any type of public dollars, so… if our public schools and school boards put money towards that, in a way, you’re giving preferential treatment to teaching that specific history,” Drake said. “It’s so much more than just the programs… that Milwaukee county and the city have.”

“They’re saying that this constitutional amendment would prevent discrimination, but then it’s preventing the government from taking actions when discrimination actually happens, so essentially, you’re outlawing accountability when discrimination does occur,” Drake said. 

The Senate will vote on the proposal just days after Martin Luther King Day. Republican lawmakers have cited the civil rights leader’s teachings as justification for the amendment. 

“The principle of a colorblind equality and merit-based decision-making is again articulated by one of their greatest civil rights leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr,” Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater), the other lead author of the proposed amendment, said at a hearing in the Senate Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs Committee on Jan. 7. “Using immutable characteristics like race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin and the like to discriminate against or grant any individual or group is wrong, no matter who it targets or what the reason, it creates distrust and injust division and represents resentments that divide people instead of uniting them. Past discrimination, however wrong, cannot be corrected with more discrimination.” 

Nass said the amendment would ensure people are hired, promoted, selected and admitted to school in the “same way we choose people for our Olympic team.” 

Drake said the lawmakers who are citing MLK misunderstand his legacy. 

“The reality is that he was someone that was a pioneer in his time and he wasn’t liked because he actually challenged and named the systematic structures that cause disparities throughout this country,” Drake said. “He actively called out his fellow white faith leaders on why they were silent in the face of injustice. He never advocated for a so-called colorblind society. What he was advocating for was that people have access to opportunity.”

GOAT report identifies recommendations to eliminate DEI

The goals of the amendment — and the broader desire to eliminate DEI — were on display during an informational hearing in the Assembly Government Operations, Accountability and Transparency (GOAT) committee on a recent report compiled by Rep. Shae Sortwell.

The Republican from Two Rivers used his authority on the GOAT committee, which was created to be the state’s version of the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), in February 2025 to begin investigating DEI practices in local government. He submitted open records requests to Wisconsin’s 72 counties, the 50 largest municipalities throughout the state and all school districts.

The resulting report released on Jan. 9 was more than 80 pages long. Sortwell also listed thousands of pages of records from counties and municipalities on his website. 

During a Jan. 15 hearing on the report, Sortwell told the GOAT committee that he wanted it to be a “fact-finding” mission. The Wisconsin Counties Association helped guide counties in responding to the requests.

“This is what we found so that you can draw your own conclusions as to what you think,” Sortwell said.

Four counties Buffalo, Richland, Sawyer and Waupaca didn’t have relevant records to share. 

Pierce County did not provide any records to the committee and was identified as uncooperative, according to the report. Sortwell noted during the hearing that Pierce is small and it is possible that is the reason they didn’t reply. 

The following municipalities reported that they had no records: Ashwaubenon, Brookfield, Caledonia, Fond du Lac, Fox Crossing, Germantown, Howard, Marshfield, Menasha, Menominee Falls, Mequon, Mount Pleasant, New Berlin, Oak Creek, Oconomowoc, Pleasant Prairie, West Bend and Wisconsin Rapids. Janesville and Sheboygan failed to provide records to the committee. 

Sortwell discussed spending that some counties, including Rock, Milwaukee and Waukesha, did on DEI training and a “disproportionality” conference hosted by the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) in 2024.

He also highlighted the report’s finding that the Manitowoc mayor attended 24 DEI-related trainings between 2021 and 2023 for a cost of $4,000.

“I’m trying to understand what he didn’t get in the first 23… Is he so racist and homophobic or something that you couldn’t manage to figure out not to treat people badly because they’re different from him in the first 23?” Sortwell said. “Where’s the controls here?”

The report listed a number of recommendations for potential bills lawmakers could pass including one to remove DEI language from state grants, to “prohibit all levels of government from contracting with vendors within a discriminatory DEI lens,” to remove the term “health equity” from all state laws and administrative codes, to prohibit policies and practices relating to equity, prohibit the hiring of DEI staff and use of DEI terminology throughout government, the use of funds for DEI trainings and the requirement that employees participate in such trainings and to prohibit DPI from requiring that school districts “adhere to discriminatory and race-based policies and practices, including spending local tax dollars to fund such.”

Sortwell said he thought the constitutional amendment would take care of some of the recommendations, but that other measures could be needed.

Chair of the committee Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said at the hearing that she thought the report “presents a lot of high-level evidence, probably just scratching the surface really, for why we need this constitutional amendment.”

Sortwell said the recommendations included in the report were based on his judgment.

Democratic lawmakers on the committee, however, spoke to the value of DEI work and questioned the framing and findings of the report.

Rep. Angelina Cruz (D-Racine) told the Wisconsin Examiner that the report includes “gross mischaracterizations” of DEI and “reflects a deep misunderstanding of what DEI is,” and said she would frame the report as more of a “witch hunt” than an investigation.

Cruz said she thought the process of compiling the report was not transparent. She noted that Sortwell’s work on the report was not discussed with Democratic members of the committee before he started and that lawmakers did not have much time to review the thousands of pages before the hearing. 

“If you want to talk about waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money, it is to waste public servants’ time and our taxpayer resources on generating the data that produce these conclusions that are not grounded in good research methodology,” Cruz said. 

Rep. Mike Bare (D-Verona), the ranking member of the committee, told Nedweski during the hearing that he found her comment troubling.

“I don’t want to make a partisan game here, but I think there’s one side who sees these as not valuable and one side that does see them as valuable,” Bare said. 

The report noted that local health departments have prioritized “health equity” — noting that the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) includes in its rules that local health departments work to help create it. The report called “health equity” a “phantom DEI term.” 

Republicans and Democrats then engaged in a back and forth about the meaning of the term health equity.

“I don’t think we should be treating people differently because they check some box… that’s equality and I support that, and equity says I want a certain outcome, so I’m going to rig the system,” Sortwell said. 

“I don’t think you have to rig the system — and I don’t think a lot of the things that you’ve pointed out are about rigging the system — services for moms or children support services,” Bare said. “We’re trying to allow for an outcome to be possible… You’ve got 50,000 pages. You didn’t do any analysis to tell us why this is bad. There is a lot more that goes into [the question] should we have health equity or not beyond ideology.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

“This is not about vague feelings or misunderstandings," Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said of her bill to make child grooming a crime. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Assembly, which met for its first floor session of the year on Tuesday, passed two constitutional amendments that could be on ballots in November as well as bills to withhold pay from suspended judges and to make “grooming” to establish a sexual relationship with a child a felony crime.

For the first time in nearly two decades, the floor session occurred without livestream coverage from WisconsinEye, the nonprofit organization that produces live and archived videos of state government similar to C-Span.

Two constitutional amendments advance

The Assembly passed two constitutional amendment proposals. One would bar the closure of places of worship during a state of emergency and the other would  eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs throughout Wisconsin. 

Each proposed amendment is up for the second of two required votes in consecutive sessions of  the Legislature. If they pass the Senate, they will appear on voters’ ballots in November. A majority of voters must approve them before the state constitution can be amended.

AJR 10, which would prohibit the state from ordering the closure of places of worship during a state of emergency, passed 56-43. Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez (D-Milwaukee) joined Republicans in favor of the proposal.

The proposal was first introduced during the 2023-25 session in response to actions taken by the Evers administration during the COVID-19 pandemic. A “Safer at Home” order issued by Evers in March 2020 designated religious entities as essential but said gatherings should include fewer than 10 people in a room at a time and said people needed to adhere to social distancing requirements as much as possible. The order also advised places of worship to have drive-in services.

Only Rep. Ron Tusler, the proposal’s author, spoke about it during the floor session. 

“No more than 10 people at a time, no matter how big the church structure was. What part of never infringe the right of every person to worship almighty God, according to the dictates of their conscience, did Gov. Evers not understand?” Tusler asked, referring to the Wisconsin State Constitution. “Evers was wrong to limit our churches to 10.”

Voters would be asked “Shall Section 18 of Article I of the Constitution, which deals with religious liberty, be amended to prohibit the state or a political subdivision of the state from ordering the closure of, or forbidding gatherings in, places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including a public health emergency?”

AJR 102, which seeks to target diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in state and local governments, passed 54-45 with only Republican support. 

Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville) said the proposal will restore “merit, fairness and equality to government practices from the state Capitol, all the way down to our school boards and everything in between” including when it comes to hiring, scholarships and contracting.

Rep. Supreme Moore Omokunde (D-Milwaukee), speaking against the proposal, said it represents an opportunity for Republicans “to rev up voters for November and an opportunity to give red meat to the base.” 

Voters across the state could find the constitutional amendment proposals alongside a slate of high stakes races on their ballots in November including a race for governor, congressional races and races for the state Senate and Assembly that will determine control of the chambers in 2027. 

Rep. Margaret Arney (D-Wauwatosa) said the anti-DEI proposal creates a roadblock to helping her community.

“We need to do more to have Black and brown kids succeed in Wisconsin,” Arney said. “This change doesn’t help improve well-being in the district. It gets in the way.”

“This is the kind of fairness that the people of Wisconsin are looking for,” Murphy responded.

The proposal now needs to pass the Senate before it can go to voters. If it passes there, voters will see the following question on their ballots in November: “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?”

Withholding judge’s pay during temporary suspension

AB 380 would require that if the state Supreme Court temporarily suspends a judge from practicing in the state  pending final determination of proceedings or imposes a suspension as a disciplinary sanction in a case of misconduct then the suspension must be without pay.

The bill passed 57-42. Rep. Jenna Jacobson (D-Oregon), Rep. Steve Doyle (D-Onalaska) and Rep. Tara Johnson (D-Town of Shelby) joined Republicans in support of the bill.

The bill was introduced last year after the arrest and suspension of former Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who has since been found guilty of felony obstruction of federal immigration agents in December and submitted her resignation from her position in January.

Bill coauthor Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) told reporters before the session that the bill will ensure that “when a judge is suspended for misconduct, they are not being continued to be paid by the people of Wisconsin.”

“Not only is it an extended vacation, which is what Judge Dugan ended up enjoying while she was not doing her job, but in addition to that, we had to have other judges fill the role and get the job done so that cases could continue to be adjudicated in Milwaukee County,” he added. “If another judge decides to do this, they shouldn’t be able to collect their pay, hundreds of thousands of dollars, while that case is pending.” 

Sortwell also said an amendment to the bill will ensure that should a judge be found not guilty  they would receive backpay. 

During floor debate, Rep. Andrew Hysell (D-Sun Prairie) called it a messaging bill given that it wouldn’t have applied to Dugan. He pointed out that the statute that the bill would change was not used by the state Supreme Court when it suspended Dugan. 

“It would have saved taxpayers zero dollars,” Hysell said. “I understand that certain bills are meant to convey certain messages to the public, but even a messaging bill should have some arguable connection to the underlying problem that it supposedly fixes.” 

Sortwell said that Hysell was right it wouldn’t have affected Dugan, but reiterated that his bill is looking towards the future.

“We do believe in innocence until proven guilty,” Sortwell said. “She was found to be guilty and good riddance to her.”

Grooming a crime

The Assembly also passed AB 677, which would make grooming a felony crime in Wisconsin, in a 93-6 vote. Reps. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), Angelina Cruz (D-Racine), Francesca Hong (D-Madison), Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) and Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis) voted against the proposal.

Bill author Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said the bill will help protect children and noted that she started working on the bill about 18 months ago due to 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.

“Anyone who followed that case and saw the messages that Enright sent would know that his behavior is far more than disorderly. Because of the lack of a criminal definition of grooming, that was all he could be charged with,” Nedweski said. 

Under the bill, grooming in Wisconsin 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.”  

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.

An amendment to the bill would change the crime to a Class I felony if the person convicted of the crime is a school staff member or volunteer. 

“This is not about vague feelings or misunderstandings. There needs to be a pattern of predatory behavior with the intent to have sexual contact with the victim,” Nedweski said. “This bill came as a result of months of conversations with law enforcement prosecutors, district attorneys, educators and victim advocates.”

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said in a statement that she appreciated the bipartisan effort on the bill.

“We all share a commitment to protecting kids in school and ensuring they can safely learn and grow,” Neubauer said. “This is a critical issue, and I hope we will continue working together to support and protect our kids.”

Phelps told the Examiner in a statement that he voted against the bill because it didn’t seem like a “good-faith effort” to make children safer. He said the behaviors covered in the bill are already illegal.

“Creating redundant crimes to advance a political agenda doesn’t make anyone safer; it just pads the statute books, locks more people in our failed carceral system, and ignores real solutions like prevention and survivor services,” Phelps said.

Assembly’s first time on the floor without WisconsinEye livestream

Ahead of the Assembly floor session, Neubauer called the absence of WisconsinEye as lawmakers continue their business this month an “unsustainable situation.” The nonprofit organization ceased coverage and pulled its archive offline on Dec. 15 due to financial difficulties.

“It is not a good day for accountability to the people who elected us to serve them,” Neubauer said. “Transparency is an essential part of a functioning democracy. Without it, mistrust thrives and multiplies at a time when we need to be building trust in state government. We need to be demonstrating that government can and must be a force for good. This is a step in the wrong direction, and it erodes the public’s trust in this institution.” 

Neubauer said she is open to negotiating with her Republican colleagues to find a solution. She said that lawmakers did not set the organization up for success with the match requirements placed on the $10 million that the state set aside for an endowment. 

“Not sure that a $10 million requirement was ever really realistic for WisconsinEye. We would of course like to see more fundraising,” Neubauer said.

Neubauer and Democrats also questioned why Republican lawmakers were not working more quickly towards a solution as well as why they began enforcing a ban against members of the public who try to record committee proceedings.

“I would ask that you ask yourself what kind of politician doesn’t want for a camera to film what we are doing. What kind of intentions does that politician have? What kind of motivations do they have? What do they have to hide? Why are they doing that?” Rep. Mike Bare (D-Verona) told reporters. “We’re doing important work. People ought to be able to see what we’re doing.”

Gov. Tony Evers told reporters on Monday that he is open to exploring options for getting WisconsinEye back online, but isn’t supportive of just giving the nonprofit state funds without a match requirement.

“I think there has to be some skin in the game,” Evers said of WisEye. 

Republican leaders have also said that they support improving transparency but expressed some concerns about  giving the organization state funds. 

In November, before WisconsinEye went dark, the organization’s president Jon Henkes told the Examiner that the board hadn’t raised any money. He said then that the organization had been reaching out to potential donors about providing large-sum contributions 

“We’re not asking for $5,000 gifts right now. We’re asking for gifts in the $50,000 [to] $500,000 range and that’s a limited amount of people out there,” Henkes said in November.

The organization started seeing more small-dollar donations in December. 

“Small gift fundraising… through online and small checks that have been arriving in the mail are helpful. They don’t get us where we need to be, but it’s a statement that it’s not just the lobbyists and elected officials around the state in the news media who are supporting us there,” Henkes said in December. “There are a lot of people who are citizen viewers who recognize the value of WisconsinEye and are taking the time to go online to make a small gift or send a check, and we’re very grateful for that. That’s a huge encouragement to us.”

WisconsinEye has increased its attempts to raise money from small-sum donations, including by launching a GoFundMe campaign on Monday. As of Tuesday, the campaign had raised more than $8,000 from over 100 donations. The goal is $250,000, which would help support three months of the organization’s operational costs.

Update: This story was updated on Thursday Jan. 15 to add comment from Rep. Christian Phelps about his vote against AB 677. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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