Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) and Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) told reporters that they would be starting from “base” with the budget. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Joint Finance Committee kicked off its work on the next Wisconsin State Budget Thursday by eliminating over 600 items from Gov. Tony Evers’ sweeping budget proposal, saying they would start from “base” and his budget had too much “irresponsible” spending. Democrats criticized Republicans for blocking all of Evers’ proposals without presenting a plan of their own to address the concerns of everyday Wisconsinites.

The committee spent last month hearing from members of the public, many of whom called for investments in public education and health care, and from some agency heads, who have defended Gov. Tony Evers’ budget requests. The state has a $4 billion budget surplus it’s considering, and Evers proposed the state tap those funds and raise income taxes on the wealthiest Wisconsinites to fund his proposals. 

The list that lawmakers eliminated from the budget bill spanned about 20 pages and includes a new 9.8% income tax bracket for high-income earners, Medicaid expansion, nearly $500 million for the Child Care Counts program, marijuana legalization and taxation, $125 million to create a grant program to address PFAS, $200 million to address the replacement of lead pipes and other provisions to help address lead poisoning and many provisions related to public schools including free school meals, a “grow your own” teaching program and ensuring access to menstrual supplies in schools, funding for the Office of School Safety and a provision to cap participation in the state’s voucher programs.

Ahead of the budget meeting, committee co-chairs Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) and Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) told reporters that they would be starting from “base” with the budget, meaning removing all of the items and taking the budget back to the one in place for 2023-2025. 

Born said legislators are accustomed to “the way we have to manage the governor’s executive budgets.” Since Evers took office in 2019, Republicans have kicked off every  budget cycle by removing all of his proposals.

“Unfortunately, [Evers] sends us an executive budget that’s just piles full of stuff that doesn’t make sense and spends recklessly and raises taxes and has way too much policy,” Born said. “So, we’ll work from base and the first step of that today is to remove all that policy… and then begin the work of rebuilding the budget.”

Responding to Democrats’ criticism  that Republicans are removing items that are popular with the public, Marklein said they should draft separate bills and use the regular legislative process to advance those ideas. 

“I can point to things in the budget bill that we’re going to pull up that I like… and we’re pulling that out as well. It’s a policy,” Marklein said. “It’s got nothing to do with the budget.” 

Born noted that there are also other ways that lawmakers could address issues of concern apart from Evers’ suggestions, saying the removal of items “doesn’t mean that when we build this budget over the next couple of months, we won’t impact those areas in positive and significant ways.”

“The governor has one idea on how to fund child care or one idea on how to impact mental health,” Born said. “There are other ways that we can do that in current law and current budget operations by inserting more money in things that I can most likely see us do.”

Marklein also noted that there could be some changes to how they go about drafting the budget this year following the state Supreme Court upholding Evers’ partial veto in the last budget.

“I anticipate that you’re not going to see too many references to digits, years anymore,” Marklein said. “My guess is that our drafting attorneys are going to recommend that you spell out those years, and those dates in the budget.” Born said the decision could also affect the education budget because there are increases already “baked into the cake.” 

Evers slammed Republicans for gutting his proposal, saying that they are refusing to help Wisconsinites.

“The most frustrating part for me as governor is that Republicans consistently reject basic, commonsense proposals that can help kids, families, farmers, seniors and Wisconsinites across our state, all while Republicans offer no real or meaningful alternative of their own,” Evers said. “Republicans talk a lot about what they’re against, but not what they’re for.”

During the meeting, Democrats proposed keeping 19 items in the budget across a handful of motions that touched on certain issue areas, saying they hoped they could carve out some spots for agreement. 

One would have placed $420 million back in the budget to fund the Child Care Counts program, as well as several other child care related measures. 

Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) said Republicans are “willing to pull out really, really important items” and said the child care proposals are essential, warning that money for the Child Care Counts program is expected to expire in June. 

“We are at risk of losing 87,000 [child care] slots… The fact that these things are being pulled out of the budget today and as of today, there is no mention or discussion of a replacement plan for something as important as this,” she said, is creating uncertainty among Wisconsinites and exacerbating a crisis. 

“Our children deserve quality services. Our families deserve affordable rates,” Johnson said. 

Another motion would have placed Medicaid expansion back in the budget. Wisconsin is one of only 10 states that haven’t accepted the federal expansion, which would allow coverage for those up to 138% of the federal poverty line. 

“Families are struggling to afford the care they need, and we have an opportunity — and I would argue an obligation — to do something,” Andraca said.

Andraca noted that Congressional Republicans, including Wisconsin U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, are considering cuts to the Medicaid program as they aim to extend the 2017 tax cuts from President Donald Trump’s first term.

“We heard how people are fearful of cuts to the programs that they rely on, and they are forced to make increasingly hard choices between groceries and prescriptions,” Andraca said. “Are you still willing to turn your backs on the people who entrusted us to vote for their best interests? Honestly, our constituents deserve better than this.”

The final proposal from Democrats would have kept items in the budget related to veterans including tax credits for veterans, funding for a veterans’ mental health program and for the Wisconsin Veterans Museum as well as an item to designate Juneteenth and Veterans Day as holidays. 

Rep. Tip McGuire (R-Kenosha) said he hoped they could agree on not making veterans’ lives harder.

“I recognize that it’s sort of the whole brand of the Republican party right now is to make everyone’s life a little bit more difficult,” McGuire said. “Certainly, it’s harder to travel in this country, It’s harder for people to access health insurance, it’s harder for people to afford college or go to college or manage their student loans. It’s harder for people to afford groceries and there may even be a question of what you can have full shelves soon… I know it’s your whole brand to make people’s lives harder, but I think we can all agree… [veterans] should still deserve some support.” 

Republicans rejected each motion.

McGuire doubled down on his point, saying that Republicans’ opposition to supporting even smaller parts of Evers’ proposal is a sign that they don’t want to help the average person.

“People are struggling and it is a challenging world and the one thing we should not be doing the one thing that nobody votes for their legislator to do is to make their life harder,” McGuire said. “Yet, that is all we are seeing out of the Republican party right now. That’s all we see out of the federal Republican party and frankly the Republican party here,” McGuire said, noting that Republican lawmakers recently passed legislation that would place additional restrictions on unemployment benefits.

“You’re making things less affordable and more difficult for regular [people] and that’s bad and we shouldn’t do it,” McGuire said.

Marklein said he was “glad we’re going back to base” because Evers’ budget proposal included a 20% increase in spending, an additional 1,300 positions funded by general purpose revenue and an increase in taxes. 

“When I talk to my constituents about the process, they are truly supportive of us not starting from this inflated budget that [Evers] put before us,” Marklein said, noting that Evers signed the last budget after they went through a similar process. “The idea that the door is closed on all these things is pretty ridiculous.” 

McGuire pushed back on Marklein’s comments, saying that lawmakers are pretending it is a “nice and friendly” process. 

“Part of the process that occurs here today is that not only do you remove the governor’s budget items, which make life easier for Wisconsinites, but then, you also prohibit anyone from ever discussing them ever again,” McGuire said. “And that’s really bizarre… This is a top-down totalitarian committee where we’re not permitted to discuss things past a certain point.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Parents with the "Learn in My Shoes" campaign including Amanda Sherman and Melanie Grosse stand before the Joint Finance Committee at a public hearing in West Allis. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin’s special education reimbursement rate has been a concern for public school advocates for many years, but with districts’ reliance on school referendum requests increasing and federal support in doubt, the state’s reimbursement rate is quickly becoming one of the top issues this budget cycle.

Public school districts currently get about 30% of their special education costs reimbursed by the state. Advocates have called to increase that to at least 60% and as much as 90%, which is the amount that private and charter schools participating in the state’s voucher programs already get.

Tiffany Schanno, a Sheboygan parent, and Melissa Custer, a Grafton parent, have been showing up at state budget hearings and meeting in the Capitol to bring awareness to the experience of families seeking special education services in schools.

“We both have kids with disabilities who are trying to access special education, and we both experienced a lot of obstacles just trying to get our children accessible education, and the thing that we discovered is that it all comes down to funding,” Schanno said in an interview with the Examiner. “There’s only so much as far as resources to go around, so a lot of times families are competing against each other for services.” 

The pair put together a display — titled “Learn in My Shoes” — that included letters from families about their children’s experience receiving services and financial strains on schools. They placed the letters in a pair of children’s shoes. Custer said they thought having a visual representation and sharing stories would give lawmakers a “small taste” of the reality.

One letter described how educators and paraprofessionals have helped 12-year-old James “communicate with peers, become more confident and able to share more of who he is in meaningful ways.” James received important supports thanks to a “persistent” parent who said not all parents understand the process or know how to advocate for what their children need.  

“Because public school budgets are stretched to the point of hundreds of referendums over the past few years, families don’t ask for what they need because they don’t want to be thought of as burdensome,” the parent wrote. “Our family can find workarounds to an extent, but many others cannot. All children deserve an equal opportunity to a sound public education, and funding that keeps up with cost increases.”

Another parent said her son, who has Prader-Willi Syndrome, requires specialized support to navigate school safely and help with emotional regulation, transitions and physical safety. 

“Due to funding shortages, services are stretched thin… ” the parent wrote. “My children — and thousands of others across Wisconsin — deserve a chance to succeed, to feel safe, and to receive the support they need to reach their potential. Please make this a priority.” 

Schanno and Custer delivered the shoes and letters to lawmakers.

Schanno said some lawmakers expressed skepticism that additional state money would actually be used for special education. She said that isn’t a “valid argument” since federally mandated special education costs are carefully tracked.

“It’s not like you’re just giving a district a whole bunch of money and trusting them to use it for the right thing,” she said.

“Ultimately, what I took away from our visits… is that we have a long way to go with people understanding more about disability in general … and about the value in educating people who are different than they are,” Schanno said.

Proposals in discussion

Gov. Tony Evers proposed in his state budget that the reimbursement rate be raised to 60%. Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green), have acknowledged education funding as a top concern for  the public, and some, including Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), have said they want to put more money into  special education, but it is unclear what Republican lawmakers will support. 

As Republican lawmakers seek a deal on tax cuts, WisPolitics reports that spokesperson Britt Cudaback said Evers “expects Republicans to come to the table on investing in education at every level, among other critical priorities, in order to move forward.”

During the last budget cycle, lawmakers increased the special ed reimbursement rate, though Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) notes it was a sum-certain rate, meaning there is a finite amount of money available, so the rate of reimbursement is not guaranteed as funds run low. The current reimbursement rate is hovering around 30%.

“School funding is complex” and special education funding is the “baseline that we absolutely should be doing,” Larson said. Special education funding in Wisconsin peaked at 70% in 1973 and at one point was as low as about 24.5% in 2018-19.

Larson supports increasing the rate to 90%. He said he thinks Evers’ 60% proposal is looking at it “from a political standpoint of what he perceives as what he wants to start the negotiations at in the budget with Republicans instead of what’s needed” and also taking into consideration other budget priorities. 

“That’s helpful and that would be significant and still double the percentage of what schools are currently getting, and I appreciate that…” Larson said. “I would hope that the governor would say 60% or veto.”

Larson also noted Evers’ budget would change special education reimbursement from sum certain to sum sufficient — so reimbursements at the set rate would be guaranteed.

Larson said he hopes his Republican colleagues support boosting the rate. 

“It still baffles me that some people think this is a partisan thing. Schools all over the state need help. The districts that are going to referendum are rural, they’re urban and they’re suburban. There’s nobody who’s special who is dodging this. Everybody is getting screwed over by the state,” Larson said. “I hope that the folks, the Republicans, who hold the narrow majority in the Assembly and in the Senate, would listen to their constituents who are saying, ‘Stop throwing this on us to cover your gap.’”

Special ed reimbursement could relieve referendum pressure

The discussion about school funding, especially for special education, comes as school districts have increasingly come to rely on referendum requests. Public school leaders, advocates and Democratic lawmakers have said increasing the special education reimbursement to at least 60% could help relieve some of that pressure.

Anne Chapman, research director for the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials Association, said that increasing special education funding by a significant amount would allow school districts to not have to pull as much money from their general funds for the mandated services.

“You would see way fewer referendums, and you would see kids surge with better programs,” Chapman said. 

According to the Wisconsin Policy Forum, just this year there were 94 referendum requests across February and April elections with about a third of those representing “retry” efforts. As schools continue to rely on referendum requests to meet costs, Republican and Democratic lawmakers are seeking ways to change the dynamic, though the latter are focused on providing additional state funding, while the former are focused on implementing new restrictions. 

Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) said a memo from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau that compares recent referendum requests to the amount of unreimbursed special education costs illustrates the correlation. He said he asked for the memo after noticing a detail about the finances of the Eau Claire School District. 

“Eau Claire’s unreimbursed special education dollar amount was equivalent to the amount of money that they were asking for in their referendum just to not go too far into the red in their budget,” Phelps said, adding that he wondered “how widespread is this pattern?”

The 128 school districts that sought operating referendums in 2024, a record-breaking year, had over $488 million in unreimbursed special education costs for the 2022-23 school year, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau. The bureau’s memo also found that about one-fifth of the referendum requests in 2024 were equal to or exceeded special education costs that were unreimbursed by the state in 2022-23.

Some examples include: 

• Bangor School District had a recurring referendum request for $900,000 that failed in 2024. Its unreimbursed special education costs were $973,299 in 2022-23. 
• Edgerton School District had a $3,500,000 recurring request that passed. Its unreimbursed special education costs were $3,520,303. 
• Eau Claire School District had a successful $18,000,000 request. Its unreimbursed special education costs were $17,933,991. 

In some cases, a referendum request was for more than the unreimbursed costs, but even those were still close. Hamilton School District passed a $7,600,000 recurring referendum in 2024. The total of its unreimbursed special education costs was $6,128,870. 

“Funding special ed fully lifts all boats,” Phelps said. “When we have an underfunded special ed system, we are creating discrimination and disparity against students with disabilities. The services are mandated, so we’re paying for them one way or the other.” He added that right now, property taxpayers are making up for the state’s low reimbursement rate, and school districts are depleting their general funds. 

“Who loses when we’re stretching funds like that? Literally, every kid,” Phelps said, adding that funding special education through referendum isn’t effective because it’s also unpredictable. 

“When referendums happen, they either pass or fail, so now this district is better off than that district for no reason other than the fact that they both had to ask their voters for a referendum, and so we have disparities… when there is literally a pile of billions of dollars sitting around,” Phelps said, referencing the state’s $4 billion budget surplus. 

“It’s a gold mine in state budgeting to find something that you could do that just so clearly lifts all boats,” Phelps added. 

While Phelps said 60% is a compromise, he said the request from Evers is significant.

“It was not that long ago, public ed advocates were literally getting laughed out of rooms when they would ask for 60%,” Phelps said. “Now, the pressure is just too big, and you’re not getting laughed at for asking for 60[%] anymore.”

Derek Gottlieb, an associate professor at the University of Northern Colorado and senior research director for School Perceptions, an education research firm, also said the state could pick up more of the cost of special ed than Evers’ proposed 60%. 

“Even if the state didn’t touch revenue limits, even if the state continued to fail to raise just revenue limits upward to keep pace with inflation, we would see many, many, many fewer operating referendums if the state just paid 100% of special education expenditures…” Gottlieb said. “It is shameful, frankly, that the state has done less.”

Federal upheaval shadows special ed funding debate 

During a virtual public forum in April, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction leaders said the discussion about federal and state special education funding are connected.

State Superintendent Jill Underly said as reimbursement rates remain low, local communities will continue to take on the cost of the federal- and state-mandated services. 

The special education reimbursement rate “is rather low — it’s 29% now, based on last year’s numbers — but the federal government also has a reimbursement rate, and it’s even lower,” Underly said during the session. “What this would indicate is that our schools are still going to provide the services, because that’s what our schools do. It’s just that they’re not going to be reimbursed fully for them, so the burden is going to shift more to the local school districts to compensate the costs.”

The comments come as the future of the federal government’s role in special education is in flux. The Trump administration has pushed to close the U.S. Department of Education, slashing its workforce and seeking to move “special needs” programs to the Department of Health and Human Services. 

During the forum, Deputy State Superintendent Thomas McCarthy noted that when it comes to federal funding “special education is one of the things that, by and large, everyone has said, we’re not going to reduce the states now.” 

“That is what I know today, ask me next week, it could be on the chopping block,” McCarthy said. Trump’s recent “skinny budget” proposal seeks to cut 15% from the education budget, but says it isn’t cutting funding for special education, though it does propose consolidating several Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) grant programs into one. 

As the upheaval creates uncertainty, DPI leaders encouraged Wisconsinites to take the  opportunity to advocate for more funding. 

When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act became law in 1975, the federal government said it would fund 40% of special education costs, Underly noted. The federal contribution now hovers around 10%.

“When they are arguing that they’re going to make things more efficient at the U.S. Department of Ed or in the federal government… What are they going to do with those savings? This would be a great example. Well, let’s authorize Congress to reimburse up to 40% of special education costs,” Underly said.

“Not only do we need the current level of funding, we need more funding… so be having that conversation with your federal elected officials [and] also be having it with your state elected officials,” Assistant Deputy State Superintendent Sara Knueve said. “We’re in the heat of that conversation about what’s the state’s reimbursement rate and they’re connected.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A yard sign urging voters to vote 'Yes' on a referendum request for Madison School District in 2024 when a record number of schools went to referendum. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

Republican lawmakers are seeking to give military recruiters and youth organizations a boost from the state when it comes to reaching students in public schools, saying that some school districts aren’t giving the organizations equal access. Lawmakers on the Senate Education Committee considered those along with bills that would add further requirements to school referendum requests. 

“I think we have a theme here when it comes to anything that seems patriotic in a way, we’re having a little bit of struggles getting into particular schools,” Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) said during a Tuesday Senate Education Committee meeting. She said during the hearing that she feels “discouraged” about the way military recruiters and scouts are viewed by “certain” communities in Wisconsin. 

One bill — SB 10 — would specifically require schools to allow military recruiters access to common areas in high schools and to allow access during the school day and during school-sanctioned events. It wouldn’t require districts to give recruiters access to classrooms during instructional time.

Federal law has mandated since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act during the Bush administration that public schools give military access to students at school and to students’ contact information. Families can opt their children out of the release of information. However, Cabral-Guevara said she has heard complaints that recruiters have had difficulty. 

Cabral-Guevara said she has heard of recruiters being placed in rooms separate from employment recruiters and has also heard of a limit being placed on the number of times a recruiter can visit a school as well as visits to drop off documents being counted as a recruiting visit. She said recruiters said they have the most difficulty with access to Madison and Milwaukee schools.

“There should be no reason why a military recruiter should have restricted access or be placed at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to speaking with students,” Cabral-Guevara said. 

The bill comes as the U.S. military, including the Wisconsin Army National Guard, in recent years has struggled to reach recruitment goals.

“They have not said they have been denied access to enter the building, what they have been saying is that… they have been prohibited from doing meaningful recruitment,” Cabral-Guevara said. 

Bill co-author Rep. William Penterman (R-Hustisford) compared military recruiters to students trying to sell chocolate bars to their peers.

“After school and during lunch, they have a table in the commons where they sell those candy bars. It’s in a public space, it’s in a common area. Now, I can only imagine if they were restricted to, perhaps inside the counselor’s office, or in a back room somewhere, how that would negatively impact their sales of chocolate bars,” Penterman said.

Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said that school officials in his district had some concerns about whether the bill would lead to excessive access to schools, especially as they already provide access. He said the bill “seems like it’s opening it up to infinite” access. He noted that there are a lot of different groups that seek access to schools. 

“They try and button it and say, OK, we have career fairs and they have to make that balance to try and figure that out,” Larson said. “I think [limitations] would have to be written in, and not just assumed, because if there’s a military recruiter who’s just like, OK every Tuesday, we’re gonna pop in and we’re just going to run the rotation.’ There’s nothing that would stop them if this legislation were passed.”

Sen. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) said the bill seems “problematic” because of a lack of boundaries.

“It says, ‘during school sanctioned events’ — that could be a ball game, that could be during mock trial, that could be during prom… there’s just no boundaries around it with this bill,” Keyeski said. 

Cabral-Guevara said that she is not seeking “to change federal code on how many times they can access a building” or give military recruiters more access than others. Rather, she said she wants to ensure that when recruiters are in a school building for what is counted as a recruiting visit, it is a meaningful interaction.

“That’s not what it says in the bill though,” Keyeski responded. 

The committee also considered SB 11 that would similarly require that if a “federally chartered youth” organization — particularly the Girl Scouts or Eagle Scouts — requests access to a public school that a principal allow them to provide oral or written information to students to help encourage participation in the organizations. The bill is co-authored by Cabral-Guevara and Rep. Barbara Dittrich (R-Oconomowoc). 

“In essence, what we’re finding is that there again are certain groups that when they look for access for recruitment purposes, they are maybe put in a different room. They are not allowed the same access that other organizations get,” Cabral-Guevara said. “As a mother of four children who all worked at scout camps, as somebody that’s active amongst the world of scouting, it is amazing what these organizations help produce in these children. You’re looking at amazing leadership skills. You’re looking at outstanding community volunteers.” 

A similar bill passed the Legislature last session, but was vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers. He wrote in his veto message that he objects to “undermining local decision-making regarding whether organizations may visit school buildings to recruit students for memberships” and said the bill might conflict with federal law.

Keyeski said she heard from a local school leader that the bill appears focused on the wrong priorities. 

“One of the superintendents in my district said the bill does not address any of the things I’m worried about, and then he said that about every single one of these bills,” Keyeski said, adding that she asked what he meant. “He said, ‘We need funding, we need better school opportunities for technological advances.’ This was just not a concern.”

Proposed referendum requirements

Lawmakers on the committee also considered two bills that would impose new restrictions on school referendum requests, which districts have increasingly relied on to help meet costs. 

One bill — SB 58 — would require ballots to include a “good faith estimate” of the property tax impact for a referendum. Ballot questions are currently required to include the dollar amount of the increase in the levy limit.

“It is not the intent of this bill to sway people one way or another on any particular referendum. The point is simply to ensure that voters are given the information that they need so that their decision is informed,” bill coauthor Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha) said. 

The other bill — SB 81 — would eliminate referendum questions that allow recurring — or permanent — operational funding increases and would limit “nonrecurring” referendum requests to cover no more than a four-year period.

“There’s really no mechanism to say we need to make sure that whoever, sometime down the road, is actually having to pay the bill and also who’s responsible for spending the money — if they’re completely different people, there should be a mechanism where both sides have to come back to the table and say, “Let’s relook at everything,” Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) said.

Keyeski said that she thought the mechanism for ensuring that referendum requests are considered responsibly is the elected officials and voters who decide whether to approve them. 

“It’s just taking away local control and it’s taking away democracy in action,” Keyeski said. 

School district leaders and representatives of school associations expressed an array of concerns about the bills, saying the ballot requirements could create confusion for voters and that further restrictions on referendum requests could increase the financial challenges school districts face.

Dee Pattack, executive director of the Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance, told lawmakers that school districts do not want to go to referendum and said that some of the requirements in the  bill would be difficult to meet.

The “good faith estimate piece, that would be really challenging,” Pattack said, noting that there is market volatility that could affect total debt referenda costs. She also said that trying to include all of that information on a ballot could be confusing. 

School districts seeking a referendum will often have a webpage dedicated to information about the request, will host meetings with local residents and stakeholders, speak with news outlets to spread the word and take other actions to ensure the public knows the purpose of a referendum and the costs. 

“It’s a long process, and we just think that, you know, we try to be as transparent as possible right now and trying to condense that into a small area on a ballot might not really be the best way to enhance that transparency,” Pattack said.

Cathy Olig, executive director of the Southeastern Wisconsin Schools Alliance, told lawmakers that school staff and local taxpayers are suffering from referendum fatigue. There were 94 referendum requests during February and April 2025, with about a third of those representing “retry” efforts, according to the Wisconsin Policy Forum. Voters approved 53 of those for a passage rate of 56.4%, making 2025 one of the lowest referendum passage rates in a non-presidential or midterm election year since 2011. 

“We’re concerned [SB 81] will create a constant cycle of referenda for school districts. We would welcome alternatives to referenda, which could be addressed through the budget, but to add further requirements and costs takes the focus away from finding solutions to the larger problems plaguing the school finance formula,” Olig said.

Kenosha Unified School District Superintendent Jeffrey Weiss told lawmakers that his district has  closed several schools in recent years, including five elementary schools and a middle school. He said the change involved a lot of redistricting of students. He said the district has also cut 200 positions and more than $1 million of staff out of the district office.

“We are very responsible stewards of public funds… We wanted to do all we could to avoid having to go for an operational referendum,” Weiss said, adding that superintendents don’t want to go to referendum. The district’s $115 million request failed in February.

Weiss said he thought transparency was already part of the referendum process because the community holds school districts accountable.

“I think these bills around referendum questions are really treating a symptom,” Weiss said, noting that a Blue Ribbon Commission proposed actions in 2019 that could address the problems with the state’s school funding system. “That is the cure and the conversations that we’re having right now, we’re talking about the symptoms. I don’t want to lose my ability to go to the community. This really is our only lever. There are not another seven schools in the city of Kenosha that I can close.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Jay O. Rothman, president of the University of Wisconsin System, speaks during the UW Board of Regents meeting hosted at Union South at the University of Wisconsin–Madison on Feb. 9, 2023. (Photo by Althea Dotzour / UW–Madison)

As Congress is considering remaking the federal financial aid program, Wisconsin higher education leaders are warning that changes could significantly affect access to its campuses. 

Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman wrote in a series of posts on social media last week that he is “very disappointed” by the potential cuts that could be made to student aid. 

Congressional Republicans recently introduced a 103-page proposal that would overhaul the federal financial aid system with cuts meant to help support the extension of tax cuts. Changes would include reducing eligibility for Pell Grants by requiring students take more credit hours to qualify, capping the total amount of student loans one can take out annually and ending certain student loan programs. 

The proposed changes come alongside the Trump administration’s work to remake the system by moving the student loan portfolio from the Department of Education to Small Business Administration, even as both agencies have had significant layoffs, and seeking to eliminate loan relief for people working to support immigrants and trans kids. 

Rothman said nearly half of the 164,400 students across University of Wisconsin campuses rely on federal aid to access the schools and noted that many of the students receiving the help are first-generation college students and low- to middle-income. He said federal financial aid has helped better the U.S. economy and allowed millions of people to improve their own lives. 

“It makes no sense for the US to narrow opportunities if our country wants to win the global War for Talent. I’m dumbfounded that cutting educational opportunities would even be considered when our economic vibrancy is at stake,” Rothman wrote. “While the UWs are among the most affordable in the nation, many lower- and middle-class families rely upon federal financial aid to make these life-changing educational opportunities real.”

Rothman urged Congress to reevaluate the potential cuts in the federal budget, continuing his advocacy for keeping the UW accessible for current and future students. 

In a letter to the Wisconsin Congressional delegation last month, Rothman noted that in the 2023-24 school year, 91,000 UW undergraduate students — or 59% — received some form of financial aid. The federal government distributed $130 million in Pell grants to about 23.4%, or 26,060 undergraduate students that year, delivering an average award of $5,000. 

During that year, undergraduate and graduate students across the system received nearly $1.5 billion in financial aid, including $634 million in grants, $666 million in loans and $13 million in work-study funding.

“Programs like the Pell Grant and other federal financial aid are critical to ensuring continued access and success for students who choose to pursue higher education,” Rothman wrote to lawmakers. “Indiscriminate cuts whether to research, financial aid or programs that provide student support are ultimately shortsighted and will negatively impact the next generation of Wisconsin’s workforce.” 

Rothman is not the only leader who has expressed concerns about cuts to programs. During a hearing last month, Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges and Universities President Eric Fulcomer told state lawmakers that “cutting the Pell Grant or eliminating the Pell Grant would be devastating for our sector.” He said private colleges could be looking at a 27% cut to enrollment.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Bascom Hall, University of Wisconsin-Madison. (Ron Cogswell | used by permission of the photographer)

Madison attorney Shabnam Lotfi says her client, Krish Lal Isserdasani, was exceptionally responsible in the way he handled the news that the Trump administration had suddenly taken away his student visa.

Isserdasani, a 21-year-old computer engineering senior at the University of Wisconsin-Madison from India, was about a month out from his graduation on May 10 when he became one of thousands of students across the U.S. that had their Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) records cancelled by the Trump administration. According to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, SEVIS is a “web-based system for maintaining information on nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors” in the U.S. Once SEVIS records were canceled, students faced the termination of their student visas and their ability to remain in the U.S.

UW-Madison notified students of the changes to their SEVIS status, warning them that status termination generally means an affected person should depart the United States immediately.

“I admire him for acting quickly,” Lotfi told the Wisconsin Examiner. “He saw that his SEVIS record was terminated, immediately contacted the university to see what it means, did not attend classes for a week to figure out what’s going on, [and] hired a lawyer immediately.” 

In April, U.S. District Judge William Conley issued a temporary restraining order blocking the government from terminating Isserdasani’s SEVIS and from taking any further related actions. That order noted Isserdasani and his family had spent about $240,000 on his education, stood to lose $17,500 on the current semester’s tuition and would be responsible for four months of rent on an apartment he would vacate if he was forced to leave the country. 

With the temporary restraining order in place and providing some protection, Lotfi said he was able to resume attending classes. 

“That doesn’t necessarily mean he feels entirely welcome and free and comfortable,” Lotfi said, “but he’s doing the best he can with the cards he has in the situation.” 

At the end of April, the Trump administration started reversing the cancellations. Administration attorneys said in court that they were working on developing a policy that would provide a framework for SEVIS record terminations. Lotfi said she is “aware of what they’re thinking about” and that if they’re trying to find a way to make the terminations lawful, that “will likely be challenged again.”

Lotfi said the Trump administration’s step back from the cancellations is a win. This is not the first time she has fought a Trump order involving immigrants, having brought a challenge in 2018 to the Muslim travel ban during Trump’s first term.

“It was a coalition of attorneys nationwide bringing so many [temporary restraining orders], so many lawsuits on behalf of so many students all at the same time — and the government not having any defense to any of it — that caused them to have to reevaluate,” Lotfi said.

As of April 28, the 27 cancellations for UW-Madison students and alumni were reversed as were the 13 for UW-Milwaukee. However, the reversals are not the end of Isserdasani’s case.

When it comes to his case, Lotfi said it appeared during a hearing last week that the government attorneys were not changing their plan to eject Isserdasani based on the administration’s perceived change in stance on international students’ visas. She said the government’s attorney indicated her client’s SEVIS record was only active because of the temporary restraining order and that “it was not related to any change in a government policy.”

“The government attorneys also indicated that they maintain their right to terminate his SEVIS record again in the future should that be necessary,” Lotfi said. “It certainly surprised me, and I think it surprised the court that they were taking that position.” 

Lotfi noted that the government attorneys in Isserdasani’s case have been arguing, based on a declaration by Andre Watson, a Trump Department of Homeland Security official, that the SEVIS record and a student’s visa status are not the same. She said no one is buying the argument. 

“The vast majority of judges nationwide are asking, then, why do you terminate the SEVIS record? What was the point of doing this? If you guys say that SEVIS and student status are not the same, does that mean that Mr. Isserdasani is in a lawful student status right now?” Lotfi said. “They won’t say that. They’ll just say that the two are not the same, but they will not confirm that he is in a lawful student status with the SEVIS terminated.”

The case challenges the cancellation of the record in several ways, including arguing that the government cannot just take away his status without due process — the ability for him to know why his SEVIS is being terminated and to challenge the termination — and arguing the cancellation was arbitrary and capricious.

“It’s not that Isserdasani failed to go to class. It’s not that he had a criminal activity [or] he was convicted of criminal activity. It’s just because his name [was] in a database,” Lotfi said. In determining cancellations, the Trump administration had run international students’ names through an FBI database called the National Crime Information Center. It appeared that an arrest for disorderly conduct in November 2024 was the reason for Isserdasani’s SEVIS cancellation, but charges were never pursued and he never had to appear in court.

Lotfi said she and her client are waiting for the court’s written decision on whether the temporary restraining order will be converted to a preliminary injunction, which would prevent actions by the government through the course of litigation. Then, she said, litigation will continue, which can take time.

“It is in the interest of justice, and in the interest of the American people, that a final decision on the merits of the case is issued,” Lotfi said.

Lotfi said people shouldn’t accept the Trump administration’s accusations against foreign students as true.

“These students are in a foreign country. Many have learned a second language… They are young and alone without family. They are following this country’s rules and regulations, and they didn’t do anything wrong,” Lotfi said. “They don’t deserve this.”

“If it’s a U.S. citizen, we say innocent until proven guilty… Why do we not have that same mindset when it comes to foreign nationals?” she added. “It just seems like any arrest for anything then that’s guilt, and that’s not the case. We would never allow that for any of our neighbors, so we should not accept the administration’s description of international students having violated their status when they didn’t.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rep. Nate Gustafson said his bill would implement a “net zero” rule process. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Republican lawmakers are introducing bills to review every statewide administrative rule and impose new limits on the rulemaking process, saying there are too many regulations currently and they put operational obstacles and financial burdens on businesses.

GOP Lawmakers have raised objections to agencies’ administrative rulemaking process — and the power of the executive branch — for many years and have taken action to exert more control over the process and to limit the authority of state agencies and the governor. The REINS Act, signed into law by former Gov. Scott Walker in 2017, for example, required lawmakers’ approval for regulations that might cost more than $10 million over a two-year period.

“A lot of what’s been done in the past has looked at when you’re implementing new rules — what is the process? Who is writing the rules?” Rep. Adam Neylon (R-Pewaukee), who introduced the bill that became 2017 Wisconsin Act 57, said at a press conference last week.

“What [the] REINS Act is not able to do is go back and reset it all,” Neylon added. “We’re looking at the stack of rules that have accumulated over the years that are piling up… We need a reset.”

One of four GOP bills would require agencies to make cuts to offset the cost associated with new regulations. 

Under the bill, coauthored by Rep. Nate Gustafson (R-Fox Crossing) and Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), agencies with a new rule proposal would have to stop work on the process until they’ve figured out how to eliminate the cost of a new regulation, or, alternatively, until a different rule reduces the costs to businesses, local governmental units and individuals over any two-year period.

Gustafson calls it a “net zero” rule process. “So if there’s an existing regulation or rule output that is of equal cost or greater, you’re going to have to cut that rule if you want to implement a new one.”

Another of the four bills — coauthored by Neylon and Sen. Steve Nass — would put an expiration date on every administrative rule seven years after implementation. Currently, administrative rules are in effect indefinitely unless repealed, amended by the agency or suspended by the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR).

JCRAR is a 10-member committee responsible for reviewing proposed administrative rules to ensure they align with state law. Lawmakers on the committee have the ability to approve, suspend, or request modifications to proposed rules.

Under the new measure, the year before a rule expires an agency would need to send notice to JCRAR about its intention to readopt the rule. If there is no objection by a lawmaker on the committee, then the rule would be considered readopted, but if there is an objection, then the rule would expire unless the agency goes through the rulemaking process again.

Neylon said the point is to create a more modern process and do away with “outdated or duplicative rules, creating unnecessary burdens on businesses.” 

Another bill — coauthored by Sen. Rob Hutton and Reps. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) and Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) — would limit scope statements, the first step in the rulemaking process, so they could only be used for one proposed rule and would set a six month expiration date when a scope statement can be used for an emergency rule.

Currently, people can challenge the validity of an administrative rule in court. The final bill — coauthored by Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) and Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) — would award people who challenge a rule attorney fees and costs if a court declares a rule invalid. 

The bill package is based on a report from the right-wing Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), which also launched a webpage about the effort to cut “red tape” on Wednesday.

WILL states in the report that Wisconsin is the 13th most regulated state in the country and lays out proposals similar to the new GOP bills. WILL said the actions would build off steps taken in other states, including Idaho, Ohio, Nebraska and Oklahoma, to reduce regulations.

Neylon said WILL provided research and worked with lawmakers’ offices on the legislation. But, he added, “these are issues that we’ve all worked on for a lot of years, issues that we care deeply about. This is our initiative… and nobody else’s.”

Economist on the potential flaws 

Economist Michael Rosen told the Examiner that the bills come out of Republicans’ “national playbook,” and that the research from WILL is based on the idea that “any regulation impedes economic growth.”

“It has been a cornerstone of Republican policy since the election of Ronald Reagan to deregulate, get rid of regulation, and [to insist] that getting rid of regulation promotes economic growth,” Rosen said. He calls that theory “nonsense.” 

Rosen points out that some of the most heavily regulated states — including California and New York — are also the most prosperous. He noted that the majority of the states cited in WILL’ s research are those with Republican-dominated government.

“All regulations really are the rules under which the market operates,” Rosen said, adding, “there have to be rules that govern the behavior of the buyers and sellers. That’s what regulation is. It’s very simple, and what they’re arguing is to get rid of them.”

Rosen challenges broad assertions in WILL’s research, including WILL’s finding that a 36% cut to regulations across the board in Wisconsin could grow the economy by 1 percentage point annually.

That analysis fails to take into account “negative externalities,” Rosen says — actions by companies that impose a cost on people who are not directly involved. He pointed to environmental regulations as an example of how these costs are paid by the public. 

“In economic terms, companies that pollute… part of the cost of production should be disposing of the waste that a company produces…. If there aren’t any rules, the cheapest way to dispose of your waste is to release it into the atmosphere or release it into the rivers and streams,” Rosen said. “That’s what we had in this country at the beginning of the 20th century, when we didn’t have any environmental regulations, and rivers, like the Milwaukee River, and streams and lakes were polluted by manufacturers because that was the cheapest way for them to dispose of their waste.”

Rosen said that some might argue that rules meant to protect the environment impede growth because they impose an additional cost on a company, however, he said that rules can ensure they aren’t passing on that cost to the public. 

Since passage in 2017, the REINS Act has posed an obstacle to proposed environmental protection rules in Wisconsin.

Without the regulations, Rosen said, people would have “no assurance” about the products they buy — “whether it’s a can of tuna fish, whether it’s an automobile, whether it’s a ride on an airplane.” 

“Is it impeding economic growth that we have regulations on air travel? No, because if we didn’t have the regulation of the airline industry, we would have far more accidents and many fewer people would want to travel on airplanes,” Rosen said. “These are all regulations that we take for granted,” but assure people they can trust the products and services they purchase, “and we won’t crash and die.” 

A better way to address onerous or outdated rules, Rosen said, is to take them up one at a time, rather than through the sweeping anti-regulatory bill package Wisconsin Republicans are proposing. 

“Are there some regulations that maybe are antiquated? I’m not going to sit here and tell you there might not be,” Rosen said. “But rather than pass sweeping legislation, which is ideologically driven and could have catastrophic consequences, people should raise the particular regulation.”

What’s next for the bills

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said that she is excited for the bills to go through the Assembly Government Operations, Accountability and Transparency (GOAT) committee, which she chairs. The committee was created this session, inspired by billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency project, which has sought to remake the federal government by unilaterally firing employees and making deep cuts to federal agencies. 

“Excessive regulations have serious economic consequences. They slow economic growth. They increase costs for businesses and consumers and they stifle innovation, all while the compliance costs put the greatest burden on our small businesses and working families,” Nedweski said. 

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) said the bills are another action from the “tired Republican playbook” and compared them to the actions being taken by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. 

“These bills are an attempt at a power grab, akin to what we are seeing from the Trump-Musk administration,” Hesselbein said. “The bills would, among other things, undermine the fundamental democratic principle of separation of powers. They are unnecessary, anti-democratic, and wholly wrong for Wisconsin.”

Republicans in the Senate and Assembly, who hold majorities, could pass the bills without support from Democratic lawmakers, however, they would need Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ sign-off to become law. Neylon conceded that it’s unlikely Evers will support them. 

“Unfortunately Gov. Evers makes a lot of mistakes,” Neylon said. “He’s showing to be a failure as a governor, and I’m not optimistic he’ll make the right decision here, but I think that we’re doing the best we can to try to reform the regulatory process, and we think that it’s time for a reset.” 

Evers’ office hasn’t responded to a request for comment.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Gov. Tony Evers had already said he wasn’t directing state employees to break the law should immigration officials enter state buildings. Evers answers reporters questions in March. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Gov. Tony Evers issued a three-minute video Friday in which he addressed Wisconsinites, describing a statement  from the White House border czar Tom Homan that has been interpreted by some as a threat to arrest Evers as “chilling.” 

Homan made the vague threat after a reporter for the far-right website Gateway Pundit asked him “why not just arrest” leaders interfering with deportation efforts. The reporter then specifically asked him about Evers’ directive to state agencies instructing them to consult an attorney if federal immigration agents enter state buildings demanding files or computer system access.

“Wait to see what’s coming,” Homan said. “You can not support what we’re doing and you can support sanctuary cities if that’s what you want to do, but if you cross that line of impediment or knowingly harboring or concealing an illegal alien, that is a felony and we’ll treat it as such.” 

Before the comment, Evers had already said he wasn’t directing state employees to break the law should immigration officials enter state buildings.

“A Trump Administration official, in not so many words, apparently threatened to arrest me… The goal of this guidance was simple — to provide clear, consistent instructions to state employees and ensure they have a lawyer to help them comply with all federal and state laws. Nothing more, nothing less,” Evers said in the video. “But Republicans and their right-wing allies, including Elon Musk, lied about this guidance, spread misinformation, accused me of doing things I didn’t do or say, and fueled a fake controversy of their own creation.”

The guidance sent by the Department of Administration to state employees told them to stay calm if an ICE agent entered their offices. It told them to ask agents for their names and badges to verify their identity, to ask why they were there, ask for documentation like a valid warrant then tell the agent to have a seat. It said state employees should call the Office of Legal Council to consult an attorney.

It also told employees not to answer questions from an agent, give them access to paper files and computer systems without speaking to an attorney and not to give consent for an agent to enter a “nonpublic” area, noting that they need a judicial warrant to enter such an area. 

“Remember that every state employee has a duty to protect confidential data and information collected or maintained by the State of Wisconsin in state offices and electronic filing systems,” the guidance stated. 

“I haven’t broken the law. I haven’t committed a crime, and I’ve never encouraged or directed anyone to break any laws or commit any crimes,” Evers said in the video. “When President Trump’s hand-picked appointee, Tom Homan, was asked about me and this guidance after he apparently threatened to arrest elected officials across the country, he said, ‘Wait ’til you see what’s coming.’ Overnight, Republican lawmakers piled on, encouraging the Trump Administration to arrest me.” 

Evers’ directive had received backlash from Wisconsin Republicans who called on Evers to rescind the guidance and support Trump’s deportation agenda. 

One Republican state lawmaker Rep. Calvin Callahan (R-Tomahawk) suggested in multiple social media posts Thursday that Evers should be arrested — sharing an AI-generated photo of Evers in handcuffs and writing in another post that “this is what Tony Evers sent out; stick him in the same cell as the Milwaukee judge!” Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested last week under accusations that she impeded the arrest of a man that ICE followed to her courtroom. 

Evers said the threats should concern everyone.

“In this country, the federal government doesn’t get to abuse its power to threaten everyday Americans. In this country, the federal government doesn’t get to arrest American citizens who have not committed a crime. In this country, we don’t threaten to persecute people just because they belong to a different political party,” Evers said. 

“These threats represent a concerning trajectory in this country. We now have a federal government that will threaten or arrest an elected official — or even everyday American citizens — who have broken no laws, committed no crimes, and done nothing wrong,” Evers said. “As disgusted as I am about the continued actions of the Trump Administration, I am not afraid. I have never once been discouraged from doing the right thing, and I will not start today.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Lawmakers listen to testimony at the West Allis public hearing in early April. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Education priorities, including funding for K-12 public schools, higher education and early childhood education and child care, proved to be the issues that arose most often in public hearings held by the Wisconsin Legislature’s powerful budget committee in April. 

Wisconsin lawmakers wrapped up their public hearings this week with a hearing Monday in Hayward and one Tuesday in Wausau. Two hearings were held in early April in West Allis and Kaukauna.

With the hearings complete, the Joint Finance Committee will turn its attention to the work of writing the budget with the goal of completing it by the June 30 deadline. If lawmakers and Gov. Tony Evers don’t complete the budget by that deadline, Wisconsin continues to operate under the current budget into the next fiscal year. 

Tessa Maglio, digital and communications organizer for the Wisconsin Public Education Network, a nonprofit advocacy organization for public schools, worked with legislative policy Lead Bryn Horton and organizing and engagement coordinator Camden Hargrove to track testimony at each of the public hearings.

“Tracking the testimony is really important because we have seen in budget cycle after budget cycle people ask for the resources Wisconsin kids in their public schools need and then have watched the subsequent budget not meet the requests,” Maglio said. “We wanted to keep it in the forefront of the advocates’ minds as well as the governor’s mind and legislators’ minds.” 

According to the WPEN tracker, more than 900 people spoke across the four hearings, which lasted about 29 total hours. WPEN reported that more than 170 people discussed funding for K-12 schools, more than 50 people spoke about higher education and more than  50  spoke about child care. Maglio said education across the spectrum made up at least a third of the total testimony.

“It is really powerful to hear you know people share their stories and experiences and priorities and so even though some of the topics might not have tallied very high on our tracker, they’re nonetheless still very important,” Maglio said.

On the issue of  K-12 public education, Maglio said, public testimony included calls to raise the special education reimbursement to at least 60%, provide districts with more spendable aid, fix the revenue limit structure, which restricts how much school districts can raise without permission from lawmakers or the public, and help school districts keep their schools operating and serve their students.

There were “many different stories and many different perspectives and people brought their own experiences whether they were coming from large urban districts or small rural districts,” Maglio said. School districts in Wisconsin have not had predictable increases in funding through state aid or property taxes in over 15 years, and an increasing number of school districts have had to rely on getting permission from voters in referendums to meet costs.

Maglio highlighted testimony by Laura McCoy, president of the Green Bay Area Public School District Board of Education, at the Kaukauna hearing. 

McCoy told lawmakers that her community supports their local schools.

“We know this because we just passed yet another referendum: the third referendum in eight years. We’re going to have to pass another one next year,” McCoy said. “Honestly, funding public education by referendum is no way to educate our future generations. Districts around this state are begging for change. Please listen to them.” 

“We are doing our job in Green Bay. We are holding up our piece of the sky. We are preparing our students for the future and we are hitting it out of the ballpark with workforce development,” McCoy added. “But it gets harder every year and we need to feel like the state Legislature is our partner, and not our adversary.” 

JFC Democrats call for education funding

Democrats on the Joint Finance Committee also called on Republican members to fund education in the upcoming state budget during a Wednesday press conference.

“From West Allis to Wausau, the message was consistent and it was clear,” said Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee).  “Wisconsinites want a budget that invests in public education, affordable health care options, workforce development and child care.” 

“It is our job as state legislators,” Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said, “and it is time for my Republican colleagues to join Democrats in actually providing the resources that our kids deserve.” 

Republican leaders have said that the state Supreme Court decision on Evers’ partial veto, which extends the annual $325 revenue limit increase for school districts for 400 years, would affect the state budget. In April, the Court upheld the veto, saying it was within the governor’s  power and suggesting that lawmakers could take different routes, including writing the budget differently or passing a constitutional amendment, if they want to prevent such vetoes in the future. 

Roys said it would be “an excuse” and “pathetic” if Republicans decide not to increase education funding due to the decision. 

“If they want to try to pass a constitutional amendment, we’ve seen them do it again and again. They can certainly give that a try, but I don’t think that’s an acceptable excuse to fail to pass a budget on time, fail to pass a budget that makes the investments that our kids and our constituents — all of our constituents — need and and deserve,” Roys said. 

Johnson added that the state could also cover the cost of the $325 revenue increase Evers’ veto allowed school districts to raise from local taxpayers. 

“I’m hoping that they do the right thing,” Johnson said of her colleagues in the Legislature. “We heard a consensus across the board of taxpayers coming in and testifying, saying that the referendums are not sustainable. It’s not the way for them to fund public education, and let’s be real, it’s not fair, either.” 

Health care concerns

According to the WPEN’s tracking, health care was the second most discussed issue at the hearings. 

“Coming in just behind the focus on public education was Medicaid expansion, Medicaid funding, health care,” said Maglio. “Many, many, many people came out to testify in favor of those things and shared really powerful and sometimes heart-breaking personal stories about the impact that Medicaid funding has on their lives or the lives of their loved ones and what that would mean if that funding were not to be supported in the budget.” 

Evers, as he has done in each of his budget proposals, asked  that Wisconsin take the federal Medicaid expansion that would allow almost all adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level to qualify. Wisconsin is one of only 10 states that has not done so.

This session, though, the request comes at a moment when the Medicaid program is facing the threat of deep cuts from  the Trump administration and Republican members of Congress. Concerns about proposed federal cuts came up at the state budget hearings. 

“Also with farming and food access and previously supported funding for Wisconsin farmers to provide food to schools and to food pantries… Across the board there was kind of an undercurrent [of] people focusing on the needs of Wisconsinites, but urging their lawmakers to think about the budget within the context of decisions being made at the federal level,” Maglio said.

In addition to broader Medicaid expansion, a postpartum Medicaid expansion, which would extend health care coverage for mothers who recently gave birth from 60 days to a year, has been a major point of bipartisan agreement this session. A bill that would make Wisconsin the 49th state to take the extension recently passed the Senate but it faces challenges in the Assembly, where the top Republican has opposed the measure deeming it an expansion of “welfare.” 

Roys called on her Republican colleagues to get it done by placing it in the budget. She noted that the four Democrats and the six Senate Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee, who voted in favor of the bill, could place the proposal in the budget without Assembly Republicans on the committee having to vote in favor. 

“I understand that there are some problems over in the Assembly, and we’ve heard that Vos  is to blame year after year, session after session when this doesn’t get done — despite having overwhelming support for members of his caucus, and, of course, every single Democrat in the Legislature,” Roys said. “The good news is that if Republicans in the Assembly are afraid of political retribution from Speaker Vos or they don’t want to cross him, we can still put postpartum Medicaid expansion in the budget right now.” 

Another major issue that lawmakers will debate this budget is tax cuts, though Roys noted that cuts for “millionaires and billionaires” were not popular topics at the public hearings. 

“That’s one thing that nobody asked for, [but] seems to be the focus of my Republican colleagues,” Roys said. “In fact, they are focused on trying to shove through an irresponsible tax cut before we even engage in meeting the needs of Wisconsinites.”

Republican lawmakers have said they want to pass a tax cut bill prior to the budget. 

“The goal, again, is to try to find something that can actually get across the finish line,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said in April. During the last legislative session, Evers vetoed several Republican  tax cut proposals, including proposed reductions for the top income tax brackets in the last budget. “I think the governor realizes that we’re not going to spend any more money unless we have the ability to reduce taxes and help folks get by with inflation.”

Evers, meanwhile, has said that he won’t support tax cuts done outside of the budget.

“It has to be part of the budget. We just can’t do things one way, and then, you know, just do taxes and then do spending,” Evers said. “We have to look at it together.”

So far lawmakers have declined to discuss specifics. Committee Co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) said at a press conference ahead of the Wausau hearing that details haven’t been negotiated and they aren’t going to “negotiate anything in the media.” 

Democratic legislative leaders have said they haven’t been part of those discussions. 

Roys said that if Democrats were going to support a tax cut, it needs to be part of the budget process and it needs to be “responsible and not create a massive structural deficit that then Republicans will use it as an excuse to undermine the services that we rely on in our public schools.” Any cut, she added, needs to be targeted towards “everyday Wisconsinites.” 

Johnson said that investing in other priorities could also present a better opportunity for savings for taxpayers. 

“Everybody could use a couple of extra dollars in their pocket. Let’s be real, I could use a couple of extra dollars a month, but if those same communities are going to have to go to referendum to support their schools, it’s not a tax break for them,” Johnson said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reps. Angelito Tenorio, Francesca Hong and Renuka Mayadev in the Wisconsin State Assembly chambers. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

After two sessions as the only Asian American lawmaker in the Wisconsin Legislature, Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), who was first elected in 2020, stood alongside freshmen Reps. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis) and Renuka Mayadev (D-Madison) Thursday to announce the formation of the state’s first Legislative Asian Caucus.

The lawmakers announced the creation of the caucus on the first day of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, saying that they have a responsibility to represent Asian American Wisconsinites, who make up 6% of the state, and to work to advance their rights, visibility and improve their daily lives.

“I’m deeply grateful, and I couldn’t think of a better team to be in the Asian caucus with… We have the distinct opportunity to make all of our communities stronger,” said Hong, who is the daughter of Korean immigrants, said. At one point during the press conference, Hong said she felt like she was going to cry.

Tenorio is the first Filipino American to be elected to the state Legislature, and said during the press conference that his parents immigrated to the U.S. “in hopes of finding a better life.” He said that growing up he didn’t see people that looked like him in leadership positions, including in government. 

“That lack of representation stuck with me, and I knew I wanted to change that,” Tenorio said, adding that he was an activist in college, served in the Wisconsin Army National Guard and has become an advocate for addressing climate change and protecting the environment. 

Tenorio said the creation of the caucus is “historic” and a “declaration” that Asian Americans deserve to help shape the future of the state. 

“For too long, our stories, struggles, strengths and victories have been overlooked,” Tenorio said. “As members of the Legislature, we have a seat at the table, and we carry the responsibility to make this table bigger, more inclusive and more representative of our state.” 

Tenorio noted that the lawmakers have introduced a resolution to recognize 2025 as the “Year of the Snake” and a resolution to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the conclusion of the Vietnam War, the Secret War in Laos and of the 50th anniversary of the Fall of Phnom Penh in Cambodia —  conflicts that led to people from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam resettling in the U.S. 

“Such communities largely resettled in Wisconsin, overcoming adversity to establish vibrant communities that have significantly contributed to the social, cultural, and economic fabric of our state” the commemorative resolution states. “Wisconsin is now home to the third-largest Hmong population in the United States, with communities thriving in cities like Appleton, Sheboygan, Green Bay, Wausau and Milwaukee.” 

“These resolutions aren’t just ceremonial. They’re a part of our broader efforts to write our stories into the narrative of our states, to affirm that we are not outsiders,” Tenorio said. “We are part of the fabric of Wisconsin.”

The caucus members said they will host events throughout the month to highlight the contributions of Asian Americans, including one focused on Japanese internment, another on celebrating the Hmong community and one to uplift Filipino stories.

“There is so much to celebrate, so much to be proud of and so much to feel honored by being an Asian American,” Hong said. 

Maydev is the first South Asian elected to the Assembly and represents the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus and other parts of the state’s capital city. She noted that her district is about 17% Asian American and she represents the highest concentration of Asian Americans in the state. 

Mayadev said that her journey to hold public office didn’t start when she submitted her nomination papers. 

“It started when my parents decided to leave everything they knew in their homes more than 50 years ago, and traveled from India as immigrants to the United States,” Mayadev said. “Like the representatives beside me, we are all first-generation Americans — proud children of immigrants.”

Mayadev also emphasized that the lawmakers will bring in the voices of others in the community. She said people have reached out to her for that reason already. 

“They said they’ve never reached out to an Assembly person before, but they reached out to me because they felt that they would have an empathetic ear and an understanding that goes deeper that maybe they felt that somebody else wouldn’t be able to be,” Mayadev said. 

Hong said caucus members will also make sure to go to different communities in the state and work to identify leaders who want to build relationships. 

The formation of the caucus comes as Republicans at a federal and state level have targeted immigrants as well as diversity and inclusion efforts. 

“We must do more. We know the reality on the ground. AAPI folks, like so many immigrants, workers and people of color, continue to face threats and challenges — from the underrepresentation and political exclusion of Asian Americans to the surge in anti-Asian hate crimes to growing economic inequality,” Tenorio said. “We are navigating a landscape that too often undermines our dignity and our safety.” 

Mayadev acknowledged the caucus is being established during a time of upheaval for immigrants as the Trump administration has proclaimed its aim of carrying out mass deportations and has detained even immigrants who are in the country legally. Wisconsin Republicans have supported those efforts, seeking legislation that requires local law enforcement to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to discussing removing a Milwaukee County judge who was arrested by the FBI and is accused of impeding the arrest of a man that ICE followed to her courtroom.

“There’s much uncertainty and fear,” Mayadev said, adding that caucus members are committed to providing “guidance and leadership during this time, so that all feel welcome in Wisconsin.”

Asked about the targeting of inclusion efforts by Republicans in the state Legislature, Hong mentioned a recent hearing in the Joint Audit Committee, where Republican lawmakers grilled state agency leaders on their inclusion efforts. 

“I plan to speak with the chairs of that committee about my experiences when I first got here of deep xenophobia and racism,” she said, adding that she hoped by being “very truthful, honest and vulnerable” she and other members of color could “dispel some of the preconceived notions that racism and discrimination isn’t happening right here in the halls of power amongst colleagues.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Parents with the "Learn in My Shoes" campaign including Amanda Sherman and Melanie Grosse stand before the Joint Finance Committee at a public hearing in West Allis. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin’s special education reimbursement rate has been a concern for public school advocates for many years, but with districts’ reliance on school referendum requests increasing and federal support in doubt, the state’s reimbursement rate is quickly becoming one of the top issues this budget cycle.

Public school districts currently get about 30% of their special education costs reimbursed by the state. Advocates have called to increase that to at least 60% and as much as 90%, which is the amount that private and charter schools participating in the state’s voucher programs already get.

Tiffany Schanno, a Sheboygan parent, and Melissa Custer, a Grafton parent, have been showing up at state budget hearings and meeting in the Capitol to bring awareness to the experience of families seeking special education services in schools.

“We both have kids with disabilities who are trying to access special education, and we both experienced a lot of obstacles just trying to get our children accessible education, and the thing that we discovered is that it all comes down to funding,” Schanno said in an interview with the Examiner. “There’s only so much as far as resources to go around, so a lot of times families are competing against each other for services.” 

The pair put together a display — titled “Learn in My Shoes” — that included letters from families about their children’s experience receiving services and financial strains on schools. They placed the letters in a pair of children’s shoes. Custer said they thought having a visual representation and sharing stories would give lawmakers a “small taste” of the reality.

One letter described how educators and paraprofessionals have helped 12-year-old James “communicate with peers, become more confident and able to share more of who he is in meaningful ways.” James received important supports thanks to a “persistent” parent who said not all parents understand the process or know how to advocate for what their children need.  

“Because public school budgets are stretched to the point of hundreds of referendums over the past few years, families don’t ask for what they need because they don’t want to be thought of as burdensome,” the parent wrote. “Our family can find workarounds to an extent, but many others cannot. All children deserve an equal opportunity to a sound public education, and funding that keeps up with cost increases.”

Another parent said her son, who has Prader-Willi Syndrome, requires specialized support to navigate school safely and help with emotional regulation, transitions and physical safety. 

“Due to funding shortages, services are stretched thin… ” the parent wrote. “My children — and thousands of others across Wisconsin — deserve a chance to succeed, to feel safe, and to receive the support they need to reach their potential. Please make this a priority.” 

Schanno and Custer delivered the shoes and letters to lawmakers.

Schanno said some lawmakers expressed skepticism that additional state money would actually be used for special education. She said that isn’t a “valid argument” since federally mandated special education costs are carefully tracked.

“It’s not like you’re just giving a district a whole bunch of money and trusting them to use it for the right thing,” she said.

“Ultimately, what I took away from our visits… is that we have a long way to go with people understanding more about disability in general … and about the value in educating people who are different than they are,” Schanno said.

Proposals in discussion

Gov. Tony Evers proposed in his state budget that the reimbursement rate be raised to 60%. Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green), have acknowledged education funding as a top concern for  the public, and some, including Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), have said they want to put more money into  special education, but it is unclear what Republican lawmakers will support. 

As Republican lawmakers seek a deal on tax cuts, WisPolitics reports that spokesperson Britt Cudaback said Evers “expects Republicans to come to the table on investing in education at every level, among other critical priorities, in order to move forward.”

During the last budget cycle, lawmakers increased the special ed reimbursement rate, though Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) notes it was a sum-certain rate, meaning there is a finite amount of money available, so the rate of reimbursement is not guaranteed as funds run low. The current reimbursement rate is hovering around 30%.

“School funding is complex” and special education funding is the “baseline that we absolutely should be doing,” Larson said. Special education funding in Wisconsin peaked at 70% in 1973 and at one point was as low as about 24.5% in 2018-19.

Larson supports increasing the rate to 90%. He said he thinks Evers’ 60% proposal is looking at it “from a political standpoint of what he perceives as what he wants to start the negotiations at in the budget with Republicans instead of what’s needed” and also taking into consideration other budget priorities. 

“That’s helpful and that would be significant and still double the percentage of what schools are currently getting, and I appreciate that…” Larson said. “I would hope that the governor would say 60% or veto.”

Larson also noted Evers’ budget would change special education reimbursement from sum certain to sum sufficient — so reimbursements at the set rate would be guaranteed.

Larson said he hopes his Republican colleagues support boosting the rate. 

“It still baffles me that some people think this is a partisan thing. Schools all over the state need help. The districts that are going to referendum are rural, they’re urban and they’re suburban. There’s nobody who’s special who is dodging this. Everybody is getting screwed over by the state,” Larson said. “I hope that the folks, the Republicans, who hold the narrow majority in the Assembly and in the Senate, would listen to their constituents who are saying, ‘Stop throwing this on us to cover your gap.’”

Special ed reimbursement could relieve referendum pressure

The discussion about school funding, especially for special education, comes as school districts have increasingly come to rely on referendum requests. Public school leaders, advocates and Democratic lawmakers have said increasing the special education reimbursement to at least 60% could help relieve some of that pressure.

Anne Chapman, research director for the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials Association, said that increasing special education funding by a significant amount would allow school districts to not have to pull as much money from their general funds for the mandated services.

“You would see way fewer referendums, and you would see kids surge with better programs,” Chapman said. 

According to the Wisconsin Policy Forum, just this year there were 94 referendum requests across February and April elections with about a third of those representing “retry” efforts. As schools continue to rely on referendum requests to meet costs, Republican and Democratic lawmakers are seeking ways to change the dynamic, though the latter are focused on providing additional state funding, while the former are focused on implementing new restrictions. 

Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) said a memo from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau that compares recent referendum requests to the amount of unreimbursed special education costs illustrates the correlation. He said he asked for the memo after noticing a detail about the finances of the Eau Claire School District. 

“Eau Claire’s unreimbursed special education dollar amount was equivalent to the amount of money that they were asking for in their referendum just to not go too far into the red in their budget,” Phelps said, adding that he wondered “how widespread is this pattern?”

The 128 school districts that sought operating referendums in 2024, a record-breaking year, had over $488 million in unreimbursed special education costs for the 2022-23 school year, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau. The bureau’s memo also found that about one-fifth of the referendum requests in 2024 were equal to or exceeded special education costs that were unreimbursed by the state in 2022-23.

Some examples include: 

• Bangor School District had a recurring referendum request for $900,000 that failed in 2024. Its unreimbursed special education costs were $973,299 in 2022-23. 
• Edgerton School District had a $3,500,000 recurring request that passed. Its unreimbursed special education costs were $3,520,303. 
• Eau Claire School District had a successful $18,000,000 request. Its unreimbursed special education costs were $17,933,991. 

In some cases, a referendum request was for more than the unreimbursed costs, but even those were still close. Hamilton School District passed a $7,600,000 recurring referendum in 2024. The total of its unreimbursed special education costs was $6,128,870. 

“Funding special ed fully lifts all boats,” Phelps said. “When we have an underfunded special ed system, we are creating discrimination and disparity against students with disabilities. The services are mandated, so we’re paying for them one way or the other.” He added that right now, property taxpayers are making up for the state’s low reimbursement rate, and school districts are depleting their general funds. 

“Who loses when we’re stretching funds like that? Literally, every kid,” Phelps said, adding that funding special education through referendum isn’t effective because it’s also unpredictable. 

“When referendums happen, they either pass or fail, so now this district is better off than that district for no reason other than the fact that they both had to ask their voters for a referendum, and so we have disparities… when there is literally a pile of billions of dollars sitting around,” Phelps said, referencing the state’s $4 billion budget surplus. 

“It’s a gold mine in state budgeting to find something that you could do that just so clearly lifts all boats,” Phelps added. 

While Phelps said 60% is a compromise, he said the request from Evers is significant.

“It was not that long ago, public ed advocates were literally getting laughed out of rooms when they would ask for 60%,” Phelps said. “Now, the pressure is just too big, and you’re not getting laughed at for asking for 60[%] anymore.”

Derek Gottlieb, an associate professor at the University of Northern Colorado and senior research director for School Perceptions, an education research firm, also said the state could pick up more of the cost of special ed than Evers’ proposed 60%. 

“Even if the state didn’t touch revenue limits, even if the state continued to fail to raise just revenue limits upward to keep pace with inflation, we would see many, many, many fewer operating referendums if the state just paid 100% of special education expenditures…” Gottlieb said. “It is shameful, frankly, that the state has done less.”

Federal upheaval shadows special ed funding debate 

During a virtual public forum in April, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction leaders said the discussion about federal and state special education funding are connected.

State Superintendent Jill Underly said as reimbursement rates remain low, local communities will continue to take on the cost of the federal- and state-mandated services. 

The special education reimbursement rate “is rather low — it’s 29% now, based on last year’s numbers — but the federal government also has a reimbursement rate, and it’s even lower,” Underly said during the session. “What this would indicate is that our schools are still going to provide the services, because that’s what our schools do. It’s just that they’re not going to be reimbursed fully for them, so the burden is going to shift more to the local school districts to compensate the costs.”

The comments come as the future of the federal government’s role in special education is in flux. The Trump administration has pushed to close the U.S. Department of Education, slashing its workforce and seeking to move “special needs” programs to the Department of Health and Human Services. 

During the forum, Deputy State Superintendent Thomas McCarthy noted that when it comes to federal funding “special education is one of the things that, by and large, everyone has said, we’re not going to reduce the states now.” 

“That is what I know today, ask me next week, it could be on the chopping block,” McCarthy said. Trump’s recent “skinny budget” proposal seeks to cut 15% from the education budget, but says it isn’t cutting funding for special education, though it does propose consolidating several Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) grant programs into one. 

As the upheaval creates uncertainty, DPI leaders encouraged Wisconsinites to take the  opportunity to advocate for more funding. 

When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act became law in 1975, the federal government said it would fund 40% of special education costs, Underly noted. The federal contribution now hovers around 10%.

“When they are arguing that they’re going to make things more efficient at the U.S. Department of Ed or in the federal government… What are they going to do with those savings? This would be a great example. Well, let’s authorize Congress to reimburse up to 40% of special education costs,” Underly said.

“Not only do we need the current level of funding, we need more funding… so be having that conversation with your federal elected officials [and] also be having it with your state elected officials,” Assistant Deputy State Superintendent Sara Knueve said. “We’re in the heat of that conversation about what’s the state’s reimbursement rate and they’re connected.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A yard sign urging voters to vote 'Yes' on a referendum request for Madison School District in 2024 when a record number of schools went to referendum. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

Republican lawmakers are seeking to give military recruiters and youth organizations a boost from the state when it comes to reaching students in public schools, saying that some school districts aren’t giving the organizations equal access. Lawmakers on the Senate Education Committee considered those along with bills that would add further requirements to school referendum requests. 

“I think we have a theme here when it comes to anything that seems patriotic in a way, we’re having a little bit of struggles getting into particular schools,” Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) said during a Tuesday Senate Education Committee meeting. She said during the hearing that she feels “discouraged” about the way military recruiters and scouts are viewed by “certain” communities in Wisconsin. 

One bill — SB 10 — would specifically require schools to allow military recruiters access to common areas in high schools and to allow access during the school day and during school-sanctioned events. It wouldn’t require districts to give recruiters access to classrooms during instructional time.

Federal law has mandated since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act during the Bush administration that public schools give military access to students at school and to students’ contact information. Families can opt their children out of the release of information. However, Cabral-Guevara said she has heard complaints that recruiters have had difficulty. 

Cabral-Guevara said she has heard of recruiters being placed in rooms separate from employment recruiters and has also heard of a limit being placed on the number of times a recruiter can visit a school as well as visits to drop off documents being counted as a recruiting visit. She said recruiters said they have the most difficulty with access to Madison and Milwaukee schools.

“There should be no reason why a military recruiter should have restricted access or be placed at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to speaking with students,” Cabral-Guevara said. 

The bill comes as the U.S. military, including the Wisconsin Army National Guard, in recent years has struggled to reach recruitment goals.

“They have not said they have been denied access to enter the building, what they have been saying is that… they have been prohibited from doing meaningful recruitment,” Cabral-Guevara said. 

Bill co-author Rep. William Penterman (R-Hustisford) compared military recruiters to students trying to sell chocolate bars to their peers.

“After school and during lunch, they have a table in the commons where they sell those candy bars. It’s in a public space, it’s in a common area. Now, I can only imagine if they were restricted to, perhaps inside the counselor’s office, or in a back room somewhere, how that would negatively impact their sales of chocolate bars,” Penterman said.

Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said that school officials in his district had some concerns about whether the bill would lead to excessive access to schools, especially as they already provide access. He said the bill “seems like it’s opening it up to infinite” access. He noted that there are a lot of different groups that seek access to schools. 

“They try and button it and say, OK, we have career fairs and they have to make that balance to try and figure that out,” Larson said. “I think [limitations] would have to be written in, and not just assumed, because if there’s a military recruiter who’s just like, OK every Tuesday, we’re gonna pop in and we’re just going to run the rotation.’ There’s nothing that would stop them if this legislation were passed.”

Sen. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) said the bill seems “problematic” because of a lack of boundaries.

“It says, ‘during school sanctioned events’ — that could be a ball game, that could be during mock trial, that could be during prom… there’s just no boundaries around it with this bill,” Keyeski said. 

Cabral-Guevara said that she is not seeking “to change federal code on how many times they can access a building” or give military recruiters more access than others. Rather, she said she wants to ensure that when recruiters are in a school building for what is counted as a recruiting visit, it is a meaningful interaction.

“That’s not what it says in the bill though,” Keyeski responded. 

The committee also considered SB 11 that would similarly require that if a “federally chartered youth” organization — particularly the Girl Scouts or Eagle Scouts — requests access to a public school that a principal allow them to provide oral or written information to students to help encourage participation in the organizations. The bill is co-authored by Cabral-Guevara and Rep. Barbara Dittrich (R-Oconomowoc). 

“In essence, what we’re finding is that there again are certain groups that when they look for access for recruitment purposes, they are maybe put in a different room. They are not allowed the same access that other organizations get,” Cabral-Guevara said. “As a mother of four children who all worked at scout camps, as somebody that’s active amongst the world of scouting, it is amazing what these organizations help produce in these children. You’re looking at amazing leadership skills. You’re looking at outstanding community volunteers.” 

A similar bill passed the Legislature last session, but was vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers. He wrote in his veto message that he objects to “undermining local decision-making regarding whether organizations may visit school buildings to recruit students for memberships” and said the bill might conflict with federal law.

Keyeski said she heard from a local school leader that the bill appears focused on the wrong priorities. 

“One of the superintendents in my district said the bill does not address any of the things I’m worried about, and then he said that about every single one of these bills,” Keyeski said, adding that she asked what he meant. “He said, ‘We need funding, we need better school opportunities for technological advances.’ This was just not a concern.”

Proposed referendum requirements

Lawmakers on the committee also considered two bills that would impose new restrictions on school referendum requests, which districts have increasingly relied on to help meet costs. 

One bill — SB 58 — would require ballots to include a “good faith estimate” of the property tax impact for a referendum. Ballot questions are currently required to include the dollar amount of the increase in the levy limit.

“It is not the intent of this bill to sway people one way or another on any particular referendum. The point is simply to ensure that voters are given the information that they need so that their decision is informed,” bill coauthor Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha) said. 

The other bill — SB 81 — would eliminate referendum questions that allow recurring — or permanent — operational funding increases and would limit “nonrecurring” referendum requests to cover no more than a four-year period.

“There’s really no mechanism to say we need to make sure that whoever, sometime down the road, is actually having to pay the bill and also who’s responsible for spending the money — if they’re completely different people, there should be a mechanism where both sides have to come back to the table and say, “Let’s relook at everything,” Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) said.

Keyeski said that she thought the mechanism for ensuring that referendum requests are considered responsibly is the elected officials and voters who decide whether to approve them. 

“It’s just taking away local control and it’s taking away democracy in action,” Keyeski said. 

School district leaders and representatives of school associations expressed an array of concerns about the bills, saying the ballot requirements could create confusion for voters and that further restrictions on referendum requests could increase the financial challenges school districts face.

Dee Pattack, executive director of the Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance, told lawmakers that school districts do not want to go to referendum and said that some of the requirements in the  bill would be difficult to meet.

The “good faith estimate piece, that would be really challenging,” Pattack said, noting that there is market volatility that could affect total debt referenda costs. She also said that trying to include all of that information on a ballot could be confusing. 

School districts seeking a referendum will often have a webpage dedicated to information about the request, will host meetings with local residents and stakeholders, speak with news outlets to spread the word and take other actions to ensure the public knows the purpose of a referendum and the costs. 

“It’s a long process, and we just think that, you know, we try to be as transparent as possible right now and trying to condense that into a small area on a ballot might not really be the best way to enhance that transparency,” Pattack said.

Cathy Olig, executive director of the Southeastern Wisconsin Schools Alliance, told lawmakers that school staff and local taxpayers are suffering from referendum fatigue. There were 94 referendum requests during February and April 2025, with about a third of those representing “retry” efforts, according to the Wisconsin Policy Forum. Voters approved 53 of those for a passage rate of 56.4%, making 2025 one of the lowest referendum passage rates in a non-presidential or midterm election year since 2011. 

“We’re concerned [SB 81] will create a constant cycle of referenda for school districts. We would welcome alternatives to referenda, which could be addressed through the budget, but to add further requirements and costs takes the focus away from finding solutions to the larger problems plaguing the school finance formula,” Olig said.

Kenosha Unified School District Superintendent Jeffrey Weiss told lawmakers that his district has  closed several schools in recent years, including five elementary schools and a middle school. He said the change involved a lot of redistricting of students. He said the district has also cut 200 positions and more than $1 million of staff out of the district office.

“We are very responsible stewards of public funds… We wanted to do all we could to avoid having to go for an operational referendum,” Weiss said, adding that superintendents don’t want to go to referendum. The district’s $115 million request failed in February.

Weiss said he thought transparency was already part of the referendum process because the community holds school districts accountable.

“I think these bills around referendum questions are really treating a symptom,” Weiss said, noting that a Blue Ribbon Commission proposed actions in 2019 that could address the problems with the state’s school funding system. “That is the cure and the conversations that we’re having right now, we’re talking about the symptoms. I don’t want to lose my ability to go to the community. This really is our only lever. There are not another seven schools in the city of Kenosha that I can close.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Jay O. Rothman, president of the University of Wisconsin System, speaks during the UW Board of Regents meeting hosted at Union South at the University of Wisconsin–Madison on Feb. 9, 2023. (Photo by Althea Dotzour / UW–Madison)

As Congress is considering remaking the federal financial aid program, Wisconsin higher education leaders are warning that changes could significantly affect access to its campuses. 

Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman wrote in a series of posts on social media last week that he is “very disappointed” by the potential cuts that could be made to student aid. 

Congressional Republicans recently introduced a 103-page proposal that would overhaul the federal financial aid system with cuts meant to help support the extension of tax cuts. Changes would include reducing eligibility for Pell Grants by requiring students take more credit hours to qualify, capping the total amount of student loans one can take out annually and ending certain student loan programs. 

The proposed changes come alongside the Trump administration’s work to remake the system by moving the student loan portfolio from the Department of Education to Small Business Administration, even as both agencies have had significant layoffs, and seeking to eliminate loan relief for people working to support immigrants and trans kids. 

Rothman said nearly half of the 164,400 students across University of Wisconsin campuses rely on federal aid to access the schools and noted that many of the students receiving the help are first-generation college students and low- to middle-income. He said federal financial aid has helped better the U.S. economy and allowed millions of people to improve their own lives. 

“It makes no sense for the US to narrow opportunities if our country wants to win the global War for Talent. I’m dumbfounded that cutting educational opportunities would even be considered when our economic vibrancy is at stake,” Rothman wrote. “While the UWs are among the most affordable in the nation, many lower- and middle-class families rely upon federal financial aid to make these life-changing educational opportunities real.”

Rothman urged Congress to reevaluate the potential cuts in the federal budget, continuing his advocacy for keeping the UW accessible for current and future students. 

In a letter to the Wisconsin Congressional delegation last month, Rothman noted that in the 2023-24 school year, 91,000 UW undergraduate students — or 59% — received some form of financial aid. The federal government distributed $130 million in Pell grants to about 23.4%, or 26,060 undergraduate students that year, delivering an average award of $5,000. 

During that year, undergraduate and graduate students across the system received nearly $1.5 billion in financial aid, including $634 million in grants, $666 million in loans and $13 million in work-study funding.

“Programs like the Pell Grant and other federal financial aid are critical to ensuring continued access and success for students who choose to pursue higher education,” Rothman wrote to lawmakers. “Indiscriminate cuts whether to research, financial aid or programs that provide student support are ultimately shortsighted and will negatively impact the next generation of Wisconsin’s workforce.” 

Rothman is not the only leader who has expressed concerns about cuts to programs. During a hearing last month, Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges and Universities President Eric Fulcomer told state lawmakers that “cutting the Pell Grant or eliminating the Pell Grant would be devastating for our sector.” He said private colleges could be looking at a 27% cut to enrollment.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Bascom Hall, University of Wisconsin-Madison. (Ron Cogswell | used by permission of the photographer)

Madison attorney Shabnam Lotfi says her client, Krish Lal Isserdasani, was exceptionally responsible in the way he handled the news that the Trump administration had suddenly taken away his student visa.

Isserdasani, a 21-year-old computer engineering senior at the University of Wisconsin-Madison from India, was about a month out from his graduation on May 10 when he became one of thousands of students across the U.S. that had their Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) records cancelled by the Trump administration. According to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, SEVIS is a “web-based system for maintaining information on nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors” in the U.S. Once SEVIS records were canceled, students faced the termination of their student visas and their ability to remain in the U.S.

UW-Madison notified students of the changes to their SEVIS status, warning them that status termination generally means an affected person should depart the United States immediately.

“I admire him for acting quickly,” Lotfi told the Wisconsin Examiner. “He saw that his SEVIS record was terminated, immediately contacted the university to see what it means, did not attend classes for a week to figure out what’s going on, [and] hired a lawyer immediately.” 

In April, U.S. District Judge William Conley issued a temporary restraining order blocking the government from terminating Isserdasani’s SEVIS and from taking any further related actions. That order noted Isserdasani and his family had spent about $240,000 on his education, stood to lose $17,500 on the current semester’s tuition and would be responsible for four months of rent on an apartment he would vacate if he was forced to leave the country. 

With the temporary restraining order in place and providing some protection, Lotfi said he was able to resume attending classes. 

“That doesn’t necessarily mean he feels entirely welcome and free and comfortable,” Lotfi said, “but he’s doing the best he can with the cards he has in the situation.” 

At the end of April, the Trump administration started reversing the cancellations. Administration attorneys said in court that they were working on developing a policy that would provide a framework for SEVIS record terminations. Lotfi said she is “aware of what they’re thinking about” and that if they’re trying to find a way to make the terminations lawful, that “will likely be challenged again.”

Lotfi said the Trump administration’s step back from the cancellations is a win. This is not the first time she has fought a Trump order involving immigrants, having brought a challenge in 2018 to the Muslim travel ban during Trump’s first term.

“It was a coalition of attorneys nationwide bringing so many [temporary restraining orders], so many lawsuits on behalf of so many students all at the same time — and the government not having any defense to any of it — that caused them to have to reevaluate,” Lotfi said.

As of April 28, the 27 cancellations for UW-Madison students and alumni were reversed as were the 13 for UW-Milwaukee. However, the reversals are not the end of Isserdasani’s case.

When it comes to his case, Lotfi said it appeared during a hearing last week that the government attorneys were not changing their plan to eject Isserdasani based on the administration’s perceived change in stance on international students’ visas. She said the government’s attorney indicated her client’s SEVIS record was only active because of the temporary restraining order and that “it was not related to any change in a government policy.”

“The government attorneys also indicated that they maintain their right to terminate his SEVIS record again in the future should that be necessary,” Lotfi said. “It certainly surprised me, and I think it surprised the court that they were taking that position.” 

Lotfi noted that the government attorneys in Isserdasani’s case have been arguing, based on a declaration by Andre Watson, a Trump Department of Homeland Security official, that the SEVIS record and a student’s visa status are not the same. She said no one is buying the argument. 

“The vast majority of judges nationwide are asking, then, why do you terminate the SEVIS record? What was the point of doing this? If you guys say that SEVIS and student status are not the same, does that mean that Mr. Isserdasani is in a lawful student status right now?” Lotfi said. “They won’t say that. They’ll just say that the two are not the same, but they will not confirm that he is in a lawful student status with the SEVIS terminated.”

The case challenges the cancellation of the record in several ways, including arguing that the government cannot just take away his status without due process — the ability for him to know why his SEVIS is being terminated and to challenge the termination — and arguing the cancellation was arbitrary and capricious.

“It’s not that Isserdasani failed to go to class. It’s not that he had a criminal activity [or] he was convicted of criminal activity. It’s just because his name [was] in a database,” Lotfi said. In determining cancellations, the Trump administration had run international students’ names through an FBI database called the National Crime Information Center. It appeared that an arrest for disorderly conduct in November 2024 was the reason for Isserdasani’s SEVIS cancellation, but charges were never pursued and he never had to appear in court.

Lotfi said she and her client are waiting for the court’s written decision on whether the temporary restraining order will be converted to a preliminary injunction, which would prevent actions by the government through the course of litigation. Then, she said, litigation will continue, which can take time.

“It is in the interest of justice, and in the interest of the American people, that a final decision on the merits of the case is issued,” Lotfi said.

Lotfi said people shouldn’t accept the Trump administration’s accusations against foreign students as true.

“These students are in a foreign country. Many have learned a second language… They are young and alone without family. They are following this country’s rules and regulations, and they didn’t do anything wrong,” Lotfi said. “They don’t deserve this.”

“If it’s a U.S. citizen, we say innocent until proven guilty… Why do we not have that same mindset when it comes to foreign nationals?” she added. “It just seems like any arrest for anything then that’s guilt, and that’s not the case. We would never allow that for any of our neighbors, so we should not accept the administration’s description of international students having violated their status when they didn’t.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rep. Nate Gustafson said his bill would implement a “net zero” rule process. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Republican lawmakers are introducing bills to review every statewide administrative rule and impose new limits on the rulemaking process, saying there are too many regulations currently and they put operational obstacles and financial burdens on businesses.

GOP Lawmakers have raised objections to agencies’ administrative rulemaking process — and the power of the executive branch — for many years and have taken action to exert more control over the process and to limit the authority of state agencies and the governor. The REINS Act, signed into law by former Gov. Scott Walker in 2017, for example, required lawmakers’ approval for regulations that might cost more than $10 million over a two-year period.

“A lot of what’s been done in the past has looked at when you’re implementing new rules — what is the process? Who is writing the rules?” Rep. Adam Neylon (R-Pewaukee), who introduced the bill that became 2017 Wisconsin Act 57, said at a press conference last week.

“What [the] REINS Act is not able to do is go back and reset it all,” Neylon added. “We’re looking at the stack of rules that have accumulated over the years that are piling up… We need a reset.”

One of four GOP bills would require agencies to make cuts to offset the cost associated with new regulations. 

Under the bill, coauthored by Rep. Nate Gustafson (R-Fox Crossing) and Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), agencies with a new rule proposal would have to stop work on the process until they’ve figured out how to eliminate the cost of a new regulation, or, alternatively, until a different rule reduces the costs to businesses, local governmental units and individuals over any two-year period.

Gustafson calls it a “net zero” rule process. “So if there’s an existing regulation or rule output that is of equal cost or greater, you’re going to have to cut that rule if you want to implement a new one.”

Another of the four bills — coauthored by Neylon and Sen. Steve Nass — would put an expiration date on every administrative rule seven years after implementation. Currently, administrative rules are in effect indefinitely unless repealed, amended by the agency or suspended by the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR).

JCRAR is a 10-member committee responsible for reviewing proposed administrative rules to ensure they align with state law. Lawmakers on the committee have the ability to approve, suspend, or request modifications to proposed rules.

Under the new measure, the year before a rule expires an agency would need to send notice to JCRAR about its intention to readopt the rule. If there is no objection by a lawmaker on the committee, then the rule would be considered readopted, but if there is an objection, then the rule would expire unless the agency goes through the rulemaking process again.

Neylon said the point is to create a more modern process and do away with “outdated or duplicative rules, creating unnecessary burdens on businesses.” 

Another bill — coauthored by Sen. Rob Hutton and Reps. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) and Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) — would limit scope statements, the first step in the rulemaking process, so they could only be used for one proposed rule and would set a six month expiration date when a scope statement can be used for an emergency rule.

Currently, people can challenge the validity of an administrative rule in court. The final bill — coauthored by Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) and Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) — would award people who challenge a rule attorney fees and costs if a court declares a rule invalid. 

The bill package is based on a report from the right-wing Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), which also launched a webpage about the effort to cut “red tape” on Wednesday.

WILL states in the report that Wisconsin is the 13th most regulated state in the country and lays out proposals similar to the new GOP bills. WILL said the actions would build off steps taken in other states, including Idaho, Ohio, Nebraska and Oklahoma, to reduce regulations.

Neylon said WILL provided research and worked with lawmakers’ offices on the legislation. But, he added, “these are issues that we’ve all worked on for a lot of years, issues that we care deeply about. This is our initiative… and nobody else’s.”

Economist on the potential flaws 

Economist Michael Rosen told the Examiner that the bills come out of Republicans’ “national playbook,” and that the research from WILL is based on the idea that “any regulation impedes economic growth.”

“It has been a cornerstone of Republican policy since the election of Ronald Reagan to deregulate, get rid of regulation, and [to insist] that getting rid of regulation promotes economic growth,” Rosen said. He calls that theory “nonsense.” 

Rosen points out that some of the most heavily regulated states — including California and New York — are also the most prosperous. He noted that the majority of the states cited in WILL’ s research are those with Republican-dominated government.

“All regulations really are the rules under which the market operates,” Rosen said, adding, “there have to be rules that govern the behavior of the buyers and sellers. That’s what regulation is. It’s very simple, and what they’re arguing is to get rid of them.”

Rosen challenges broad assertions in WILL’s research, including WILL’s finding that a 36% cut to regulations across the board in Wisconsin could grow the economy by 1 percentage point annually.

That analysis fails to take into account “negative externalities,” Rosen says — actions by companies that impose a cost on people who are not directly involved. He pointed to environmental regulations as an example of how these costs are paid by the public. 

“In economic terms, companies that pollute… part of the cost of production should be disposing of the waste that a company produces…. If there aren’t any rules, the cheapest way to dispose of your waste is to release it into the atmosphere or release it into the rivers and streams,” Rosen said. “That’s what we had in this country at the beginning of the 20th century, when we didn’t have any environmental regulations, and rivers, like the Milwaukee River, and streams and lakes were polluted by manufacturers because that was the cheapest way for them to dispose of their waste.”

Rosen said that some might argue that rules meant to protect the environment impede growth because they impose an additional cost on a company, however, he said that rules can ensure they aren’t passing on that cost to the public. 

Since passage in 2017, the REINS Act has posed an obstacle to proposed environmental protection rules in Wisconsin.

Without the regulations, Rosen said, people would have “no assurance” about the products they buy — “whether it’s a can of tuna fish, whether it’s an automobile, whether it’s a ride on an airplane.” 

“Is it impeding economic growth that we have regulations on air travel? No, because if we didn’t have the regulation of the airline industry, we would have far more accidents and many fewer people would want to travel on airplanes,” Rosen said. “These are all regulations that we take for granted,” but assure people they can trust the products and services they purchase, “and we won’t crash and die.” 

A better way to address onerous or outdated rules, Rosen said, is to take them up one at a time, rather than through the sweeping anti-regulatory bill package Wisconsin Republicans are proposing. 

“Are there some regulations that maybe are antiquated? I’m not going to sit here and tell you there might not be,” Rosen said. “But rather than pass sweeping legislation, which is ideologically driven and could have catastrophic consequences, people should raise the particular regulation.”

What’s next for the bills

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said that she is excited for the bills to go through the Assembly Government Operations, Accountability and Transparency (GOAT) committee, which she chairs. The committee was created this session, inspired by billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency project, which has sought to remake the federal government by unilaterally firing employees and making deep cuts to federal agencies. 

“Excessive regulations have serious economic consequences. They slow economic growth. They increase costs for businesses and consumers and they stifle innovation, all while the compliance costs put the greatest burden on our small businesses and working families,” Nedweski said. 

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) said the bills are another action from the “tired Republican playbook” and compared them to the actions being taken by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. 

“These bills are an attempt at a power grab, akin to what we are seeing from the Trump-Musk administration,” Hesselbein said. “The bills would, among other things, undermine the fundamental democratic principle of separation of powers. They are unnecessary, anti-democratic, and wholly wrong for Wisconsin.”

Republicans in the Senate and Assembly, who hold majorities, could pass the bills without support from Democratic lawmakers, however, they would need Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ sign-off to become law. Neylon conceded that it’s unlikely Evers will support them. 

“Unfortunately Gov. Evers makes a lot of mistakes,” Neylon said. “He’s showing to be a failure as a governor, and I’m not optimistic he’ll make the right decision here, but I think that we’re doing the best we can to try to reform the regulatory process, and we think that it’s time for a reset.” 

Evers’ office hasn’t responded to a request for comment.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Gov. Tony Evers had already said he wasn’t directing state employees to break the law should immigration officials enter state buildings. Evers answers reporters questions in March. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Gov. Tony Evers issued a three-minute video Friday in which he addressed Wisconsinites, describing a statement  from the White House border czar Tom Homan that has been interpreted by some as a threat to arrest Evers as “chilling.” 

Homan made the vague threat after a reporter for the far-right website Gateway Pundit asked him “why not just arrest” leaders interfering with deportation efforts. The reporter then specifically asked him about Evers’ directive to state agencies instructing them to consult an attorney if federal immigration agents enter state buildings demanding files or computer system access.

“Wait to see what’s coming,” Homan said. “You can not support what we’re doing and you can support sanctuary cities if that’s what you want to do, but if you cross that line of impediment or knowingly harboring or concealing an illegal alien, that is a felony and we’ll treat it as such.” 

Before the comment, Evers had already said he wasn’t directing state employees to break the law should immigration officials enter state buildings.

“A Trump Administration official, in not so many words, apparently threatened to arrest me… The goal of this guidance was simple — to provide clear, consistent instructions to state employees and ensure they have a lawyer to help them comply with all federal and state laws. Nothing more, nothing less,” Evers said in the video. “But Republicans and their right-wing allies, including Elon Musk, lied about this guidance, spread misinformation, accused me of doing things I didn’t do or say, and fueled a fake controversy of their own creation.”

The guidance sent by the Department of Administration to state employees told them to stay calm if an ICE agent entered their offices. It told them to ask agents for their names and badges to verify their identity, to ask why they were there, ask for documentation like a valid warrant then tell the agent to have a seat. It said state employees should call the Office of Legal Council to consult an attorney.

It also told employees not to answer questions from an agent, give them access to paper files and computer systems without speaking to an attorney and not to give consent for an agent to enter a “nonpublic” area, noting that they need a judicial warrant to enter such an area. 

“Remember that every state employee has a duty to protect confidential data and information collected or maintained by the State of Wisconsin in state offices and electronic filing systems,” the guidance stated. 

“I haven’t broken the law. I haven’t committed a crime, and I’ve never encouraged or directed anyone to break any laws or commit any crimes,” Evers said in the video. “When President Trump’s hand-picked appointee, Tom Homan, was asked about me and this guidance after he apparently threatened to arrest elected officials across the country, he said, ‘Wait ’til you see what’s coming.’ Overnight, Republican lawmakers piled on, encouraging the Trump Administration to arrest me.” 

Evers’ directive had received backlash from Wisconsin Republicans who called on Evers to rescind the guidance and support Trump’s deportation agenda. 

One Republican state lawmaker Rep. Calvin Callahan (R-Tomahawk) suggested in multiple social media posts Thursday that Evers should be arrested — sharing an AI-generated photo of Evers in handcuffs and writing in another post that “this is what Tony Evers sent out; stick him in the same cell as the Milwaukee judge!” Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested last week under accusations that she impeded the arrest of a man that ICE followed to her courtroom. 

Evers said the threats should concern everyone.

“In this country, the federal government doesn’t get to abuse its power to threaten everyday Americans. In this country, the federal government doesn’t get to arrest American citizens who have not committed a crime. In this country, we don’t threaten to persecute people just because they belong to a different political party,” Evers said. 

“These threats represent a concerning trajectory in this country. We now have a federal government that will threaten or arrest an elected official — or even everyday American citizens — who have broken no laws, committed no crimes, and done nothing wrong,” Evers said. “As disgusted as I am about the continued actions of the Trump Administration, I am not afraid. I have never once been discouraged from doing the right thing, and I will not start today.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Lawmakers listen to testimony at the West Allis public hearing in early April. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Education priorities, including funding for K-12 public schools, higher education and early childhood education and child care, proved to be the issues that arose most often in public hearings held by the Wisconsin Legislature’s powerful budget committee in April. 

Wisconsin lawmakers wrapped up their public hearings this week with a hearing Monday in Hayward and one Tuesday in Wausau. Two hearings were held in early April in West Allis and Kaukauna.

With the hearings complete, the Joint Finance Committee will turn its attention to the work of writing the budget with the goal of completing it by the June 30 deadline. If lawmakers and Gov. Tony Evers don’t complete the budget by that deadline, Wisconsin continues to operate under the current budget into the next fiscal year. 

Tessa Maglio, digital and communications organizer for the Wisconsin Public Education Network, a nonprofit advocacy organization for public schools, worked with legislative policy Lead Bryn Horton and organizing and engagement coordinator Camden Hargrove to track testimony at each of the public hearings.

“Tracking the testimony is really important because we have seen in budget cycle after budget cycle people ask for the resources Wisconsin kids in their public schools need and then have watched the subsequent budget not meet the requests,” Maglio said. “We wanted to keep it in the forefront of the advocates’ minds as well as the governor’s mind and legislators’ minds.” 

According to the WPEN tracker, more than 900 people spoke across the four hearings, which lasted about 29 total hours. WPEN reported that more than 170 people discussed funding for K-12 schools, more than 50 people spoke about higher education and more than  50  spoke about child care. Maglio said education across the spectrum made up at least a third of the total testimony.

“It is really powerful to hear you know people share their stories and experiences and priorities and so even though some of the topics might not have tallied very high on our tracker, they’re nonetheless still very important,” Maglio said.

On the issue of  K-12 public education, Maglio said, public testimony included calls to raise the special education reimbursement to at least 60%, provide districts with more spendable aid, fix the revenue limit structure, which restricts how much school districts can raise without permission from lawmakers or the public, and help school districts keep their schools operating and serve their students.

There were “many different stories and many different perspectives and people brought their own experiences whether they were coming from large urban districts or small rural districts,” Maglio said. School districts in Wisconsin have not had predictable increases in funding through state aid or property taxes in over 15 years, and an increasing number of school districts have had to rely on getting permission from voters in referendums to meet costs.

Maglio highlighted testimony by Laura McCoy, president of the Green Bay Area Public School District Board of Education, at the Kaukauna hearing. 

McCoy told lawmakers that her community supports their local schools.

“We know this because we just passed yet another referendum: the third referendum in eight years. We’re going to have to pass another one next year,” McCoy said. “Honestly, funding public education by referendum is no way to educate our future generations. Districts around this state are begging for change. Please listen to them.” 

“We are doing our job in Green Bay. We are holding up our piece of the sky. We are preparing our students for the future and we are hitting it out of the ballpark with workforce development,” McCoy added. “But it gets harder every year and we need to feel like the state Legislature is our partner, and not our adversary.” 

JFC Democrats call for education funding

Democrats on the Joint Finance Committee also called on Republican members to fund education in the upcoming state budget during a Wednesday press conference.

“From West Allis to Wausau, the message was consistent and it was clear,” said Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee).  “Wisconsinites want a budget that invests in public education, affordable health care options, workforce development and child care.” 

“It is our job as state legislators,” Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said, “and it is time for my Republican colleagues to join Democrats in actually providing the resources that our kids deserve.” 

Republican leaders have said that the state Supreme Court decision on Evers’ partial veto, which extends the annual $325 revenue limit increase for school districts for 400 years, would affect the state budget. In April, the Court upheld the veto, saying it was within the governor’s  power and suggesting that lawmakers could take different routes, including writing the budget differently or passing a constitutional amendment, if they want to prevent such vetoes in the future. 

Roys said it would be “an excuse” and “pathetic” if Republicans decide not to increase education funding due to the decision. 

“If they want to try to pass a constitutional amendment, we’ve seen them do it again and again. They can certainly give that a try, but I don’t think that’s an acceptable excuse to fail to pass a budget on time, fail to pass a budget that makes the investments that our kids and our constituents — all of our constituents — need and and deserve,” Roys said. 

Johnson added that the state could also cover the cost of the $325 revenue increase Evers’ veto allowed school districts to raise from local taxpayers. 

“I’m hoping that they do the right thing,” Johnson said of her colleagues in the Legislature. “We heard a consensus across the board of taxpayers coming in and testifying, saying that the referendums are not sustainable. It’s not the way for them to fund public education, and let’s be real, it’s not fair, either.” 

Health care concerns

According to the WPEN’s tracking, health care was the second most discussed issue at the hearings. 

“Coming in just behind the focus on public education was Medicaid expansion, Medicaid funding, health care,” said Maglio. “Many, many, many people came out to testify in favor of those things and shared really powerful and sometimes heart-breaking personal stories about the impact that Medicaid funding has on their lives or the lives of their loved ones and what that would mean if that funding were not to be supported in the budget.” 

Evers, as he has done in each of his budget proposals, asked  that Wisconsin take the federal Medicaid expansion that would allow almost all adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level to qualify. Wisconsin is one of only 10 states that has not done so.

This session, though, the request comes at a moment when the Medicaid program is facing the threat of deep cuts from  the Trump administration and Republican members of Congress. Concerns about proposed federal cuts came up at the state budget hearings. 

“Also with farming and food access and previously supported funding for Wisconsin farmers to provide food to schools and to food pantries… Across the board there was kind of an undercurrent [of] people focusing on the needs of Wisconsinites, but urging their lawmakers to think about the budget within the context of decisions being made at the federal level,” Maglio said.

In addition to broader Medicaid expansion, a postpartum Medicaid expansion, which would extend health care coverage for mothers who recently gave birth from 60 days to a year, has been a major point of bipartisan agreement this session. A bill that would make Wisconsin the 49th state to take the extension recently passed the Senate but it faces challenges in the Assembly, where the top Republican has opposed the measure deeming it an expansion of “welfare.” 

Roys called on her Republican colleagues to get it done by placing it in the budget. She noted that the four Democrats and the six Senate Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee, who voted in favor of the bill, could place the proposal in the budget without Assembly Republicans on the committee having to vote in favor. 

“I understand that there are some problems over in the Assembly, and we’ve heard that Vos  is to blame year after year, session after session when this doesn’t get done — despite having overwhelming support for members of his caucus, and, of course, every single Democrat in the Legislature,” Roys said. “The good news is that if Republicans in the Assembly are afraid of political retribution from Speaker Vos or they don’t want to cross him, we can still put postpartum Medicaid expansion in the budget right now.” 

Another major issue that lawmakers will debate this budget is tax cuts, though Roys noted that cuts for “millionaires and billionaires” were not popular topics at the public hearings. 

“That’s one thing that nobody asked for, [but] seems to be the focus of my Republican colleagues,” Roys said. “In fact, they are focused on trying to shove through an irresponsible tax cut before we even engage in meeting the needs of Wisconsinites.”

Republican lawmakers have said they want to pass a tax cut bill prior to the budget. 

“The goal, again, is to try to find something that can actually get across the finish line,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said in April. During the last legislative session, Evers vetoed several Republican  tax cut proposals, including proposed reductions for the top income tax brackets in the last budget. “I think the governor realizes that we’re not going to spend any more money unless we have the ability to reduce taxes and help folks get by with inflation.”

Evers, meanwhile, has said that he won’t support tax cuts done outside of the budget.

“It has to be part of the budget. We just can’t do things one way, and then, you know, just do taxes and then do spending,” Evers said. “We have to look at it together.”

So far lawmakers have declined to discuss specifics. Committee Co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) said at a press conference ahead of the Wausau hearing that details haven’t been negotiated and they aren’t going to “negotiate anything in the media.” 

Democratic legislative leaders have said they haven’t been part of those discussions. 

Roys said that if Democrats were going to support a tax cut, it needs to be part of the budget process and it needs to be “responsible and not create a massive structural deficit that then Republicans will use it as an excuse to undermine the services that we rely on in our public schools.” Any cut, she added, needs to be targeted towards “everyday Wisconsinites.” 

Johnson said that investing in other priorities could also present a better opportunity for savings for taxpayers. 

“Everybody could use a couple of extra dollars in their pocket. Let’s be real, I could use a couple of extra dollars a month, but if those same communities are going to have to go to referendum to support their schools, it’s not a tax break for them,” Johnson said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reps. Angelito Tenorio, Francesca Hong and Renuka Mayadev in the Wisconsin State Assembly chambers. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

After two sessions as the only Asian American lawmaker in the Wisconsin Legislature, Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), who was first elected in 2020, stood alongside freshmen Reps. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis) and Renuka Mayadev (D-Madison) Thursday to announce the formation of the state’s first Legislative Asian Caucus.

The lawmakers announced the creation of the caucus on the first day of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, saying that they have a responsibility to represent Asian American Wisconsinites, who make up 6% of the state, and to work to advance their rights, visibility and improve their daily lives.

“I’m deeply grateful, and I couldn’t think of a better team to be in the Asian caucus with… We have the distinct opportunity to make all of our communities stronger,” said Hong, who is the daughter of Korean immigrants, said. At one point during the press conference, Hong said she felt like she was going to cry.

Tenorio is the first Filipino American to be elected to the state Legislature, and said during the press conference that his parents immigrated to the U.S. “in hopes of finding a better life.” He said that growing up he didn’t see people that looked like him in leadership positions, including in government. 

“That lack of representation stuck with me, and I knew I wanted to change that,” Tenorio said, adding that he was an activist in college, served in the Wisconsin Army National Guard and has become an advocate for addressing climate change and protecting the environment. 

Tenorio said the creation of the caucus is “historic” and a “declaration” that Asian Americans deserve to help shape the future of the state. 

“For too long, our stories, struggles, strengths and victories have been overlooked,” Tenorio said. “As members of the Legislature, we have a seat at the table, and we carry the responsibility to make this table bigger, more inclusive and more representative of our state.” 

Tenorio noted that the lawmakers have introduced a resolution to recognize 2025 as the “Year of the Snake” and a resolution to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the conclusion of the Vietnam War, the Secret War in Laos and of the 50th anniversary of the Fall of Phnom Penh in Cambodia —  conflicts that led to people from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam resettling in the U.S. 

“Such communities largely resettled in Wisconsin, overcoming adversity to establish vibrant communities that have significantly contributed to the social, cultural, and economic fabric of our state” the commemorative resolution states. “Wisconsin is now home to the third-largest Hmong population in the United States, with communities thriving in cities like Appleton, Sheboygan, Green Bay, Wausau and Milwaukee.” 

“These resolutions aren’t just ceremonial. They’re a part of our broader efforts to write our stories into the narrative of our states, to affirm that we are not outsiders,” Tenorio said. “We are part of the fabric of Wisconsin.”

The caucus members said they will host events throughout the month to highlight the contributions of Asian Americans, including one focused on Japanese internment, another on celebrating the Hmong community and one to uplift Filipino stories.

“There is so much to celebrate, so much to be proud of and so much to feel honored by being an Asian American,” Hong said. 

Maydev is the first South Asian elected to the Assembly and represents the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus and other parts of the state’s capital city. She noted that her district is about 17% Asian American and she represents the highest concentration of Asian Americans in the state. 

Mayadev said that her journey to hold public office didn’t start when she submitted her nomination papers. 

“It started when my parents decided to leave everything they knew in their homes more than 50 years ago, and traveled from India as immigrants to the United States,” Mayadev said. “Like the representatives beside me, we are all first-generation Americans — proud children of immigrants.”

Mayadev also emphasized that the lawmakers will bring in the voices of others in the community. She said people have reached out to her for that reason already. 

“They said they’ve never reached out to an Assembly person before, but they reached out to me because they felt that they would have an empathetic ear and an understanding that goes deeper that maybe they felt that somebody else wouldn’t be able to be,” Mayadev said. 

Hong said caucus members will also make sure to go to different communities in the state and work to identify leaders who want to build relationships. 

The formation of the caucus comes as Republicans at a federal and state level have targeted immigrants as well as diversity and inclusion efforts. 

“We must do more. We know the reality on the ground. AAPI folks, like so many immigrants, workers and people of color, continue to face threats and challenges — from the underrepresentation and political exclusion of Asian Americans to the surge in anti-Asian hate crimes to growing economic inequality,” Tenorio said. “We are navigating a landscape that too often undermines our dignity and our safety.” 

Mayadev acknowledged the caucus is being established during a time of upheaval for immigrants as the Trump administration has proclaimed its aim of carrying out mass deportations and has detained even immigrants who are in the country legally. Wisconsin Republicans have supported those efforts, seeking legislation that requires local law enforcement to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to discussing removing a Milwaukee County judge who was arrested by the FBI and is accused of impeding the arrest of a man that ICE followed to her courtroom.

“There’s much uncertainty and fear,” Mayadev said, adding that caucus members are committed to providing “guidance and leadership during this time, so that all feel welcome in Wisconsin.”

Asked about the targeting of inclusion efforts by Republicans in the state Legislature, Hong mentioned a recent hearing in the Joint Audit Committee, where Republican lawmakers grilled state agency leaders on their inclusion efforts. 

“I plan to speak with the chairs of that committee about my experiences when I first got here of deep xenophobia and racism,” she said, adding that she hoped by being “very truthful, honest and vulnerable” she and other members of color could “dispel some of the preconceived notions that racism and discrimination isn’t happening right here in the halls of power amongst colleagues.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Wisconsin Department of Corrections Madison offices. (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

Department of Corrections Secretary Jared Hoy took questions from lawmakers on the Assembly Corrections Committee Tuesday, explaining the plan for Gov. Tony Evers’ about $500 million state budget request. 

Hoy previously defended the proposal to the Joint Finance Committee prior to which co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) had expressed concerns that the plan lacked detail.

About $325 million in Evers’ proposal would go to overhaul the state’s correctional facilities through a “domino” plan — starting with work to close Lincoln Hills School for Boys and Copper Lake School for Girls, which were initially supposed to close in 2021 under 2018 Act 185, and culminating in the closure of the Green Bay Correctional Institution. 

“There are a lot of issues with running facilities that are that old,” Hoy said about the Green Bay facility, which was built in 1898. It would cost about $6.3 million for the closure. “We shouldn’t be running prisons in that manner in 2025… We want to do more with our population than what those facilities can afford us to do.”

Under the plan, Waupun Correctional Institution would be closed temporarily for renovations, including replacing the existing cells with modern housing for 600 medium-security beds and establishing space for a “vocational village.” The work on Waupun would cost about $245.3 million and be ready to open in 2031.

“If we are going to keep Waupun open, we are going to completely flip the script. We are going to rewrite the narrative of Waupun,” Hoy said.

Hoy said that the idea wouldn’t be far from turning the Waupun facility into a “college campus” where inmates can receive vocational, career and technical education. 

“They’re living in community together. They’re going to school together. They’re studying in the evenings together, and it’s predicated on robust partnerships with the community so that we have manufacturers out in the community who come in to do the training on site,” Hoy said. 

Other infrastructure funding would include $130 million to complete construction of a Type 1 youth facility in Dane County, which would be necessary to close Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake schools, $9 million to convert Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake into a 500-bed facility for men, $8.8 million to convert Stanley Correctional Institution to a maximum-security institution and $56 million to expand Sanger B. Powers Correctional Center by 200 beds.

Committee Chair Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) asked how DOC considered future budgets and whether there would be increases to the cost.

“It’s not the full cost of capital and programming for the future, so there’s a cost that is going to be harder to quantify when you build this, and you get it up and running,” Kaufert said.

Hoy said that closing Green Bay would actually represent a significant decrease in operating budget and updating Waupun would also lead to some decreases.

“Operating Waupun is quite cost prohibitive because [of] the number of staff that you need to run those aging facilities,” Hoy said. “Running a smaller facility at Waupun…requires less staffing, as well as shutting down Green Bay, your overall operating budget starts to offset [needing] more staff at Sanger Powers [Correctional Center]” to help with the additional beds.

Hoy also addressed some of the policy changes meant to address the growing prison population. Wisconsin’s prison population as of February was 23,074 and is expected to grow to 24,000 by the end of the biennium, despite the state only having capacity to house 17,638 people across its correctional facilities.

“About a third of our entire population is nonviolent in our prisons, and so we have existing programs that help people get the treatment, get the support and get them back out the door in a timely manner,” Hoy said. “One of the main mechanisms we have to do that at our disposal is the earned release program.” 

Evers’ plan would expand access to the state’s Earned Release Program to allow an additional 2,500 participants. The plan would expand access to workforce training and substance use treatment for people who have 48 months or less left in their sentences for nonviolent offenses  to support this. 

Rep. Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison) asked if the state is hitting a “tipping point” when it comes to its prison population. 

“Are we at the point of even thinking about sending people to other jails? Are we thinking about sending people out of state?” Stubbs asked. “Our incarceration numbers right now… are very high.” 

Hoys said that would be a “nuclear” option, given that it would take people away from their families and community. 

“I have no intention, no desire to send people out of state,” Hoys said, but added that “at some point our options are going to run out.” 

Hoys said DOC is leveraging jail contracts as much as it can and noted that one change that is being sought in the budget is an increase to the daily rate. Right now, he said the rate is capped at $60 a day and he wants that bumped to $80 to match the rate for federal inmates. 

“If I’m a sheriff and I’m looking at taking in-state guys versus federal guys or women for that matter, I’m going to choose the federal folks because the price tag [is] better,” Hoy said. “I want to be able to have that as a resource. Again, I’d like to keep everybody in our facilities as opposed to county jails, but that is a safety valve for us that we currently do utilize.” 

Kaufert, who was newly elected to his seat in November, noted that during his previous tenure in the state Legislature in the 1990s, lawmakers on the corrections committee toured facilities in other states where Wisconsin inmates were being held.

“I don’t want to make that mistake again,” Kaufert said. 

Rep. Benjamin Franklin (R-De Pere) asked whether DOC would at least consider building a new facility to replace the Green Bay one. He added that he recently spoke to the Brown County sheriff, who said there are hundreds of people at home on ankle bracelets because there just isn’t enough space. 

“I want to commend the governor for acknowledging that that needs to go away — GBCI,” Franklin said. 

“We definitely did look… but to just replace Green Bay [maximum] facility — same size, same number of beds — you’re approaching a billion dollars, if not more,” Hoy said, adding that the state  also got an estimate of about $800 million for a smaller facility. 

“If I was looking across our population right now, and we were packed to the gills with violent offenders… I wouldn’t be saying, no, let’s not build anything. I’d be saying… we need to make sure our communities are safe and continue to house these people,” Hoy said. “But when I’m sitting on, you know, a third of 23,000 people that are non-violent… I believe it’s not only the right thing to do, but fiscally responsible to give those folks a chance in the community.” 

Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond Du Lac) asked how far up DOC is on Evers’ priority list. Noting the University of Wisconsin system budget and the public K-12 funding challenges, he said that everyone is seeking funding from the same pot of money. Wisconsin has a $4 billion budget surplus and Evers had suggested raising taxes on the wealthiest Wisconsinites. 

“I think we’re pretty close to the top, and I’m not just saying that because I’m the secretary of DOC. I mean I think it’s one of his biggest priorities,” Hoy said. 

Kaufert expressed interest in having more committee hearings with DOC about the plan. 

“There’s so many arms and legs on this that one impacts the other,” Kaufert said, adding that they could break it down to have more time to speak about all the pieces. He noted that if they are spending hundreds of millions and ending up with less beds, they better have “darn good answers” for taxpayers.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Wisconsin Department of Corrections Madison offices. (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

Department of Corrections Secretary Jared Hoy took questions from lawmakers on the Assembly Corrections Committee Tuesday, explaining the plan for Gov. Tony Evers’ about $500 million state budget request. 

Hoy previously defended the proposal to the Joint Finance Committee prior to which co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) had expressed concerns that the plan lacked detail.

About $325 million in Evers’ proposal would go to overhaul the state’s correctional facilities through a “domino” plan — starting with work to close Lincoln Hills School for Boys and Copper Lake School for Girls, which were initially supposed to close in 2021 under 2018 Act 185, and culminating in the closure of the Green Bay Correctional Institution. 

“There are a lot of issues with running facilities that are that old,” Hoy said about the Green Bay facility, which was built in 1898. It would cost about $6.3 million for the closure. “We shouldn’t be running prisons in that manner in 2025… We want to do more with our population than what those facilities can afford us to do.”

Under the plan, Waupun Correctional Institution would be closed temporarily for renovations, including replacing the existing cells with modern housing for 600 medium-security beds and establishing space for a “vocational village.” The work on Waupun would cost about $245.3 million and be ready to open in 2031.

“If we are going to keep Waupun open, we are going to completely flip the script. We are going to rewrite the narrative of Waupun,” Hoy said.

Hoy said that the idea wouldn’t be far from turning the Waupun facility into a “college campus” where inmates can receive vocational, career and technical education. 

“They’re living in community together. They’re going to school together. They’re studying in the evenings together, and it’s predicated on robust partnerships with the community so that we have manufacturers out in the community who come in to do the training on site,” Hoy said. 

Other infrastructure funding would include $130 million to complete construction of a Type 1 youth facility in Dane County, which would be necessary to close Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake schools, $9 million to convert Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake into a 500-bed facility for men, $8.8 million to convert Stanley Correctional Institution to a maximum-security institution and $56 million to expand Sanger B. Powers Correctional Center by 200 beds.

Committee Chair Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) asked how DOC considered future budgets and whether there would be increases to the cost.

“It’s not the full cost of capital and programming for the future, so there’s a cost that is going to be harder to quantify when you build this, and you get it up and running,” Kaufert said.

Hoy said that closing Green Bay would actually represent a significant decrease in operating budget and updating Waupun would also lead to some decreases.

“Operating Waupun is quite cost prohibitive because [of] the number of staff that you need to run those aging facilities,” Hoy said. “Running a smaller facility at Waupun…requires less staffing, as well as shutting down Green Bay, your overall operating budget starts to offset [needing] more staff at Sanger Powers [Correctional Center]” to help with the additional beds.

Hoy also addressed some of the policy changes meant to address the growing prison population. Wisconsin’s prison population as of February was 23,074 and is expected to grow to 24,000 by the end of the biennium, despite the state only having capacity to house 17,638 people across its correctional facilities.

“About a third of our entire population is nonviolent in our prisons, and so we have existing programs that help people get the treatment, get the support and get them back out the door in a timely manner,” Hoy said. “One of the main mechanisms we have to do that at our disposal is the earned release program.” 

Evers’ plan would expand access to the state’s Earned Release Program to allow an additional 2,500 participants. The plan would expand access to workforce training and substance use treatment for people who have 48 months or less left in their sentences for nonviolent offenses  to support this. 

Rep. Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison) asked if the state is hitting a “tipping point” when it comes to its prison population. 

“Are we at the point of even thinking about sending people to other jails? Are we thinking about sending people out of state?” Stubbs asked. “Our incarceration numbers right now… are very high.” 

Hoys said that would be a “nuclear” option, given that it would take people away from their families and community. 

“I have no intention, no desire to send people out of state,” Hoys said, but added that “at some point our options are going to run out.” 

Hoys said DOC is leveraging jail contracts as much as it can and noted that one change that is being sought in the budget is an increase to the daily rate. Right now, he said the rate is capped at $60 a day and he wants that bumped to $80 to match the rate for federal inmates. 

“If I’m a sheriff and I’m looking at taking in-state guys versus federal guys or women for that matter, I’m going to choose the federal folks because the price tag [is] better,” Hoy said. “I want to be able to have that as a resource. Again, I’d like to keep everybody in our facilities as opposed to county jails, but that is a safety valve for us that we currently do utilize.” 

Kaufert, who was newly elected to his seat in November, noted that during his previous tenure in the state Legislature in the 1990s, lawmakers on the corrections committee toured facilities in other states where Wisconsin inmates were being held.

“I don’t want to make that mistake again,” Kaufert said. 

Rep. Benjamin Franklin (R-De Pere) asked whether DOC would at least consider building a new facility to replace the Green Bay one. He added that he recently spoke to the Brown County sheriff, who said there are hundreds of people at home on ankle bracelets because there just isn’t enough space. 

“I want to commend the governor for acknowledging that that needs to go away — GBCI,” Franklin said. 

“We definitely did look… but to just replace Green Bay [maximum] facility — same size, same number of beds — you’re approaching a billion dollars, if not more,” Hoy said, adding that the state  also got an estimate of about $800 million for a smaller facility. 

“If I was looking across our population right now, and we were packed to the gills with violent offenders… I wouldn’t be saying, no, let’s not build anything. I’d be saying… we need to make sure our communities are safe and continue to house these people,” Hoy said. “But when I’m sitting on, you know, a third of 23,000 people that are non-violent… I believe it’s not only the right thing to do, but fiscally responsible to give those folks a chance in the community.” 

Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond Du Lac) asked how far up DOC is on Evers’ priority list. Noting the University of Wisconsin system budget and the public K-12 funding challenges, he said that everyone is seeking funding from the same pot of money. Wisconsin has a $4 billion budget surplus and Evers had suggested raising taxes on the wealthiest Wisconsinites. 

“I think we’re pretty close to the top, and I’m not just saying that because I’m the secretary of DOC. I mean I think it’s one of his biggest priorities,” Hoy said. 

Kaufert expressed interest in having more committee hearings with DOC about the plan. 

“There’s so many arms and legs on this that one impacts the other,” Kaufert said, adding that they could break it down to have more time to speak about all the pieces. He noted that if they are spending hundreds of millions and ending up with less beds, they better have “darn good answers” for taxpayers.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Wisconsin Supreme Court chambers. (Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan Tuesday due to the federal charges that allege she tried to help a man in her courtroom avoid arrest by federal immigration agents.

Dugan was arrested Friday by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Milwaukee County courthouse and has been charged with two federal criminal offenses, felony obstruction of a federal agency and a misdemeanor for concealing a person to help them avoid arrest. 

Earlier this month, ICE and other federal agents showed up outside her courtroom to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant accused of misdemeanor battery. The federal government alleges she helped Flores-Ruiz evade them by allowing him to exit using a side door without going past the agents. The agents then apprehended him outside the courthouse on foot.

The Court said in a two-page letter that it was in the public interest to relieve Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan of her duties. The letter stated that Dugan is temporarily banned from “exercising the powers of a circuit court judge” as of Tuesday.

“In the exercise of [the Supreme Court’s] constitutional authority and in order to uphold the public’s confidence in the courts of this state during the pendency of the criminal proceeding against Judge Dugan, we conclude, on our own motion, that it is in the public interest that she be temporarily relieved of her official duties,” the Court stated.

Dugan’s legal team said in a statement to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that they “are disappointed that the Court acted in unilateral fashion. We continue to assert Judge Dugan’s innocence and look forward [to] her vindication in court.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE