The Wisconsin Assembly advanced proposals that would restrict executive rulemaking powers and eliminate “race-based” programs in higher education Thursday. 

Wisconsin Republicans have been looking for ways to limit agencies’ administrative rulemaking abilities and exercise additional control over the process in the aftermath of several state Supreme Court rulings. 

One of those rulings, the Evers v. Marklein II decision issued on July 8, 2025, found unconstitutional statutes that allowed the 10-member Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules’ to review and suspend administrative rules.

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. The proposal passed 52-45 along party lines. 

“No body of our state government is more accountable to the people of our state than the Legislature, and these bills will restore our ability to represent our constituents and provide them with the regulatory accountability and predictability they need to prosper,” Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee) said during the floor debate. 

Constitutional amendment proposals must pass two consecutive sessions of the Legislature and be approved by a majority of voters before becoming law. This is the proposal’s first consideration. It still needs to pass the Senate to advance to a second consideration. 

The Assembly also concurred in four bills related to administrative rulemaking that were part of a package titled the “red tape reset,” which was introduced in May with the support of the conservative legal group Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL). 

One bill SB 277 would have all administrative rules sunset after seven years unless a rule is adopted again through an agency process. The Assembly amended the bill, so it will go back to the Senate. 

Three of the bills will now go to Evers for consideration. Those include SB 276, which would allow those who have challenged the validity of an administrative rule to receive attorney fees and costs if a court declares a rule invalid; SB 275, which would limit the use of scope statements to one proposed rule; and SB 289, which would require agencies to make cuts to offset the cost associated with new regulations.

The constitutional amendment as well as several other bills are the result of a task force organized by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and chaired by Jacobson.

AB 910, which passed on a voice vote, would establish a process to review fees every 6 years. 

AB 955, which passed on a voice vote, would repeal the current language in state law that allows 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, prohibiting agencies from promulgating rules interpreting the provisions of any statute without explicit and specific statutory authority. 

AB 994, which passed on a voice vote, would restrict agencies from promulgating rules if they are delinquent in complying with the reporting requirement and expand the process for repealing certain rules. 

AB 995, which passed on a voice vote, would change the default effective date for permanent administrative rules to the first day of the seventh month after the date of final publication.

Democratic lawmakers sought to get votes on the floor on several issues, introducing an array of amendments to Republican bills. Some of those included protecting access to contraception and abortion in Wisconsin, requiring former lawmakers to be at least a year out of the Legislature before they can become lobbyists and clarifying the residency requirements for lawmakers. However, none received votes as Republicans took procedural steps to avoid bringing them up. 

“These are going to keep coming forward,” Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) warned her Republican colleagues as she criticized them for not voting on the bills. “Democrats aren’t giving up on fighting for our constituents, whether we’re talking about the government, whether we’re talking about reproductive freedom or frankly, whether we’re talking about things that would reduce the cost of living for folks in the state. The Republicans time and time again, refused to take a vote.” 

The Assembly also approved several bills that will now head to Evers’ desk. 

The Assembly passed SB 652 which seeks to eliminate “race-based” programs offered through the state’s higher education system, including the minority teacher loan program and minority undergraduate grants. Under the bill, it would instead require the programs to focus on “disadvantaged” students, meaning those who have “experienced any unfavorable economic, familial, geographic, physical or other personal hardship.” It passed 53-45 along party lines and will now go to Evers for consideration. 

SB 498, which passed, would place a number of restrictions in state statute that Republican lawmakers argue would help protect free speech. Those include barring UW institutions from restricting speech from a speaker, creating “free speech” zones, charging security fees as a part of a permit application and sanctioning people for discriminatory harassment unless the speech “targets its victim on the basis of a protected class under law, and is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars a student from receiving equal access to educational opportunities or benefits.” 

SB 405, which would create a civil cause of action against health care providers who perform gender transition procedures on someone under the age of 18 if the patient claims to be injured, passed along party lines. It will now go to Evers, who is likely to veto it.

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.