A three-judge panel on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit brought by Democratic voters seeking to redraw Wisconsin’s existing congressional maps. 

The lawsuit, Bothfield v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, was filed last summer arguing that the state’s congressional maps were an illegal partisan gerrymander. All but two of the state’s eight congressional districts are held by Republicans. 

The dismissal marks another failure from Democrats and their allies to redraw the state’s congressional maps, which since 2011 have favored Republican candidates. Since the maps were redrawn in 2011, they have frequently been at the center of the state’s political debate. 

In 2024, the state’s legislative maps, which had locked in GOP control of the state Legislature for nearly 15 years, were tossed out. Since then, attention has been focused on the congressional maps. 

The current congressional maps were instituted in 2022 by the state Supreme Court after the Republican-controlled Legislature and Gov. Tony Evers were unable to reach an agreement on passing new maps themselves. The Court selected congressional maps that had been proposed by Evers. However, Democrats and anti-gerrymandering advocates have complained that those maps were proposed under the Court’s “least change” mandate, which required that any proposed maps hew as closely as possible to the 2011 maps. 

The Bothfield lawsuit was filed around the same time as a separate lawsuit challenging the congressional maps on the basis that they illegally dampen the competitiveness of the state’s congressional elections. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that both lawsuits should first be considered by panels of three circuit court judges. 

The other pending lawsuit is expected to go to trial in 2027. 

While the lawsuits against the maps have worked through the legal system, open government advocates and some Democrats have continued to call for changes to Wisconsin law that would take the power of map drawing out of the hands of lawmakers and ban partisan gerrymandering. 

Earlier this month, Evers signed an executive order calling the Legislature into a special session to pass a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gerrymandering.

After the panel’s decision, Republicans and their allies celebrated the ruling as a win for GOP chances in the state’s elections this fall. Republicans in several other states across the country have redrawn their congressional maps over the last year in an effort to protect the GOP majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Retaliatory gerrymandering in Democratic states including California has attempted to tilt the playing field back in Democrats’ favor.

“This is a significant win for Republicans and a yet another blow to desperate Democrats who wanted to reshape the electoral landscape,” Zach Bannon, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement. “By keeping Wisconsin’s current district lines in place for 2026, Republicans are in a strong position to build on our momentum to retain and grow our House majority.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 3 minutes

All public employees in Wisconsin must retain records, per the state’s open records law. Except one group. The ones who wrote that law.

State legislators have exempted themselves from the retention portion of the law. Some want to change that.

“The public should not have to worry about legislators having secret conversations or deleting emails,” said state Rep. Clinton Anderson, D-Beloit, who is introducing a bill that would close this loophole despite the fact that the state Assembly adjourned last month for the rest of the year.

Anderson released the bill Monday because it is the start of Sunshine Week, a nonpartisan collaboration among groups in the journalism, civic, education, government and private sectors that shines a light on the importance of public records and open government.

In Wisconsin, state legislators must comply with a records request, but if they have destroyed the record, they have nothing to send.

“Obviously, it’s troubling,” said Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council. “It allows legislators to make things go away that they would rather not see the light of day.”

State Rep. Rob Brooks, R-Saukville, told the Wisconsin Examiner in 2021 that his office “frequently deletes emails during the normal course of business each day.”

And he’s not the only one.

“My office does not delete records on principle, and we should make sure every elected official is held to that same standard,” Anderson said.

In 2025, Gov. Tony Evers stepped in to close this loophole – his 2025 budget proposal included a measure to “remove the Legislature’s exemption from open records law by requiring that records and correspondence of any member of the Legislature be included in a definition of a public record to provide greater transparency for the people of Wisconsin.” The proposal also would have allocated funds and opened a full-time position with the Legislative Technology Services Bureau to carry out this new requirement. But the Republican-controlled Joint Finance Committee removed it from the final budget.

State Sen. Chris Larson, a Democrat from Milwaukee, has introduced bills to close that exemption for state legislators multiple times and is doing so again in the Senate this week in tandem with Anderson.

Before his election to the state Senate in 2010, Larson served on the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors. As a public official, he had to maintain all his records there and assumed the same when he arrived in the Legislature.

But as his email inbox filled up and ran low on space, Larson said he was told by IT staff to simply delete old messages.

“People often wonder why so many wildly popular policies go session after session without a vote or even a public hearing, while special interest slop rises to the top of the agenda,” said Justin Bielinski, Larson’s spokesman. “The Wisconsin Legislature’s exemption from record retention requirements creates a perverse incentive to do the people’s business in secret. If lawmakers aren’t going to be responsive to their constituents’ needs, the least we can do is allow people to find out who they are listening to, and whose voices they choose to ignore.”

Larson’s bills to close the loophole have been ignored by Republicans who control the Legislature, he said. The majority party generally pays little attention to bills from the minority.

But the fact the Wisconsin Legislature is even subject to the open records law, albeit with a caveat, makes it one of the more transparent states. Nearly a quarter of all states — 12 in total — do not even allow records from the Legislature to be accessed by the public, according to a study from The Journal of Civic Information. Congress has also excluded itself from open records requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

The exemption for legislators here “completely undermines Wisconsin’s public records law and the ability for citizens to trust their Legislature,” said David Cuillier, director of the University of Florida’s Brechner Freedom of Information Project. “It’s really quite bizarre and an outlier in the United States. The right thing to do is remove it and restore accountability and credibility to the institution.”

The Badger Project is an independent, reader-supported newsroom in Wisconsin.

This article first appeared on The Badger Project and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

A loophole lets Wisconsin lawmakers delete public records is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case that centers on a dispute between state Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, and the Republican-controlled Legislature about who controls money the Department of Justice is awarded as part of lawsuit settlements. 

The suit is yet another challenge to the lame duck laws Republican legislators and outgoing Gov. Scott Walker enacted in 2018 in the days before the end of Walker’s term and another instance of the Supreme Court stepping in to enforce the separation of powers between Wisconsin’s executive and legislative branches. 

Under several provisions of the lame duck laws, the Legislature sought to limit the executive branch’s authority to spend money. The Supreme Court previously struck down provisions that required the approval of legislative committees before executive agencies could act. 

The Legislature argues that under the law, the attorney general is required to put money from a financial settlement into the state’s general fund, which legislators control through the normal budget process. Kaul argues he can put the settlement funds in accounts controlled by DOJ but doesn’t have the authority to spend those funds without approval from the Legislature’s budget-writing Joint Finance Committee. 

Initially filed in Polk County Circuit Court in 2021, when a conservative majority controlled the Supreme Court, the case appeared in the 2nd District Court of Appeals in 2024 where a 2-1 decision reversed the circuit court’s ruling that Kaul could direct settlement funds into DOJ accounts. 

That majority opinion was authored by Judge Maria Lazar, a conservative judge now running for a seat on the Supreme Court. 

“Despite the legislation expressly designed to bring all settlement funds under legislative control and despite the simple and plain language of that legislation, the Attorney General has continued to act precisely in the manner which the Legislature sought to end,” Lazar wrote.

Generally, conservative legal interpretations of the law involve strict adherence to the exact language of a statute while liberal legal interpretations take into account intent. In this case, that typical structure is flipped. The DOJ argues that it is following the exact language of the law by directing the settlement money into accounts for specific DOJ programs that fall under the umbrella of the general fund and not spending those funds without approval from JFC. DOJ also notes that historically, Wisconsin attorneys general have had broad authority to spend settlement money. 

DOJ attorney Hannah Jurss argued to the Court Wednesday that it isn’t DOJ’s fault the Legislature wasn’t precise enough when crafting the law — though the law has effectively cut off Kaul’s ability to direct the expenditure of settlement funds. 

“We now do not have discretion to expend those monies. So if the intention was to prevent the attorney general’s expenditure of settlement funds as properly understood, it did that,” Jurss said. “There are now monies sitting there that are left to the attorney general’s discretion that the attorney general cannot spend. Instead, I think what the court is seeing in the Legislature’s arguments are unsupported assertions about some sort of broader intent that, frankly, have no support whatsoever in the text of the statutes, in statutory history.” 

Jurss added that a similar structure guides the budget statutes across state government, so if the Court sided with the Legislature, much of the existing budget framework would be affected. She noted programs in the Departments of Tourism and Military Affairs that would be hit. 

“This Court should not cut the wire on the budget statute structure across Wisconsin statutes simply for the Legislature to accomplish its preferred outcome here,” she said. 

Misha Tseytlin, the attorney for the Legislature — whose former position as state solicitor general was cut by the Legislature in the lame duck laws — argued the Court should side with the Legislature to stop Kaul from finding ways around the law. 

“Because the attorney general had found his way around the Legislature’s prior attempt,” Tseytlin said. “I know there’s not a lot of sympathy for the Legislature from the courts, but imagine how frustrating it is. You’re trying to rein in the attorney general, you’re trying to get them to stop these practices, you enact this JFC provision, and they find a way around that.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Abby Wurzburger, a 14-year-old from Wauwatosa, is leading the charge on a bill to ban animal testing by cosmetics manufacturers in Wisconsin.

“Although the total number of animals and testing facilities are not disclosed to the public, this doesn’t stop the fact that any amount of unnecessary testing is too much,” Wurzburger said at a press conference in the Wisconsin State Capitol on Tuesday. 

The middle school student was joined by Democratic lawmakers including Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa), who represents the young advocate and helped her work on the bill. The bill’s lead authors are Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee), Rep. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis), and Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit). Vining described her constituent as the “driving force” behind the legislation before passing the microphone to allow Wurzburger to speak about the issue. 

Wurzburger said her concerns about animal testing started after she became a vegetarian a couple of years ago. A meal on a cruise spurred her decision. 

“It had an all-you-can-eat buffet, and I was actually eating a hamburger, and I was looking at, like all the waste I saw, the animal products and stuff,” she said, “I was like, this is a lot of waste, and this needs to be stopped.” 

Wurzburger explained at the press conference that animal testing involves putting cosmetic products, including perfume, nail polish, makeup and hair products, on the skin, eyes and other body parts of an animal.

“It’s basically just seeing how it reacts with them, and it’s cruel and inhumane,” she said. 

Wurzburger first contacted Vining two years ago and has worked with her since — contacting members of Congress from across the country, reviewing legislation in other states and meeting with Wisconsin Legislative Council to work on the bill draft. She said that in the beginning she wasn’t getting much response from lawmakers. 

“That was kind of frustrating, but it worked out,” Wurzburger told the Examiner. 

Vining complimented her constituent’s work, emphasizing that Wurzburger worked on the issue outside of school and saying she brought printed documents to their meetings with highlighted areas, notes and questions.

“You did difficult research,” Vining said to Wurzburger while they spoke with the Examiner. “You were sorting through bills from the federal level and Virginia, and you kept going through and figuring out what you thought was the right way to do something… if you were writing it for Wisconsin.” 

Members of Congress have introduced proposals to implement a federal ban on cosmetic animal testing as recently as last year, but none have been successful. There are at least 45 countries that ban cosmetic animal testing.

There are 12 states in the U.S. that have bans, including Virginia, Illinois, and Louisiana. California became the first state to adopt a cosmetic animal testing ban in 2018 and Washington state became the latest in 2025.

“We need Wisconsin to be the 13th,” Wurzburger said at the press conference. “This is an issue that is very near and dear to my heart as I’ve been an animal lover my whole life.” 

Wurzburger said “the Wisconsin Humane Cosmetics” bill is modeled closely after Virginia’s bill. 

“After these bills have been passed, cosmetic companies started to drift away from these practices and are becoming more cruelty free, so those other bills have definitely promoted cosmetic cruelty free,” she said. 

According to the bill draft, cosmetic manufacturers would be prohibited from conducting animal testing, manufacturing or importing ingredients that were developed using cosmetic animal testing or selling cosmetics that were produced using animal testing. The ban would take effect on Dec. 31, 2026.

One change that Wurzburger said she thought about involved the penalties included in the bill. Under the bill draft, a person would be subject to $5,000 forfeiture for a violation and an additional $1,000 for each day the violation continues.

“We didn’t want to make it too high for small businesses who would suffer from that,” Wurzburger told the Examiner about deciding to mirror the penalty established in Virginia’s law. “I was thinking it would be really easy for the big businesses just to pay it off and keep testing, but then we thought about the small businesses.”

In the afternoon, Vining gave Wurzburger the opportunity to speak to a couple of fourth grade classes who had come to tour the Capitol. Wurzburger told the students about how she first emailed Vining in the sixth grade and said they could email their lawmakers about anything they want to see change. 

“I want to make sure that you guys know that nobody is too small to make a change that you believe in,” Wurzburger said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 4 minutes

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that highlights how judges can apply different interpretations of the law and constitution to suit their ideological viewpoints.

The case resulted from disagreements between the Republican-led Legislature and Attorney General Josh Kaul following the 2018 lame-duck session that limited the powers of the incoming Democratic administration. 

The lawsuit, which the Legislature filed in 2021 when there was a conservative majority on the state Supreme Court, focuses on who has oversight of the dollars the state receives from legal settlements. The Legislature argues the 2018 law requires the attorney general to put money from a financial settlement in the general fund, which state lawmakers control. Kaul argues that he can put settlement funds in accounts that the Department of Justice oversees and still comply with the law.

In December 2024, the 2nd District Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling reversed part of a circuit court decision that said Kaul could continue to direct settlement dollars into DOJ-controlled accounts.

The Appeals Court opinion was written by Judge Maria Lazar, a conservative who is running for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April against liberal Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor. Lazar ruled the language in the 2018 law aligns with the Legislature’s arguments that settlement dollars belong in the general fund. 

“Despite the legislation expressly designed to bring all settlement funds under legislative control and despite the simple and plain language of that legislation, the Attorney General has continued to act precisely in the manner which the Legislature sought to end,” Lazar wrote.

But in a dissent, retiring Appeals Court Judge Lisa Neubauer, the only liberal on the Waukesha-based District 2 Court of Appeals, criticized Lazar for basing her decision on what the Legislature intended, rather than a strict reading of various clauses in the law that may give the attorney general wiggle room.

The oral arguments this week follow a series of decisions in recent years on lawsuits challenging the separation of powers between the Legislature and the executive branch. In June, the court unanimously struck down a portion of the 2018-era lame-duck laws that required the attorney general to receive approval from the Legislature’s budget-writing committee to settle most civil cases. For the 4-3 divided liberal-majority court, the rulings in these cases have shown agreement among the justices over the need for clear boundaries between the core powers of the branches of government, legal experts said. 

Where this latest lawsuit differs is the debate seems focused more on the language of the law than the separation of powers, said Chad Oldfather, a professor at the Marquette University Law School. Typically the conservative approach to statutory interpretation has been to focus on the basic meaning of the law while the liberal approach has been to examine the law’s intent. That has been the opposite in this case, Oldfather said.  

“The advocates are kind of flipping a little bit the usual ideology of the statutory interpretation approach,” Oldfather said. “And all that’s going on while it’s clear that there are some people on the court who want to fundamentally shift the way the court does statutory interpretation. So there’s a real interesting mix of issues going on in this case.” 

The law in question has been wrapped up in a yearslong debate over separation of powers that has made its way to justices in recent years, said Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. In many of those cases, the Supreme Court opinions have shown the justices interested in balanced branches of government. 

“There seems to be an inclination to reinstate greater separation of powers between the branches and preserve the important roles of various actors, whether that’s the attorney general or the governor or the Legislature,” Godar said. 

For example, in a 6-1 decision in 2024, with Justice Annette Ziegler dissenting, the court ruled the Legislature’s Republican-led budget-writing committee could not block spending by the Department of Natural Resources for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund. 

“While the legislature’s motivation for overseeing the public fisc may be well-intentioned, fundamentally, the legislature may not execute the law,” Justice Rebecca Bradley, a member of the conservative bloc, wrote in the majority opinion. “The people gave the executive alone this power.”

In the 7-0 decision last June on the Legislature’s approval of the attorney general’s civil case settlements, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote that the constitution does not give lawmakers the ability to execute the law when there are financial decisions. 

“If the Legislature has a constitutional interest in the execution of the laws every time an executive action involves money, there would be virtually no area where the Legislature could not insert itself into the execution of the law,” Hagedorn wrote. 

There are still areas of disagreement among the court in these types of cases. Last July, the court reached a 4-3 decision in a lawsuit between Gov. Tony Evers and the Legislature, which determined 2018 lame-duck legislation that gave a legislative committee the ability to delay rules and policy changes from executive agencies was unconstitutional.

In that case, the court’s four liberal justices were in the majority. Hagedorn wrote an opinion both concurring and dissenting with the majority’s decision, while Bradley and Ziegler dissented.

“The majority has created a grave constitutional imbalance by strictly construing, and thus confining, the constitutional powers of the legislative branch while not doing the same when it comes to the power of the executive branch,” Ziegler wrote.

Latest Wisconsin Supreme Court case flips the script on which judges strictly interpret the law is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Seventy-two Wisconsin school districts are going to referendum in April seeking just over $1 billion from taxpayers at a time when voters indicate they are less likely to support increased funding for schools. 

A record high 60% of registered voters said reducing property taxes was more important than increasing spending on public schools, according to the recent Marquette University Law School poll conducted in February. Fifty-seven percent of voters in the same poll said they would vote against a school referendum, same as October, but a reversal from six years ago when 57% said they would support one. 

The public concern about property taxes creates an especially difficult environment this year for the school districts seeking financial approvals from voters. Sixty-two districts are pursuing operational referendums this spring, according to data from the Department of Public Instruction. Operational questions ask voters to approve whether school districts can increase taxes to pay for things such as educational programs, technology and transportation services. 

The rest of the referendums in April would allow districts to borrow money for capital construction projects. Two districts, Howard-Suamico and Sauk Prairie, are asking voters to approve both capital and operational referendums. 

Approval rates for districts have declined since 2018, according to research from the Wisconsin Policy Forum. A record number of school districts proposed referendum questions to voters in 2024, but the 70% approval rate was the lowest passage rate for referendums in a midterm or presidential election year since 2014. More than 20% of the districts going to referendum this April are returning to voters after failed referendums in 2025. 

In the meantime, debates continue at the Capitol over state funding for public schools. Gov. Tony Evers and Republican legislative leaders are expected to continue negotiating over how to use the state’s $2.4 billion surplus and what amount should be used to lower property taxes and support public schools. Just last week, a group of Wisconsin parents, four teacher unions and five school districts sued the Legislature arguing it’s failing to fund public schools. The Necedah Area School District, one of the plaintiffs in the case, is asking voters in April to approve a $5.8 million operational referendum across the next four school years. 

Meanwhile, Wisconsin school districts continue to battle with the financial impacts of declining enrollments and rising costs as district leaders say state funding they receive has not kept up with inflation. The Appleton Area School District is seeking a $60 million operating referendum spread out over the next four years, which would fund efforts to help students struggling with poverty and mental health issues and plug a $13 million operating deficit that formed over three years of high inflation rates that outpaced available funding, Superintendent Greg Hartjes said. 

“Certainly the timing is not good,” Hartjes said of Appleton’s operating referendum. “But it is because of that three years of high inflation that we can’t sustain another year. If we don’t pass a referendum, we are going to cut $13 million from our budget next year. And that’s a lot of services for kids.” 

Why a school district goes to referendum

The two main sources of revenue for Wisconsin school districts are state funding and property taxes. In 1993, Wisconsin lawmakers put limits on how much school districts can increase funding from those two revenue sources. State law allows districts to go to referendum to ask voters to exceed the revenue limits with additional property taxes. 

“It sometimes gets talked about as if it’s a fluke, or if it necessarily means that something bad is happening. That isn’t always the case,” said Sara Shaw, the deputy research director at the Wisconsin Policy Forum. “You might have an instance where a local community says, ‘Actually we’re fine with this. You tax us more. We have the means to be taxed more and we have the desire to fund education more.’” 

School district revenue limits were connected to inflation until 2009, during the Great Recession, when a Democratic-controlled Legislature and Democratic governor chose to decouple them. Since then, as Republicans took control of state government in 2011, state education spending has not kept pace with inflation or the national average, according to the Policy Forum. 

In recent years, the lack of inflationary increases to revenue limits and declining school district enrollment are among the main reasons why districts have gone to referendum, said Dan Rossmiller, the executive director of the Wisconsin Association of School Boards.

“At the same time, your fixed costs, such as transportation, heating, lighting, insurance, health insurance for your employees and the salaries of your employees and the portion you pay toward their retirement are all coming up generally,” Rossmiller said. “So that puts school districts in a bit of a vice.” 

The Wisconsin Rapids School District, which is asking voters to support a $19 million operating referendum over the next five years, is one of those examples. The district has an existing five-year operating referendum approved in 2021 that expires this school year, but was boosted by pandemic-related funds that are no longer available. Inflation, rising insurance costs and declining enrollment have put the district in a difficult position, said Wisconsin Rapids Superintendent Ronald Rasmussen. 

“The district is in a situation now where our expenses exceed our revenue,” Rasmussen said. 

But referendums are about compromise, Sen. Romaine Quinn, R-Birchwood, said at a February meeting of the Legislature’s budget-writing committee. It’s also not just schools that are feeling the impacts of inflation, Quinn said. 

“There isn’t anybody in their family budget, a local entity unit of government or state government that can afford to keep up with the inflation that we’ve had to endure over the last four to six years,” Quinn said.

What about the 400-year veto?

During the 2023-25 state budget process, Evers used the governor’s veto powers to provide an annual $325 per pupil increase to school district revenue limits for 400 years.

Republicans have repeatedly slammed the veto and advanced proposals seeking to limit the governor’s partial veto powers in the future. In February, the Legislature added to the November ballot a constitutional amendment to prevent the governor from using veto powers to increase taxes or fees. It’s unclear if the proposed language would have affected the 400-year veto because the veto didn’t directly increase taxes or fees. Instead, it gave school districts more discretion to increase property taxes.

School leaders say they’re appreciative of the revenue authority coming from the 400-year veto, but it doesn’t make up for the lack of consistent inflationary increases since 2009. Districts are also still dependent on how the Legislature acts on revenue limits or general state aid. 

“The more state aid we get means we get less property taxes,” Rasmussen said. “And this year, the revenue limit changed by $325, but the aid we got from the state that line stayed the same, so the difference was made up by local property taxes.” 

Hartjes and Rasmussen said they are approaching frustration about property taxes by trying to inform residents about the basics of school funding, being transparent with potential voters about district finances and breaking down the cost of the referendum on a typical home in their community. 

Districts across the state that are going to referendum this spring are holding similar information sessions to answer questions from potential voters and creating webpages for people seeking more information. 

It’s not an easy task, especially as the cost of living remains the top issue for Wisconsin voters this year. 

“Your price of everything else that you have to buy as a consumer is difficult,” Hartjes said. “And then to ask to have your property taxes raised? We understand the challenge for families.”

The election is April 7. Early voting starts March 24.

A 400-year veto, $1 billion in referendums and now a lawsuit: School districts demand more funding is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 8 minutes

The final days of the Wisconsin Legislature’s 2025-26 legislative session are near.

The Assembly gaveled out for what could be the chamber’s final session day Friday preceded by a dramatic 24 hours that included longtime Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, announcing his retirement and a concession from Vos to allow votes on bills to extend Medicaid funding for low-income mothers and require insurance companies to cover screenings for women at increased risk of breast cancer. The bills have stalled in the chamber for months. 

Lawmakers could still return for a special session on tax cuts as negotiations continue with Republican leaders and Gov. Tony Evers. Democratic lawmakers and Evers have called on Republicans to continue work at the Capitol in Madison instead of turning to the campaign trail ahead of elections later this year. Evers this week also said he plans to call a special session in the coming months for lawmakers to act on a constitutional amendment to ban partisan gerrymandering.  

The Senate will continue to meet in March. 

Here’s a rundown of what is still being debated, what is heading to the governor and some of the key items to get signed into law this session. 

What is still being discussed? 

Tax cuts 

The context: State leaders learned in January that Wisconsin has a projected $2.4 billion surplus. Evers at the start of the year called for bipartisan action on property tax cuts for Wisconsinites. Republicans have agreed with the idea that those funds should be returned to taxpayers. But both sides have yet to officially agree on how. 

Republican arguments: In a letter to Evers on Feb. 16, Vos and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, said they would agree to Evers’ request for $200 million to boost the special education reimbursement rate and provide an additional $500 million to schools through the school levy tax credit. In return, Republican leaders wanted to see an income tax rebate in the form of $500 for individuals and $1,000 for married couples who filed their taxes in 2024, reducing state revenues by $1.5 billion. “We are trying to be bipartisan,” Vos told reporters after Evers said the proposal doesn’t balance what he wants to see for schools. “We accepted his number and actually went higher than he requested.”

Democratic arguments: Evers told WISN-12 that he would not sign the Republican plan Vos and LeMahieu sent him. He wants to see more money for schools, specifically general equalization aid, which are dollars that schools can use without as many constraints. The 2025-27 budget Evers signed last summer kept that aid flat from the previous year, which coupled with fixed revenue limit increases under Evers’ previous 400-year veto gives school districts more latitude to raise property taxes. 

Latest action: Assembly Majority Leader Rep. Tyler August, R-Walworth, said Republicans are still intent that Evers should take the deal that was offered. “It checks a lot of boxes, if not all the boxes on the things he had previously asked for,” he said. 

Knowles-Nelson Stewardship  

The context: In 2024, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the Legislature’s top financial committee could not block the Department of Natural Resources spending for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund that was created in 1989 for land preservation. Republicans did not reauthorize funds to keep the program going in the 2025-27 budget, which puts the fund on track to expire this summer. Bills led by Rep. Tony Kurtz, R-Wonewoc, and Sen. Patrick Testin, R-Stevens Point, would extend the program until 2028, but also pause the majority of land conservation projects for two years and require the DNR to study and inventory government-owned land for nature activities.

Republican arguments: Republicans blame the court’s decision for limiting legislative authority over how the dollars are spent. During a public hearing earlier this month, Testin said he understood the bills were imperfect but action was necessary. “If we do nothing, Knowles-Nelson Stewardship is dead,” Testin said. 

Democratic arguments: Senate Democrats on Wednesday said stopping money for land conservation projects would essentially kill the program. Democrats had been participating in negotiations on the future of the fund, but the Republican proposal had only gotten “significantly worse.” “We cannot and will not support a bill this bad,” said Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein, D-Middleton. In September, Democrats introduced a proposal to reauthorize the program until 2032. 

Latest action: The Senate was scheduled to vote on the bills during a floor session on Feb. 18, but removed the bills from its calendar. The bills already passed the Assembly in January. After Senate Democrats said they would not support the current proposal, Testin told WisPolitics he would have to drum up support from Senate Republicans to determine the fate of the fund. 

Toxic forever chemicals (aka PFAS) 

The context: Republican lawmakers and Evers in January announced they were optimistic about a deal on legislation about the cleanup of toxic forever chemicals referred to as PFAS. The 2023-25 state budget included $125 million for addressing PFAS contamination, but the Legislature’s finance committee has yet to release those funds to the Department of Natural Resources. In January, Evers and Republicans said bipartisan agreements so far included the release of the prior funds, protections for property owners who are not responsible for PFAS contamination and a grant program to help local governments with remediation projects. 

Republican arguments: Republican Sen. Eric Wimberger, R-Gillett, has sought protections from the state’s spills law and financial penalties for “innocent landowners” who did not cause PFAS contaminations and seek help from the Department of Natural Resources. 

Democratic arguments: The Environmental Protection Agency has previously issued health advisories on PFAS in drinking water. Evers in January argued that the state has a responsibility to provide safe and clean drinking water across Wisconsin. 

Latest action: The Assembly passed the legislation, Assembly Bills 130 and 131, on 93-0 votes Friday evening. The Senate has yet to consider the bills, but Wimberger in a statement Thursday night said amendments in the Assembly “will help us get this vital legislation across the finish line in the Senate and signed into law by the Governor.” 

Online gambling

The context: Legal gambling in Wisconsin can only occur in-person on tribal properties, which means individuals who place online bets on mobile devices are technically violating the law. A proposal from August and Sen. Howard Marklein, R-Spring Green, would legalize online gambling if the server or device that a wager is placed on is located on tribal lands. 

Supportive arguments: The bills from August and Marklein have bipartisan support. Lawmakers argue it provides clarity on what is legal in Wisconsin and protects consumers from unregulated websites. 

Opposing arguments: The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty in a November memo argued that the bills would violate the Wisconsin Constitution and the federal Indian Gaming Act and provide a “race-based monopoly to Tribal gaming operations.” 

Latest action: The Assembly passed the bill Thursday on a voice vote, meaning lawmakers didn’t record individual votes. It now heads to the Senate.

Funding for a public affairs network

The context: WisconsinEye, the nonprofit public affairs network that has filmed legislative proceedings since 2007, went dark in mid-December due to not raising the funds to operate this year. The Legislature previously approved a $10 million endowment that could only be accessed if WisconsinEye raised matching dollars equal to its request of state lawmakers. Legislative leaders approved $50,000 to bring WisconsinEye back in February, but the Assembly and Senate had opposing views of how to provide transparent viewing of legislative processes going forward.  

Senate arguments: Senate Republicans specifically have been wary of providing funds to WisconsinEye and expressed frustrations at how the nonprofit spends its dollars. Senate Republicans proposed a bill that would seek bids for a potential public affairs network, which could go to WisconsinEye or another organization. “Maybe we are getting the best value currently with WisconsinEye, but we greatly don’t know,” LeMahieu told reporters this month.

Assembly arguments: Assembly Democrats and Republicans proposed a bill that would place the previously allocated matching dollars in a trust and direct earned interest to WisconsinEye. That could generate half a million dollars or more each year for an organization with a $900,000 annual budget. Assembly leaders said they wanted to ensure continued transparency at the Capitol.

Latest action: The Assembly earlier this month passed its bill 96-0 that would provide long-term funding support to WisconsinEye, but the Senate has yet to consider the bill. The Senate passed its bill on requesting bids for a public affairs network on Wednesday. The Assembly did not take up the Senate proposal before gaveling out for the year. 

What is heading to Evers? 

Postpartum Medicaid 

Lead authors: Sen. Jesse James, R-Thorp/Rep. Patrick Snyder, R-Weston

What it does: The bill extends postpartum Medicaid coverage in Wisconsin for new moms from current law at 60 days to a full 12 months after childbirth.

The context: Wisconsin is just one of two states that have yet to extend postpartum Medicaid for new mothers for up to one year. The proposal has been brought up in the Legislature for years, but Vos has long been the roadblock for getting the bill across the finish line, often objecting to the idea as “expanding welfare.” “Anybody who’s in poverty in Wisconsin today already gets basically free health care through BadgerCare. If you are slightly above poverty level, you get basically free health care from the federal government through Obamacare,” Vos told reporters earlier this month. “So the idea of saying that we’re going to put more people onto the funding that the state pays for, as opposed to allowing them to stay on the funding that the federal government pays for, it doesn’t make any sense to me.” 

How they voted: The Senate passed the bill on a 32-1 vote in April, with Sen. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield, voting against. The Assembly voted 95-1 Thursday to send the bill to Evers’ desk, with Rep. Shae Sortwell, R-Two Rivers, as the lone vote against. Vos voted to pass the bill.

Dense breast cancer screenings 

Lead authors: Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara, R-Fox Crossing/Rep. Cindi Duchow, R-town of Delafield

What it does: The bill requires health insurance policies to cover supplemental screenings for women who have dense breast tissue and are at an increased risk of breast cancer, eliminating out-of-pocket costs for things like MRIs and ultrasounds. The proposal has been referred to as “Gail’s Law,” after Gail Zeamer, a Wisconsin woman who regularly sought annual mammograms but was diagnosed with stage three breast cancer at age 47. 

The context: The proposal has been stuck in the Assembly for months after near-unanimous passage in the Senate last year. Some Republicans had concerns about the bill being an insurance mandate. Vos told Isthmus in January that federal regulations might not make the bill necessary in Wisconsin, but ultimately allowed a vote on the Assembly floor.

How they voted: The Senate passed the bill in October on a 32-1 vote. The Assembly passed the bill Thursday on a 96-0 vote. 

Key bills signed into law (outside the state budget)

Wisconsin Act 42 – Cellphone bans during school instructional time

Lead authors: Rep. Joel Kitchens, R-Sturgeon Bay/Cabral-Guevara

What it does: The law requires Wisconsin school boards to adopt policies that prohibit cellphone use during instructional time by July 1. By October districts must submit their policies to the Department of Public Instruction. 

How they voted: The bill passed the Assembly along party lines in February 2025 and passed the Senate on a 29-4 vote in October. 

When Evers signed the bill: October 2025.

Wisconsin Acts 11, 12 – Nuclear power summit and siting study

Lead authors: Sen. Julian Bradley, R-New Berlin/Rep. David Steffen, R-Howard

What it does: The laws created a board tasked with organizing a nuclear power summit in Madison and directed the Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities, to study new and existing locations for nuclear power and fusion generation in the state. In January, the Public Service Commission signed an agreement with UW-Madison’s Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics to complete the siting study. 

How they voted: The Senate passed and the Assembly passed the bill in June 2025 on a voice vote. 

When Evers signed the bills: July 2025

Wisconsin Act 43 – Candidacy withdrawals for elections 

Lead authors: Steffen/Sen. Van Wanggaard, R-Racine

What it does: The law gives Wisconsin candidates a path other than death to withdraw their name from election ballots. The bill was proposed in the wake of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s effort to withdraw his name from the ballot in Wisconsin after he exited the presidential race in 2024 and endorsed President Donald Trump. 

How they voted: The Assembly passed the bill in June. The Senate approved the bill on a 19-14 vote in October.

When Evers signed the bill: October 2025

Wisconsin Act 48 – Making sextortion a crime 

Lead authors: Snyder/James

What it does: The law makes sexual extortion a crime that bans threatening to injure another person’s property or reputation or threatening violence against someone to get them to participate in sexual conduct or share an intimate image of themselves. Lawmakers named the bill “Bradyn’s Law” after a 15-year-old in the D.C. Everest School District who became a victim of sextortion and died by suicide.

How they voted: The Senate passed and the Assembly passed the bill on a voice vote. 

When Evers signed the bill: December 2025

Wisconsin Act 22 – Informed consent for pelvic exams for unconscious patients

Lead authors: Sen. Andre Jacque, R-New Franken/Rep. Joy Goeben, R-Hobart

What it does: The bill requires that written consent is obtained from a patient before medical professionals at a hospital perform a pelvic exam while that person is unconscious or under general anesthesia.

How they voted: The Senate and the Assembly passed the bill on a voice vote. 

When Evers signed the bill: August 2025

Wisconsin Assembly is done legislating for the year. Here’s what lawmakers did and what’s unfinished. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) are proposing a $2.3 billion package to Gov. Tony Evers Monday that would provide one-time tax rebates and raise special education funding, but wouldn’t deliver any general school aid increases.

“We actually accepted the governor’s challenge where he said, make sure that we have money for schools and we wanted to make sure that there is money for the residents of Wisconsin,” Vos said during a press conference on Tuesday. Vos said lawmakers sent their letter to Evers on Sunday and had yet to hear from Evers as of Tuesday afternoon but they hope to “hear from him today so we could be in negotiations to have a bill passed before we adjourn Friday.”

The proposal comes after LeMahieu said last week he was being left out of negotiations with Vos and Evers. Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback suggested the leaders sit down to discuss the plan. She has also previously said that any bipartisan agreement needs “investments to ensure our K-12 schools receive the resources they need and were promised in the state budget.”

The Assembly plans to meet in a series of marathon floor sessions this week with the goal of wrapping up its work for the session by the end of the week. The state Senate plans to work during March as well, but with the Assembly’s self-imposed deadline, this month is the last chance to pass bills that could get to Evers’ desk before the next legislative session.

Vos said the end of the week deadline could help ensure that Wisconsin politicians act and said it is a “perfect time for us to engage in the good faith negotiations.”

“There’s no reason for the money to sit at Madison longer than necessary so we can have it actually out the door,” Vos said. 

The back and forth on the property tax reduction and school funding package came as Evers, who opted not to run for a third term in office this year, prepared to deliver his final State of the State address Tuesday night.

“I think we’re right on track… I’m happy to meet this afternoon. I mean, I’m sure the governor is practicing his speech for tonight. There’s probably some time in between,” Vos said. “There’s a lot of opportunities to discuss.”

One major piece of the GOP proposal is an income tax rebate of $500 per person and $1,000 for married joint filers at a cost of nearly $1.5 billion in 2026-27. Senate Republicans first proposed the idea last week.

Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) said the surplus is proof that “we’ve over taxed our citizens in Wisconsin” and that the rebate checks could help provide some relief to Wisconsinites.

In response to Evers’ priorities, Republican lawmakers in their letter proposed $200 million for special education costs — including $80 million to bring the special education reimbursement rate to 42% in 2026 and $120 million to bring it to 45% in 2027 — in keeping with Evers’ proposal. 

The state budget committed to reimburse school districts for their special education costs at a rate of 42% in 2025-26 and 45% in 2026-27. However, recent estimates have found that the money that lawmakers and Evers set aside in the budget will not be enough to make good on those promises.

Lawmakers did not provide any additional funding for general school aids in the budget, disappointing school leaders and advocates who said schools will continue to struggle with funding difficulties. Republican lawmakers left out increases to general school aid in part because of their frustration with Evers’ 400-year veto, extending an annual $325 per pupil school revenue limit increase well beyond the last budget cycle. Without state funding, however, schools in Wisconsin only have the option to use the authority Evers extended to increase property taxes to the revenue limit increase amount. 

Evers had proposed $450 million in 2027 for general school aid to backfill the $325 per pupil increase school districts will have the option of using — alleviating the potential property tax increases that communities across the state would see again at the end of this year.

Republicans excluded that request from their proposal and instead suggested $500 million for property tax relief through the school levy tax credit. Evers had suggested $550 million for property tax relief through the school levy tax credit. 

The Wisconsin Public Education Network has called putting state money toward the school levy tax credit as opposed to general school aids “irresponsible and unacceptable.” The credit works by using state funds to reduce property tax bills by making payments to counties and municipalities. It does not provide additional revenue to school districts for operations.

In their letter, GOP leaders expressed concerns about the school revenue limit increases, saying that additional state aid would lead to less responsible spending by school districts.

“While we know you believe that your 400-year veto was a way to permanently send increases to schools for the next 400 years, the truth is it creates a strong disincentive for school districts to find efficiencies while creating an increased property tax burden on taxpayers,” the lawmakers said. 

LeMahieu and Vos said that “no amount of funding increase can address the root causes of the education funding problem” and that leaders should be focused on “reform” as opposed to “guaranteed funding to prop up a broken system.” Republican lawmakers have advocated for bills that would encourage school districts to consolidate this session, which Democratic lawmakers and school advocates have criticized.

Lawmakers said they would also support an individual income tax reduction of up to $300 for teacher expenses at an estimated cost of $1.4 million in 2026-27.

Republicans are also seeking to tie the tax relief package to other priority areas. 

Changes made to the Supplemental Nutrition Aid Program (SNAP) — known as FoodShare in Wisconsin — in the massive tax cut and spending bill signed by President Donald Trump last year included a penalty, requiring states to pick up some costs if the state’s payment error rate exceeds 6%. Wisconsin officials have estimated a penalty could cost the state up to $205 million.

The Evers administration has said $69 million and 56 additional administrative positions for DHS are needed to ensure that the state’s error rate remains below the 6% error rate.

The lawmakers said they would agree to funding for FoodShare to help keep the error rate low, but asked that positions that have been vacant for 18 months be used instead of providing new positions to the agency. 

In addition to the GOP request related to the positions, Republican lawmakers are also seeking to tie a ban on using SNAP benefits to purchase soda and candy to the legislation.

Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie) said the change would ensure SNAP is “utilized for healthy, nutritious foods” and will help make sure that “some of the soda, junk food, and other stuff that our kids and our adults are filling their bodies with” isn’t purchased with the benefits.

The proposal also includes funding to the Department of Military Affairs for disaster assistance including $10 million in 2025-26 for awards no greater than $25,000 per household and $20 million in 2025-26 for grants of up to $50,000 to businesses. 

The money is meant to help Wisconsinites affected by record floods last year after a recent request for disaster assistance was denied by the federal government. 

“We feel that the states have a position here that should have some funds available particularly for businesses where they have no relief available to them at all,” Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) said. 

The total price tag of the proposed package is about $2.3 billion — nearly the amount of the state’s entire estimated budget surplus.

“This is a generous, good-faith attempt to achieve our mutual goals of limiting the property tax impact caused by your misguided 400-year veto, helping families address rising costs and ultimately doing what is best for the people of Wisconsin,” the lawmakers stated in their letter. “Majority caucuses in both houses have agreed to this plan in principle. With the legislative session soon ending, time is of the essence. We both stand ready to meet at your earliest convenience.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 6 minutes

It’s the last year of Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers’ final term, and activity at the Capitol since January reflects much of how the last eight years have gone with the Republican Legislature. 

GOP lawmakers continue to send conservative bills to Evers’ desk for a likely veto. such as a proposal to allow people to seek legal action for injuries from gender transition procedures when they were a minor. Evers in January called for Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, to allow a bipartisan bill that would extend postpartum Medicaid to new moms to “finally” reach the governor’s desk, while Vos last week told reporters it wouldn’t advance. 

As the political world turns to who might be Wisconsin’s next governor, Evers and Republicans are attempting to negotiate a tax cut in the wake of a projected $2.4 billion state surplus reported in January. The last time there was an open governor’s seat the state faced a multibillion-dollar deficit. Surpluses have been a regular feature of the last eight years of split government.

“There have been plenty of times in the last eight years where we have had a disagreement and we had a public argument with Gov. Evers,” Vos said last week. “I think there’s a long list of things where I think he’s just wrong on the issue. But on this one, considering the fact that he came out and sincerely said he wants to do something on property taxes. We feel the same. I don’t know why we wouldn’t negotiate in good faith to try to find something that can actually get across the finish line.” 

Evers, who is not seeking reelection in 2026, will give his final State of the State address before the Legislature at 7 p.m. on Tuesday. Part of Evers’ legacy during his two terms as governor is his navigation of split government and the oftentimes contentious relationship between his administration and the legislative branch.

Asked to reflect on his own legacy, Evers highlighted for Wisconsin Watch three specific achievements: a deal that kept the Brewers in Milwaukee through 2050, a shared revenue deal that boosted state support for local municipalities and the replacement of heavily gerrymandered GOP maps with “fair maps.” But he also criticized the often contentious relationship with the Legislature.

“There’s something wrong when lawmakers are spending more time thinking of new and creative ways to circumvent the governor and the executive branch than working to address pressing challenges facing our state. So, for the last seven years, we’ve been hard at work to restore the separation of powers and hold the Legislature accountable to the will of the people that elected us,” Evers said in a statement to Wisconsin Watch. “My promise to the people of Wisconsin was — and is — that I will always work to do the right thing and get things done. Now, today, thanks in part to the fair maps we enacted, we’re seeing more collaboration and more compromise than seven years ago, and I believe most Wisconsinites would say that is a good thing because that is how government is supposed to work. So, while we haven’t agreed on 100 percent of the issues 100 percent of the time, I’m proud of the good bipartisan work we’ve accomplished together over the last seven years.”

Evers’ defeat of Republican Gov. Scott Walker in 2018 marked a change in the Legislature’s relationship with the governor’s office. For eight years prior, a Republican governor and Legislature meant conservative ideas — slashing the power of public sector unions, strict voter ID, concealed carry, corporate tax cuts — became law with ease. Evers, a moderate Democrat, became a check on that power. 

In the weeks before Evers officially took office, Walker and the Republican-led Senate and Assembly enacted laws in the lame duck session limiting the power of the incoming Democratic administration.

Since then, and despite Evers’ frequent calls for bipartisanship, the governor and legislative Republicans have been engaged in a yearslong tug-of-war over their powers. It’s a relationship that has been marked by court cases, record-breaking numbers of gubernatorial vetoes and the Legislature advancing numerous constitutional amendments that don’t need Evers’ signature. While Evers has served as a check on far right legislation, Republicans have shrugged at Evers’ calls for special sessions on Democratic issues such as abortion rights and gun safety. 

“I think the most telling was the 2020 COVID experience,” said Barry Burden, director of the Elections Research Center and political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “The state was facing a bunch of crises that year. … There were so many things the state needed to address and there was not a single bill passed in the Legislature and sent to his desk that year. Instead, the two branches were mostly pointing fingers at each other.” 

Despite the partisan battles, every other year a compromise between the two sides has brought the biennial state budget across the finish line on schedule and with billions of dollars in unspent tax revenue that has shored up the state’s fiscal health. 

“The governor is open to meeting with anybody to try and get things done,” said Rep. Christine Sinicki, D-Milwaukee, who was first elected to the Assembly in 1998. 

His easygoing demeanor has helped that relationship with the Legislature, Sinicki said. Republicans seem to recognize that, too. 

“When you talk to Gov. Evers, you realize he’s sincere,” Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, told the audience at a recent WisPolitics event. “I think he’s a sincere person, but (there’s) obviously a lot of things we don’t necessarily agree on.” 

Conflict and the courts

Several power disputes between Evers and the Legislature have ended up before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which transitioned from a conservative to liberal majority during Evers’ two terms. They include: 

• In 2020, the court’s conservative majority sided with Republican lawmakers who challenged the Evers administration’s powers when the governor’s office extended the “Safer at Home” order during the coronavirus pandemic. 
• In late 2023, the court’s new liberal majority struck down the Republican legislative maps, ruling they were unconstitutional. Evers in 2024 signed the current maps into law. 
• In 2025, the liberal majority upheld the governor’s veto powers after Evers used his veto pen to raise school district revenue limits annually for the next 400 years. 

Sen. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield, is leading a constitutional amendment to prevent the governor from using veto powers to increase taxes or fees. 

“The state Supreme Court has given the executive branch unprecedented power,” Kapenga said in a statement to Wisconsin Watch. “Nowhere is this more apparent than in the use of the partial veto pen.” 

One of the other significant disagreements of the Evers era that reached the Supreme Court has been the oversight of administrative rules, or policy changes sought by executive agencies like the Department of Natural Resources. 

Republicans have long criticized these policies as red tape for Wisconsin businesses. The 2018 lame duck legislation gave the Legislature the ability to delay the implementation of policies from state agencies, such as a ban on conversion therapy or updating surface water quality standards. 

Evers sued the Legislature on the issue. In 2025, the Supreme Court’s liberal majority last summer ruled that a key legislative committee that oversees administrative rules could not block the Evers administration’s policies from going into effect. The Legislature is essentially in an advisory role now, said Rep. Adam Neylon, R-Pewaukee, one of the co-chairs of the Joint Committee on Review of Administrative Rules. 

“I think that people are expecting more from an executive role or from the governor and it’s in some ways disrupted the balance of the co-equal branches of government,” Neylon said. “I think, especially a lot of the court decisions upholding the 400-year veto or Evers v. Marklein, which took away our oversight of the rulemaking process, I think we’re in an era now that the power has been slowly drifting into the executive and I think real people do feel that.” 

The balance of power is a legitimate concern for the Legislature to have, but Republicans prior to the Supreme Court’s decision asserted control over the process in ways that often negatively affected public health issues, said Sen. Kelda Roys, D-Madison, one of the Democrats running for governor and a member of the administrative rules committee. 

“The most important legacy is the court decision, Evers v. Marklein, that says, basically, the Legislature can’t be judge, jury and executioner,” Roys said.

What’s next

Whether the partisan battles of split government continue depends on where Wisconsin voters take the state during the 2026 elections later this year. Evers’ departure leaves an open governor’s race. New legislative maps and Democratic gains in both chambers in 2024 set up real competition for control of the Legislature in 2026. 

A unified government with one-party control of the executive and legislative branches could bring a burst of new laws starting in 2027, Burden said. 

But more split government conflicts are also possible, and none of the candidates for governor appears as interested in bipartisan negotiations as Evers, Burden said. Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany cleared the GOP primary field in January. Seven major Democrats are running for governor, including Roys, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, former Department of Administration Secretary Joel Brennan, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, Madison state Rep. Francesca Hong, former Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. CEO Missy Hughes and Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez. 

“He has a more conciliatory tone, I think, than Democrats would like to see,” Burden said. “So if we get divided government again next year in some form, whether it’s a Tiffany governorship or a Democratic governorship and the Legislature at least partly divided, I think the kind of stalemate that we’ve seen will continue and the option to go to the courts or to use constitutional amendments to get around the governor will still be a popular method.”

As Tony Evers delivers his final State of the State, he remains crosswise with the GOP Legislature is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

To the beat of a ceremonial drum, flags representing Wisconsin’s 11 Indigenous nations streamed into the State Assembly Tuesday, carried by military veterans who are regarded as warriors in their tribal communities. Their families and loved ones, many also dressed in traditional regalia, watched from the gallery above during the 2026 State of the Tribes Address.

Chairwoman Nicole Boyd  of the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians thanked her relatives, community members and lawmakers from both political parties for assembling in the ornate room. Boyd’s community lies six hours north of north of the Capitol in the northernmost point of Wisconsin on Lake Superior and within “the ceded territory of the Ojibwi Nations,” the Chairwoman said. 

“Today, you will learn of my beliefs and values and why I think education is the key to making tribal nations in Wisconsin great,” said Boyd. “I intend to reflect on the work our tribal nations accomplished in 2025, and to set a course for the milestones we will celebrate in the future. We are ready to work hard. And we expect that same dedication from our state partners.”

Boyd spoke of “trust” and “responsibility” in the 250-year-old legal relationships tribal communities have with the U.S. government, including court decisions reaffirming tribal sovereignty and the treaties that ceded “millions of acres of our land in this region,” Boyd said. “But for the original inhabitants of this land, the Anishinaabe, trust-responsibility has much deeper meaning. The Anishinaabe were brought to this Earth by the Creator for a greater purpose: To caretake for this place, the people, and all beings. To ensure it now, and for many generations to come. We are not here simply to take. Our ancestors knew this, they fought for this, and they left us the teachings of reciprocity.”

Boyd said that “wealth is not solely defined by monetary value and material items.” Her elders often reminded her that “we’re the richest people on this Earth because we have everything needed to survive from the Anishinaabe Walmart,” a reference to the land and water that has provided Indigenous people with shelter and sustenance for generations. Boyd shared a traditional story that the Anishinaabe once had an abundance of sweet syrup that would flow from the sugar maples in the forests, a gift from the Creator so that they could fulfil their caretaking responsibilities. But one day, the Creator visited the people and found that the Anishinaabe had over-indulged in the syrup and were sleeping lazily under the maple tree. The Creator decided to water down the syrup, causing the people to labor more to get the final product they craved. 

“To this day, the gathering of this bountiful resource from the Anishinaabe Walmart is a lengthy lesson-learning process,” said Boyd. “Some years we have bountiful harvests, and other years we do not. We believe this is a result of many factors, including how well we are taking care of the resource and our responsibilities. We have ecological knowledge about all of our abundant resources in the Anishinaabe Walmart. Yet, when we want to share our views on why we will protect our water, air, land and beans at all costs we continue to be considered radical, or less than our equal counterparts. We could show all the evidence or research in the world, and still be considered wrong. Meaningful diligence is more than just checking a consultation box. It is taking the time to truly understand the impact of something in the past, now and in the future. That is the legal, fiscal, and moral obligation we all must balance together.”

Boyd asked whether tribal communities were wrong to weigh in on changing a national lakeshore to a national park, or to push back when a major oil pipeline project is re-locating near the largest and most pristine aquifer in the region, connected to the Bad River watershed. Boyd asked, “Why is it wrong to expect that feasibility of projects of this magnitude be ecologically sound, and ensure the water will be protected?”

Each time the chairwoman finished a major point, the Assembly parlor would erupt with cheering and applause from tribal members and Assembly Democrats. Republican lawmakers, however, appeared mostly disengaged from the speech with many refusing to applaud, checking their phones frequently, or leaning over to joke and laugh in one another’s ears after Boyd’s remarks. Nevertheless, Boyd pressed on. 

“Your great great grandchildren will not be righting wrongs if you choose this path,” said Boyd. She encouraged people in the room who are unfamiliar with the issues she brought up  to watch the documentary “Bad River: A Story of Defiance.” “I guarantee that you will understand that ‘water is life’ is not a slogan, it’s why we exist,” she said.

Boyd praised Gov. Tony Evers for increasing collaboration with tribal communities. She asked that wild rice be made the state native grain, as it’s been in Minnesota since 1997 and in Michigan since 2003. She said she  hopes the Legislature will take it up during the next session. She also highlighted tribal gaming as a key part of Wisconsin’s economy. Boyd highlighted how the NFL draft, held in Green Bay in cooperation with tribal communities, brought $125 million to Wisconsin. Yet, a lot of sports betting revenue is lost to unregulated and even illegal platforms which operate outside of Wisconsin, and even outside of the U.S. Wisconsin tribes’ efforts to find  a way to regulate and legalize mobile sports betting platforms would help secure even more revenue for Wisconsin, while creating a safer environment for consumers, Boyd said. 

Health care access is another major issue for tribal communities. Boyd said that tribal nations in Wisconsin own 11 qualified health care providers, and have seen decreases in drug overdose deaths. Some tribal communities have been able to build new health care and fitness facilities, with millions of dollars worth of investments supporting the efforts. Yet, drug and alcohol abuse, as well as access to mental health treatment, are top concerns for tribal communities, as are high rates of suicide. Boyd also called on the Legislature to look closely at gun regulation, saying that in some places children are afraid to go to school because of fear of being shot. Assembly Democrats applauded Boyd, while Republican lawmakers held their applause or appeared distracted. 

Boyd also called on the Legislature to take on flavored vape pens which have grown in popularity among youth. “Kids are being expelled and they are experiencing permanent health damage,” said Boyd. Broadening access to healthy food and treatment to prevent and fight cancer are also key areas for the tribes. Boyd herself recounted having lost two uncles, her father, a father-in-law and many community members to cancer since 2024. 

Food sovereignty and independence, as well as supporting local economies based on food, was another issue she highlighted. Tribal communities produce nuts, fish, bison, maple syrup, rice and many other goods which support Wisconsin’s economy. To many tribal communities, food is also medicine, and having access to healthy and culturally appropriate food is something they hold close to their hearts. 

At one point in her speech, Boyd described what life is like “north of Highway 29,” both the successes and challenges. Although tribal communities have made great strides reducing overdose deaths, they’ve also seen a sharp decline in the number of narcotics investigators dedicated to northern Wisconsin. In 2013 there were four resident narcotic investigators from the state Department of Justice, Boyd said. In 2022 there were only three, and today there are none. Access to emergency medical services is another thing tribal communities hope to work with lawmakers to expand. “We need your partnership,” said Boyd.

Boyd praised Evers for acknowledging the crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, a remark which earned applause from both Democrats and Republicans. Tuesday was the last time Evers would attend a State of the Tribes Address as governor. Boyd said that the newly established state Office of Violence Prevention is a good start, but not enough. Women hold important roles in Indigenous communities as the givers of life and matriarchs of their tribes, she said. On Tuesday for her address, Boyd chose to wear strawberry-colored clothing, symbolic of the moon under which her daughter was born. 

Boyd called on the Legislature to make greater investments in education, cultural immersion schools and professionals trained in language. She  called on the Legislature to consider establishing free school lunch programs for children, another remark which earned standing ovations and applause from Democrats but not Republicans. She also pushed for expanded access to higher education, with just 1.6% of college students in Wisconsin being from a tribal community, she said.

She thanked the Department of Transportation for creating dual-language signs around tribal nations, and for establishing a Ho Chunk World War II Memorial highway. Finally, Boyd also called on the Legislature to work together to finally legalize cannabis in Wisconsin. The chairwoman stressed that over 60% of voters want legalization, and that there is great interest among tribal communities to use this “plant medicine” for pain, PTSD, and other chronic ailments. “Wisconsinites are beyond ready and growing more impatient with lawmakers every day on this topic,” Boyd said.

In conclusion, Boyd said that tribes have worked hard to shield themselves from what she called “attacks on human decency” from militarized federal immigration raids as well as increased surveillance and cuts to essential services including  SNAP and Head Start. “Wisconsin is our home,” said Boyd. “The motivation to protect our home may never be relatable to some…I urge us to be vigilant and not surrender our values.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Wisconsin’s version of C-SPAN is back online after going dark for about seven weeks due to a lack of funding.

In a vote tallied Monday, a state Legislature committee unanimously approved funding to the nonprofit public affairs network. 

WisconsinEye’s website was back up Monday morning, including its archive of old videos of hearings and legislative sessions. The nonprofit also livestreamed a press conference in the Capitol Monday and has plans to broadcast legislative activity Tuesday.

It comes after the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Legislative Organization voted 10-0 to approve $50,000 to WisconsinEye for operations costs to resume broadcasting for the Legislature for February. 

Those costs will be divided equally between the Senate and Assembly. The full Legislature does not need to vote on the funding.

WisEye went offline on Dec. 15. At the time, the network said it needed “consistent annual funding” to ensure the public doesn’t “lose the only reliable and proven source of unfiltered State Capitol news and state government proceedings.” In November, the network said it needed $887,000 in donations to cover its operation budget for one year.

During WisconsinEye’s absence, Republican state lawmakers enforced rules banning members of the public who are not credentialed media from recording legislative hearings inside the State Capitol. 

In late January, leaders from both political parties announced they reached a deal to fund the public affairs network.

WisEye has created a GoFundMe with the goal of raising $250,000, or three months of its operating budget. As of Monday morning, the campaign had raised more than $56,000.

WisconsinEye CEO Jon Henkes did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Monday. He had previously asked the Legislature and governor to remove a matching provision for roughly $10 million in state funding for the network that was included in the most recent state budget.

While WisEye may still face long-term funding challenges, Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, said it’s good news for Wisconsinites that the network is broadcasting again.

In addition to providing live coverage of legislative meetings for residents who can’t make it to Madison, Lueders said WisEye’s archive of past meetings is important for historical purposes because it provides a record of the debates and discussions that took place in state government.

“WisconsinEye has long been a tremendously important resource for Wisconsin and advances the cause of transparency in government by letting people see the process of laws being made,” he said. “It was a very sad thing that it was forced to go offline for about six weeks or so. I’m glad that they found a way to bring it back.”

This story was originally published by WPR.

WisconsinEye resumes coverage at the State Capitol is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

A bill moving through the Wisconsin Legislature would offer low-interest loans to small dairy farmers to boost efficiency as the state’s dairy industry rapidly consolidates into larger industrial operations.

But ahead of the state’s legislative session, which resumed in early January, major farm and dairy industry representatives pushed for changes that would allow large industrial farms to access the loans, according to lobbying communications and draft legislation obtained by Investigate Midwest through open records requests.

The state has lost nearly 18,000 dairy farms over the past two decades and, as of 2022, has roughly 6,000 operating dairy farms, with small-scale farms dwindling rapidly. 

Wisconsin dairy farms with fewer than 500 cattle have decreased 67% since 2002. Almost every county in the state has lost at least half of its small farms in that same time, according to an Investigate Midwest USDA data analysis.

Senate Bill 323, introduced in July 2025, would set aside $20 million to create an innovation program for dairy farmers in the state to fund the purchase of new equipment or expand animal health practices to produce more milk. Farmers would apply through the state’s agriculture department.

Bill authors said farmers could also use the funds to develop manure management plans, create products from manure and improve animal health and outputs to produce higher-quality products, such as buttermilk. Medium and small dairy farmers can access up to $500,000 administered by the state’s agricultural department. 

The bill was passed by the Senate 18 to 15 on Jan. 21 and can now be heard by the state Assembly.

Dispute over dairy herd sizes

State Sen. Rob Stafsholt, a New Richmond Republican who authored the bill, said economic sustainability has been an issue brought to him by farm operators throughout his rural, northwestern district.

“Some of the technology that can make farmers as efficient as possible and would help the smaller guys to compete with the bigger guys is often financially out of reach for our small and medium farms,” he said. 

The Wisconsin dairy industry is worth nearly $53 billion, and its farms have become increasingly larger in recent years, while the overall number of farms continues to decrease. This trend has created legal clashes between rural towns and dairy farms across the state.

Bigger farms increase profitability by working with consolidated dairy processing companies. Small operations also work with large-scale processors but often rely on boutique dairy product sales, such as those from small-scale creameries or co-ops.

Cost is a major factor in the decline of small farms. The cost of operating a dairy farm in the U.S. has nearly doubled in the last decade, while the price farmers receive for their milk has fallen 15% in the same time frame, according to an analysis of USDA data.

The Wisconsin Farm Bureau and the Dairy Business Association, lobbying and advocacy groups for the state’s dairy and agriculture sector, both asked bill authors to remove the bill’s limit on the number of animal units a farm could have to apply for funding.

In Wisconsin, animal units are a metric primarily used to determine whether a farm meets the threshold for being considered a concentrated animal feeding operation, otherwise known as a CAFO. A single animal unit does not equate to a single animal. For example, a dairy cow is the equivalent of 1.4 animal units, while it would take roughly 30 chickens to equal a single animal unit.

Farms with 1,000 or more animal units have to apply for additional permits through the state’s Department of Natural Resources to manage waste. As farms get larger, increased waste can lead to runoff and pollution problems for nearby communities and waterways. Livestock runoff has been linked to cancers, infant deaths and miscarriages. 

The current bill language sets an applicant’s limit at roughly 999 animal units, or roughly 700 dairy cattle.

In a letter to the bill authors, the Wisconsin Farm Bureau requested that the cap be removed, allowing the size of the farm to be part of the determination when applying for funding, rather than disallowing a larger farm from applying altogether. 

“By aligning the program’s design with its intent, the bill can more effectively support on-farm innovation and ensure that Wisconsin farmers of all sizes have the opportunity to modernize, improve herd health, and maintain our state’s leadership in agricultural innovation,” the letter stated. 

The Dairy Business Association, a trade group headquartered in Green Bay and operated by a board of executives with ties to CAFOs across the state, dairy processors and cheesemakers, told lawmakers in a letter that the state’s large farms provide stability to the milk supply and should be a part of the funding pool.

“A strong dairy economy depends on participation from farms of all sizes,” the letter states. “If this program’s eligibility criteria exclude large farms, the ripple effects will weaken — not strengthen — rural Wisconsin.”

Records show that Dairy Business Association lobbyists met with bill authors soon after the bill text was circulated in early June 2025 to discuss the herd size provision and other concerns with the legislation. The Dairy Business Association did not respond to requests for comment. 

The office of state Rep. Clint Moses, a Menomonie Republican who co-introduced a similar bill in the state’s Assembly, provided an early draft of a bill amendment to Dairy Business Association lobbyists ahead of the release of the amendment, according to an Aug. 5, 2025, email.

Despite meetings with lobbyists to express concerns about the bill’s language regarding herd size, the language has not changed to remove the animal unit cap. 

Darin Von Ruden, president of the Wisconsin Farmers Union, said that if the legislation caps farm size, the funding will help more farmers. He said the Wisconsin Farmers Union supports maintaining the animal unit limit in the current legislation and will continue to watch the bill closely. 

“The dollars that are available there could be easily swallowed up by two or three of the biggest farms in the state, and then nobody else will be able to be a part of that process,” Von Ruden said.

Stafsholt, the senator who introduced the bill, said that the original purpose of the bill was to support small and medium-sized farms and that keeping a limit on animal units will stop large farms from taking larger pieces of the program’s budget. 

“Going forward, I have no intention of switching that number,” he said. 

Bill addresses dairy’s undocumented workforce

The bill also points to the realities of drafting legislation affecting the dairy industry and navigating the sector’s open secret: undocumented labor. 

Draft legislation shows bill authors intent on blocking farms that use undocumented labor from qualifying for the loan program. The current version of the bill would only allow farms that employ workers who are authorized to work in the state to apply for the program.

There are no definitive counts of the number of undocumented laborers working on Wisconsin dairy farms, but research estimates that nearly 70% of the state’s dairy industry relies on undocumented labor. 

“I don’t have an issue with (farms) doing what they are doing,” Stafsholt said. “It’s more about following the law. We want to make sure taxpayer dollars funding the dairy cattle innovation program are not necessarily being utilized by those who fail to follow the basic law.”

In September 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested dairy farm workers in Manitowoc County as part of a larger raid in the area. This comes as ICE raids have hit major agricultural industries and cities, detaining workers and increasing anxiety throughout the labor force. 

Lobbyists from both the Farm Bureau and the Dairy Business Association initially expressed concerns about the impact this limitation would have. 

In an August email from a member of Stafsholt’s staff to the senator, meeting notes show that Dairy Business Association representatives expressed concerns about the original requirement that farms employ only individuals legally authorized to work in Wisconsin, but that language remains in the current version. 

“After conversations with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection on how the bill provision will be facilitated and discussions with the bill authors, staff, and stakeholders, we are not prioritizing changing that provision,” Jason Mugnaini, a Wisconsin Farm Bureau lobbyist, told Investigate Midwest in December.

This article first appeared on Investigate Midwest and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

CAFOs want in on proposal meant to help Wisconsin’s small dairy farms is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 6 minutes

In a flurry of activity at the Capitol last week, Wisconsin lawmakers held more than 30 public meetings and two Assembly floor sessions, advancing bills on issues from eliminating taxes on tips and overtime to placing regulations on data centers. 

For the first time in two decades, none of the actions were live-streamed, video-recorded or archived for those who sought to follow the legislative process outside of the building in Madison. 

It’s a stark change at the Capitol where, since 2007, lawmakers, lobbyists, journalists and the public could rely on WisconsinEye — the nonpartisan public affairs network that functions sort of like Wisconsin’s version of C-SPAN — to record and archive legislative committees, floor sessions, press conferences and other political events around the state.

After more than 18 years, WisconsinEye went offline in mid-December after it did not raise enough funds to operate in 2026. The organization launched a GoFundMe on Jan. 12 to raise $250,000 to get back online, equal to about three months of its operating budget. About $13,000 was raised as of Friday afternoon.  

“Without this funding, WisconsinEye could lose up to four highly skilled staff members,” the online fundraiser states. “Thus putting the network at considerable risk of failure.”

While the gap in live video coverage continues in Wisconsin, this is not an issue for four of Wisconsin’s neighboring states where the legislatures provide recordings rather than rely on a separate entity. Legislative chambers in Minnesota, Iowa and Michigan provide video streams and recordings of floor sessions and committee meetings, Wisconsin Watch found. 

The Illinois Channel, a public affairs network founded in 2003, provides programming on state government, but the network no longer has cameras in the legislative chambers after the Illinois General Assembly began providing video and audio feeds in the House and Senate. 

The approach varies around the country. In 2022, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported half of the states, including Wisconsin, televised broadcasts of the legislature. Some of the entities responsible for recording the sausage-making process are connected to public broadcasting stations, and others are tied to state governments. The Connecticut Network, for example, is a partnership between a nonprofit and the state legislature, but is solely funded by the Connecticut General Assembly. WisconsinEye has historically been privately funded, except for two one-time grants from the state prior to 2023.

WisconsinEye’s creation as a separate network from state government stemmed from a 1995 legislative study committee that recommended televised coverage of the Legislature be done by an organization independent of state funding, said WisconsinEye President and CEO Jon Henkes. 

“Based on the recommendation of the study committee itself and the donor reality at that time … the cornerstone was laid as an independent, nongovernment-controlled, nongovernment-funded public affairs network,” Henkes said. 

Over the last 18 years, Henkes said WisconsinEye’s reputation for independent coverage of state government assuaged concerns from donors over whether the organization could receive state support. The Legislature created a $10 million endowment for the network during the 2023-25 budget process. But those funds can only be accessed if WisconsinEye raises a private amount equal to a request it makes of the Joint Finance Committee. The 2025-27 budget provided $250,000 to WisconsinEye from that $10 million fund without any match requirement. 

Since WisconsinEye’s departure from the Capitol, Republican lawmakers have also started to strictly enforce rules prohibiting people from recording and filming during committee meetings, although credentialed journalists are still able to do so. The Wisconsin Senate’s chief clerk in a memo this month said the Senate’s rules on prohibiting filming supersede the state’s open meetings law.

Rep. Jerry O’Connor, R-Fond du Lac, told the Wisconsin Examiner there are concerns about whether video filmed during committees can be filmed for political aims, particularly the political ads that will be blanketing TV and online media this upcoming fall. That wasn’t the case with WisconsinEye, which prohibited use of its videos for political or campaign purposes in its user agreement. 

Democrats blamed Republicans for allowing legislative activities to continue “in darkness.” 

“This is a step in the wrong direction and it erodes the public’s trust in this institution,” said Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer, D-Racine. 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, in a press briefing last week dismissed the idea that enforcing the rules banning recording while WisconsinEye is not operating lessens transparency at the Capitol. 

“I think we have had about 48,000 bills passed before WisconsinEye went into effect, and I think the public was well served by the media reporting on them,” he said. “We’ve had literally hundreds of session days, thousands of session days, so this idea that if some activist is not allowed to record people, that that’s not transparent, we’ve got plenty of transparency. That’s why we’re here today.” 

Other state legislatures 

While Wisconsin’s neighboring states record legislative proceedings, each state differs on what is recorded, the resources available to provide video of the legislature and whether there are any restrictions on filming. 

In Michigan, the state House and Senate separately handle video streaming for their own chamber. Videos in both chambers are prohibited from use for political purposes, according to Michigan House and Senate rules. 

The Michigan Senate has a TV Department that records all Senate sessions and up to three committees at the same time, a Senate staff member told Wisconsin Watch. Video recordings from 2020 onward are posted to the Senate’s streaming website, but the chamber has an archive of offline videos dating back to 2003. 

The Michigan House provides “gavel-to-gavel” coverage of session and committee proceedings, including archived videos, which can be accessed on its website and YouTube channel, according to the state’s House clerk. 

The Minnesota House and Senate also individually handle video recordings of their chamber’s legislative activities through nonpartisan media departments. In the Minnesota House, the Public Information Services department controls the TV production of the chamber’s floor proceedings, committees and select press conferences. The department has 12 permanent staff and brings on 14 part-time staff members when the legislature is in session, according to the department’s executive director. Minnesota’s House and Senate media departments do not have any bans on the use of footage in campaign materials, staff said. 

In Iowa, specific individuals in each chamber are in charge of the livestreams of legislative activities. All floor sessions and committees are filmed while legislative subcommittees are not, the Senate clerk’s office told Wisconsin Watch. It did not respond to questions about whether the state has limitations on how videos can be used. 

But while Wisconsin’s neighboring state legislatures provide the live footage of legislative proceedings, Terry Martin, the executive director of the Illinois Channel, questioned if there could be limitations placed on a state-offered service depending on who is in power, pointing to Rod Blagojevich, the former Democratic Illinois governor who was convicted of corruption-related crimes.

“Somebody like Rod Blagojevich, if we had been funded by him, by the state, would have said, if you don’t do it my way, I’m going to cut your funding,” said Martin, who ran for Congress as a Republican in Illinois in 2022. 

The Illinois Channel has not accepted funding from the state of Illinois for its operations, Martin said. 

The path forward

Both Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and legislative leaders said they are open to options that can resolve the gap left by WisconsinEye. 

Vos said he hopes there can be a “bipartisan answer.” Democrats and Republicans have had discussions on the topic, but there is no concrete next step yet, Neubauer said. 

Evers told reporters he would not support simply giving WisconsinEye the money allocated without matching funds. 

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

Neubauer told reporters the endowment’s $10 million matching requirement may not have been realistic for WisconsinEye.

“We would, of course, like to see more fundraising,” Neubauer said. “But I don’t think we set them up for success with the provision that was in the budget.” 

Henkes said WisconsinEye is simply asking state leaders for support by providing nine months of its operating budget and then, in following years, investing the approved endowment funds and directing the earnings annually to the network. WisconsinEye would still require private support. A $10 million endowment conservatively invested can generate a half-million dollars each year. WisconsinEye’s annual budget is about $900,000.

That specific scenario is not how the language in the budget that created the WisconsinEye endowment is set up to work, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Changes to the law would likely be needed to direct the state to invest those dollars, LFB staff said.

Henkes said he hopes a decision comes soon. 

“I mean, frankly, if this cannot be resolved in the next several weeks, WisconsinEye will have no choice but to fold up the tent and everybody goes home,” he said.

Why has WisconsinEye gone dark and what can be done about it? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Wisconsin’s Democratic Gov. Tony Evers called on the Republican-controlled Legislature to act on a broad array of his priorities in his final year in office, even if it means working for longer than they are scheduled to be in session.

Republicans are unlikely to follow Evers’ call to action on many of the proposals he outlined in a letter, just a year after they rejected the same or similar ideas in his state budget. But Evers expressed optimism that bipartisan agreement is near on several issues, including protecting funding for SNAP, the country’s main food aid program, and combating water pollution caused by PFAS chemicals.

“We have a year left and it’s not all about me,” Evers, who opted against seeking a third term, told reporters on Monday. “All of the things that need to be addressed, many of them can be.”

Evers has served as the swing state’s governor since 2019, helping Democrat Joe Biden narrowly win the state on the way to becoming president in 2020. President Donald Trump carried Wisconsin in 2024 and in 2016, both times by less than 1 percentage point.

Evers’ term ends in a year, but he’s focused on setting up his party to take back the legislative majority for the first time since they lost it in 2010.

In 2024 Evers signed new district maps that helped Democrats chip into Republican majorities in the Assembly and Senate. Democrats are also counting on anger toward Trump helping them in the midterm.

The Legislature is scheduled to be done with its session by mid-March, giving lawmakers more time to campaign for the fall election. The Assembly is planning to quit in mid-February. But Evers said Monday that there’s still time to advance Democratic priorities.

“I think it’s bad politics to say we’re done in February, we’re done in March, and we’ll see you at the polls,” Evers said. “That doesn’t work. I don’t think it’s a good message. We have the opportunity to do some good things.”

Evers called for bipartisanship to tackle issues that have long been Democratic priorities, such as increasing public school funding, lowering health care costs and enacting gun control laws.

While many of his proposals are likely to be summarily rejected, Evers said Democrats and Republicans were close on reaching deals to release $125 million in funding to combat PFAS pollution. He also said both sides were close to an agreement that would put additional safeguards in place to ensure Wisconsin isn’t penalized by the federal government for errors in who gets SNAP food assistance.

Evers called on lawmakers to spend $1.3 billion more on public schools in an effort to reduce property taxes, a month after homeowners across the state received higher tax bills. Republicans blame Evers because of a veto he issued that allows schools to increase spending limits for 400 years. But that is only one part of the complicated school aid formula. Evers and school officials have said funding from the state has not kept pace with expenses, forcing schools to ask voters to approve referendums for an increase in property taxes to make up the difference.

If schools aren’t given more money, Evers said “we’re in a world of hurt” because property taxes will only continue to increase.

Republican legislative leaders, in interviews with The Associated Press last month, did not express support for increasing general school aid funding.

“We have to have a bigger conversation about how we’re going to fund schools long term than just saying we’re gonna put more money to the same formula doing the same thing,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said.

Evers also urged the Legislature to make progress on his plan to close a 128-year-old prison in Green Bay as part of a larger overhaul of the correctional system. In October, the state building commission approved $15 million for planning. But once that is spent, absent further action, the work will stall, Evers said.

“We have to get this across the finish line,” he said.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Gov. Tony Evers urges Wisconsin Legislature to act on his key priorities in his final year is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.