GOP lawmakers said they needed to reimplement checks on the executive branch. Gov. Tony Evers delivers his 2025 state budget address. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Republican lawmakers on Wednesday argued for a constitutional amendment proposal and a set of bills that would allow them greater say over the administrative rulemaking process.

The effort follows Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions in recent years that have limited lawmakers’ ability to restrict administrative rulemaking. The proposals are the result of a task force on administrative rulemaking organized by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester). 

Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee), who chaired the task force, cited the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Evers v. Marklein II decision issued on July 8, 2025 that found unconstitutional statutes that allowed the 10-member Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules’ to review and suspend administrative rules.

Jacobson’s constitutional amendment proposal, AJR 133, would allow state lawmakers to suspend indefinitely or temporarily administrative rules that are promulgated by state agencies with a vote of the full Senate and Assembly.

Jacobson said the proposal would “ensure that the Legislature remains an effective check on the administrative state and that our constituents can still look to us to be a voice in the rulemaking and regulatory process.” 

As a constitutional amendment, the proposal would need to pass the Legislature in two consecutive sessions before it would go to voters for a final vote. It would not require approval from the governor. This is the proposal’s first consideration. 

AB 955, coauthored by Jacobson, would repeal the current state statute that includes language allowing agencies to promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency if it is necessary to enforce the statute. The bill would replace the language to prohibit agencies from promulgating rules interpreting the provisions of any statute without explicit and specific statutory authority.

Jacobson said the proposals are not about giving Republicans an advantage, but rather are about “ensuring good governance and our democratic system of checks and balances are in effect, regardless of which parties are in control of which branch of our state government.” 

Rep. Mike Bare (D-Verona)  expressed concerns about whether the bill would implement some “real tight constraints” on what agencies are able to do. 

“We trust our executive branch with some discretion over making things happen, implementing the policies and the statutes that we’re trying to have happen,” Bare said. “I’m wondering if that creates scenarios in the future [that]… limit too much what they’re able to do.”

“The key is that that statute should specifically and explicitly say, you have authority to promulgate rules around implementing the statute that we in the Legislature have passed,” Jacobson said in response. “That still gives them considerable discretion… Now if they go beyond what our intent was, that’s why we have the backstop of the constitutional amendment to say that rule that has taken effect now by joint resolution, we’re gonna suspend it, maybe temporarily.” 

Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) said he was glad the issue was in front of the committee. 

“The Legislature has been ceding authority for decades, and it probably goes back to the legislators not wanting to make tough decisions or take tough votes, but over time, a lot of authorities have been given to the executive branch. The agencies have absorbed a lot of that,” Knodl said. “Now we have a Supreme Court that is dialing back even more of our authority.” 

“Quite frankly, we’re on a path of irrelevance as a Legislature,” he added.