Senate and Assembly Democratic lawmakers proposed their own package of education bills ahead of the floor session that would increase general aid for public schools by $325 per pupil, provide transparency on voucher school costs and provide free school meals to students. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Assembly Republicans passed a handful of bills Thursday on an array of issues. Democrats argued the measures won’t solve the problems facing Wisconsinites and unveiled their own proposals. 

The Assembly floor session is the first since lawmakers broke for the summer after completing the state budget. The Senate does not plan to meet this month, and Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) told reporters during a press conference that it was a “shame” they wouldn’t. She said she has had conversations about meeting in October. 

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said Republicans’ agenda for Thursday was an example of “prioritizing culture wars” rather than “doing what’s right.” 

Democrats’ education bills

Senate and Assembly Democratic lawmakers proposed their own package of education bills ahead of the floor session that would increase general aid for public schools by $325 per pupil, provide transparency on voucher school costs and provide free school meals to students. 

“We would like to see our legislative Republican colleagues focus on the issues that are facing Wisconsinites — issues like cost of living, their public schools and their property taxes,” Neubauer said. “That’s why we’re bringing forward this package today, because we know from conversations with our constituents what they’re really concerned about.”

The Democrats’ education agenda  contrasts with the plan announced by Assembly Republicans earlier this week. Republican proposals include encouraging consolidation of schools, calling on Gov. Tony Evers to opt into a federal school choice program, banning drones over schools and improving math education.

One Democratic  bill would dedicate $325 in additional per pupil state aid to Wisconsin school districts. It would cost nearly $500 million for 2025-26 and nearly $700 million for 2026-27. 

Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) called it the “bare minimum” that school districts need and said it would help school districts avoid raising property taxes. 

“School districts will do better under this bill than current law,” Roys said. “We know every kid around the state deserves to go to a great school so that they can meet their potential, but to be clear, this bill is not everything that our kids need or deserve, not even close.” 

Wisconsin’s most recent state budget did not give school districts any increase in per pupil general aid, despite calls from education advocates, Gov. Tony Evers and other Democrats to provide additional funding.

Republican lawmakers said they would not increase state aid after  Evers used his partial veto power to extend a cap on the annual increase to limits on the revenue districts can raise from local taxpayer of $325 per pupil for the next 400 years. Without state funding, school districts only have the option of increasing property taxes to bring in the additional funds. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau projects that property taxes will increase by more than 7% on average over the next year.

Roys said the bill is a “test” to see if Republicans want to help keep property taxes stable, since providing no state aid to schools will drive those taxes up. She blamed Republicans for placing districts in a situation where they have to go to property taxpayers to keep up with costs. 

Roys also knocked a Republican bill that would encourage school districts to explore consolidation and sharing services. 

“They want to consolidate school districts. They want to close schools, and by the way, everything’s the governor’s fault. Give me a break,” Roys said. “They want to hold the line on property taxes? Prove it.” 

The bill also includes an additional $31 million to ensure no school districts receive less state aid in 2025-26 than they received in 2024-25. 

The Department of Public Instruction’s July 1 estimate found that 277 districts — or 65.8% — of school districts were going to receive less in general aid from the state in 2025. 

Another bill seeks to provide greater transparency on the costs of voucher schools to districts by requiring property tax bills to include information about the cost. The bill would expand on a push that public school advocates are making at a local level after the city of Green Bay was able to add the information. 

Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) said the bill would help inform residents who may be confused about where their tax dollars are going. 

“We can say, time and time again, that the state is underfunding our local public schools. That is true. What they also don’t understand, and there’s a really simple fix, is how much of that money is leaving their district to go to other voucher schools. In some cases, millions and tens of millions of dollars… It is a simple fix. It is very straightforward,” Andraca said.

Requiring in-person work for state employees 

AB 39 would require state employees to return to in-person work for at least 80% of their time — or four days a week for a full-time employee — starting this year. The bill passed 51-44 with all Democrats opposing it. 

The bill initially required state agency employees to be in person the whole week, but an amendment dropped the minimum to four days. 

Republican lawmakers have been calling for stricter limits on remote work for several years. The policies became normal for state employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Nedweski said she isn’t “anti-telework,” but said remote work needs to be managed and measured. She said agencies haven’t provided data to show it is working. During the Assembly Committee on Government Oversight, Accountability and Transparency hearing on the bill, agency leaders said remote work policies have helped with recruitment and retention of employees.

“It’s time for state employees to return to the office and do the work that Wisconsin’s hard-working taxpayers are paying them to do to the best of their ability and in their most productive and efficient way,” Nedweski said. “We have a policy that allows for remote work agreements. We’re not saying the policy is ending, we’re saying, come back, have your performance evaluated and re-sign your remote work agreement.” 

Rep. Mike Bare (D-Verona), the ranking member of the GOAT committee, pointed to the testimony they heard as he argued the bill wouldn’t help.

“A bill like this with a one-size-fits-all return to work policy will not make our state government better… Remote work policies were born from a crisis, and we all remember too well. They’ve  become a success for our state government. We now have state workers dispersed all across the state. We’ve achieved savings by consolidating physical workspace. We’ve stayed competitive with the private market by appealing to how employees want to work and then what they expect from their work environment.” 

Flag prohibition

AB 58 would prohibit flags, other than the United States flag, the state of Wisconsin flag and a few others on a list of exceptions, from being flown outside state and local buildings including the Wisconsin State Capitol. The bill passed 50-44, along party lines. 

Rep. Jerry O’Connor, the author of the bill, argued that flags are part of the reason for increasing divisiveness, and even political violence. Wisconsin leaders condemned political violence during the session after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk on Wednesday.

“It’s not the role of the government to pick the winners and losers on partisan and activist issues,” O’Connor said. 

Some of the exceptions would include local government flags, those commemorating veterans, prisoners of war or missing in action, those recognizing a foreign nation for special purposes and a flag of a unit of firefighters, law enforcement officers or emergency medical technicians. 

He said these exceptions are “simply recognizing those flags that are efficiently recognized by all levels of government.”

“We should have a shared outlook as to what we do as elected officials in this building here to promote unity and not division… I think we all could agree that those are the flags that represent all of us,” O’Connor said. 

Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego) spoke specifically about pride flags, which are a symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, when explaining his support of the legislation. 

“You’re asking every Wisconsinite to sanction what that means,” Wichgers said in reference to the Progress Pride flag. The chevron portions of the flag include black and brown stripes to represent people of color who identify with the LGBTQ+ community as well as those living with HIV/AIDS. The light blue, pink and white stripes in the chevron represent transgender people.

“I can guarantee you when you ask the people that are in favor, they’re not going to know what that chevron means, so we’re endorsing, sanctioning something that is being flown above our flag that is probably divisive,” Wichgers said. 

Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) said, however, that she views the bill as being divisive and as a violation of the First Amendment. 

“I think as a body we should be promoting inclusiveness. It’s not just the more morally right thing to do. It also strengthens our communities, promotes mutual respect, and actually leads to more civic engagement,” Sinicki said. “These symbolic acts do matter. They matter to me, and they matter to the majority of people across Wisconsin.” 

Prohibit health services funding for immigrants without legal status

AB 308, coauthored by Rep. Alex Dallman (R-Markesan), passed 50-44 along party lines. The bill would prohibit state, county, village, long-term care district and federal funds from being used to subsidize, reimburse or provide compensation for any health care services for a person not lawfully in the United States.

Dallman said at a press conference that the bill is meant to stop Wisconsin from expanding its Medicaid to cover immigrants without legal status. Wisconsin already doesn’t allow this. 

“This is going to take a step forward to say that we are going to again keep these funds available for our citizens who are paying in all these dollars,” Dallman said. 

Advocates expressed concerns to the Examiner earlier this week that the bill would lead to health service providers having to check everyone’s citizenship status before providing care.

Rep. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland) said the bill is “the kind of thing that makes people hate politics.”

“We don’t provide health care to undocumented immigrants. The reason we’re voting on this today is so that the majority party can go out and tell their voters that Democrats failed to stop giving health insurance to undocumented people, but we can’t stop something that isn’t happening. Why waste time and taxpayer money this way?” Stroud said. “If you don’t have affordable health care, they don’t want you to hold them accountable. Instead, they want you to blame someone else.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin already doesn’t allow immigrants without legal authorization to apply to BadgerCare. There are two programs, Medicaid Emergency Services and BadgerCare Plus Prenatal Plan, that will provide coverage for those without legal status. (Photo by Thomas Barwick/Getty Images)

A Republican bill that seeks to stop Wisconsin from using public funds to support health services for immigrants who lack legal authorization to reside in the U.S. is poised to advance on Tuesday. 

The bill — AB 308 — would prohibit state, county, village, long-term care district and federal funds from being used to subsidize, reimburse or provide compensation for any health care services for a person not lawfully in the U.S.

It is the latest bill that Republican lawmakers have introduced targeting immigrants. Another bill introduced and passed earlier this year seeks to require local law enforcement officers to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

The bill is coauthored by Rep. Alex Dallman (R-Markesan) and Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) and currently has 25 other Republican cosponsors. No Democrats are signed onto the bill. 

During the bill hearing last week, Dallman focused mostly on Wisconsin’s Medicaid program, BadgerCare, arguing that he wants to prevent the state from ever taking steps similar to Minnesota and other states that expanded their Medicaid programs to cover immigrants who lack legal status. Wisconsin already doesn’t allow immigrants without legal authorization to apply to BadgerCare.

In 2023, Minnesota expanded its Medicaid program to cover residents without citizenship or legal residency status, but that was repealed after Republicans threatened a government shutdown to force Democrats to eliminate the expansion. 

The cost estimate for the program was nearly $200 million, Dallman noted.

“These are enormous price tags for individuals who are not here lawfully. This condition should not be the case here in Wisconsin with a state budget that is currently already very lean,” Dallman said. “We must prioritize our citizens over those who are here unlawfully. While Wisconsin currently does not allow undocumented immigrants to enroll in BadgerCare, this bill preemptively… ensures that Wisconsin does not become like Minnesota or Illinois.”

Dallman noted that the bill includes a carve out to ensure that it won’t lose Wisconsin money or put it out of step with federal law.

According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau summary, the prohibitions in the bill would not apply to the extent that a payment is required under federal law or the application of the prohibitions would result in the loss of any federal funds.

“This bill is not about immigration,” Dallman said, but it is about “protecting our constituents and their hard-earned tax dollars that they send into our state.”

In written testimony, Wanggaard said the bill would extend the current restrictions to “all other health services paid for by the State of Wisconsin.” Wanggaard, who did not attend the public hearing, wrote that the bill would ensure Wisconsin “is not the next test dummy extending health benefits to illegal aliens.”

Democrats and advocates said they are concerned about the sweeping effects the bill could have on all Wisconsinites. 

William Parke-Sutherland, government affairs director at Kids Forward, said the bill would be unworkable as law and would affect every health care provider in the state.

“This bill is entirely short sighted, and nobody has thought about how this would create a state in which we do not want to live,” Parke-Sutherland said. “If a child is at the school and is sick, does the school nurse need to figure out how to verify their status before they provide any degree of care?… I just don’t think that people have thought through the consequences of us in Wisconsin having to live in a situation where we all need to carry our papers.” 

Parke-Sutherland noted that there are already strict citizenship requirements people need to meet to enroll in nearly all Medicaid programs.

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) outlines the restrictions on its website as well as  two programs available to noncitizens. One is Medicaid Emergency Services, which provides short-term medical coverage for people who have a medical emergency and aren’t eligible for BadgerCare Plus or Wisconsin Medicaid, and the other is BadgerCare Plus Prenatal Plan, which provides health care coverage for pregnant mothers who are not eligible for BadgerCare Plus due to immigration status or being in prison or jail.

“This is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, and it’s creating way, way, way more problems,” Parke-Sutherland said. “If you are creating a situation where you’re prohibiting funding for services for people who are unlawfully present, then you are creating a need for people to verify their status in order to receive health care.” 

In a fiscal analysis, the Department of Corrections said it is concerned the bill could violate the 8th Amendment. A 1976 Supreme Court decision in Estelle v. Gamble established that the deliberate failure to deal with an inmate’s medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. 

Wanggaard refuted the analysis in written testimony, saying the bill language means it would only apply to state programs that require enrollment. 

“It does not mean that, for example, an illegal immigrant in the state prison system could not receive health care services from DOC,” Wanggaard said. 

The language of the bill, however, says that “no funds of this state or of any county, village, town, or long-term care district… and no federal funds passing through the state treasury shall be authorized for or paid to any person to subsidize, reimburse, or otherwise provide compensation for any health care services for an individual who is not lawfully present in the United States.”

Rep. Karen Kirsch (D-Greenfield) said her Republican colleagues are taking a page from President Donald Trump and his administration by downplaying the effect of the bill. 

“They’re watching how Trump handles things,” Kirsch said. “They’re pushing the envelope on every interpretation of every word and every piece of legislation to go target people, to go after people… They’re watching how he handles things, and I think that they’re mimicking that at the state. They’re trying to make it sound like, ‘Well, this is all so reasonable. This is not a big deal. Don’t worry about it.’ And then if it passes, then we’re going to see it’s way… way worse.”

Kirsch said she is concerned about the potential “chilling effect” that the bill could have, discouraging individuals and families from seeking care when they need it. 

“[Republicans are] trying to raise this to the public consciousness, and then people are going to be confused,” Kirsch said. “‘Is this a way that they’re going to find me, if I’m an undocumented person?… Even if I do qualify for care, maybe something’s going to happen to me?’ It can have this overall chilling effect of confusion of whether or not people feel safe enough to get care.”

Kirsch took issue with the argument that the bill would protect taxpayers’ money. 

“When they do have access to health care, that also keeps our health care prices down because they’re not showing up in our emergency rooms, they’re doing preventative care, they’re taking care of their diabetes, and they’re not showing up with some serious diabetes complication in our emergency room,” Kirsch said. 

Kirsch also noted that undocumented immigrants pay sales tax and contribute to the state’s economy. She referenced a 2024 report from the University of Wisconsin School for Workers that found that undocumented immigrants specifically contributed $240 million in state and local taxes in 2022.

According to the Wisconsin Lobbying website, the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, Inc., Kids Forward, the Wisconsin chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, the Wisconsin Association of School Nurses and the Wisconsin Council of Churches are registered against the bill. The only group registered in favor is FGA Action, a Florida-based nonprofit that advocates for conservative policies in statehouses around the country.

David Gwidt, Deputy Communications Director for the ACLU of Wisconsin, said in a statement to the Examiner that the legislation if enacted “could result in absurd circumstances for medical and mental health providers across the state and exacerbate this fear and uncertainty experienced by our immigrant neighbors.” 

The Assembly State Affairs Committee plans to vote on whether to advance the legislation Tuesday, setting it up for a floor vote later this week.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A bill that passed both the Assembly and the Senate Wednesday would automatically classify ride-share and certain delivery drivers as independent contractors. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Legislation that would declare that drivers for app-based ride-share and delivery businesses are independent contractors will go to Gov. Tony Evers after clearing both houses of the Legislature Wednesday.

The legislation also authorizes the affected companies to offer drivers benefit plans without classifying them as employees.

After two previous attempts to pass the bill, in the Legislature’s 2021-22 and 2023-24 sessions, the Senate and Assembly votes Wednesday — mostly along party lines — marked the first time the measure will get to the governor’s desk.

The bill — AB 269 — applies to drivers for delivery and transportation businesses such as Uber, Lyft and DoorDash who are hired by customers using online apps or similar technology.

It defines those drivers as independent contractors who are not subject to laws guaranteeing minimum wage, unemployment compensation and workers compensation.

Update: The bill passed the Assembly on a vote of 56-36, but as of Friday, the Assembly’s official journal of the session reported that three of four Assembly Democrats who were recorded as voting “yes” for the bill asked that their votes be registered as “no,” and their requests were granted, resulting in a new tally of 53-39. One Democrat supported the bill. 

WisPolitics.com reported the changed votes on Friday. WisPolitics.com also reported that according to the office of Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August, Assembly chief clerk’s office and the Legislative Technical Services Bureau “conducted a thorough testing” of the Assembly’s electronic voting system and found no problems.

In the Senate, the bill passed 16-15, with no Democratic support and one Republican, Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) voting in opposition.

As of Wednesday the Wisconsin Ethics Commission had no public reports on money spent lobbying for or against the legislation. But since early this year DoorDash has been running digital ads on WisPolitics.com and elsewhere promoting the legislation’s “portable benefits” provision.

DoorDash issued a statement Wednesday lauding the bill’s passage. “Dashers and customers in Wisconsin have sent hundreds of letters to the governor, urging him to sign the bill into law,” the company stated.

If Evers signs the measure, Wisconsin would be the first state in the country to enact such legislation. DoorDash has pilot benefit programs without legislation in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Georgia, the company said.

While the bill authorizes the companies to offer the benefit plans, it does not require them to do so. It sets the standards of coverage for such plans if they are offered. It also allows the businesses to establish deferred compensation retirement plans for their drivers.

“This bill will provide meaningful, affordable benefit opportunities for these independent contractors,” said Rep. Alex Dallman (R-Green Lake) at an Assembly press conference before Wednesday’s floor session. “They’ll be able to solidify that they get to choose when and where they want to work, the freedom that they have to be able to earn benefits through the work that they provide for these different companies, and be able to really set themselves up for a future of success by having things such as health insurance.”

A new independent contractor standard

The legislation lists four practices that would exclude a ride-share or delivery company from the independent contractor protections: If it requires drivers to be logged into the service on certain dates, certain times or for a minimum number of hours; if it terminates a driver’s contract for not accepting a specific service request; if it bars drivers from working with other such businesses; and if it bars drivers from working in any other occupation or business.

A company would have to flunk all four of those provisions to be disqualified.

In both the Senate and the Assembly, critics said the bill would serve the contracting companies, not their drivers.

“We don’t need to create a new category of workers with fewer protections, which is what this bill does,” said Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) on the Senate floor. “The sad realization is that all of the so-called benefits talked about in this bill may never come to fruition for any gig driver. And yet the bill makes mandatory the loss of employee status for every single app-based driver.”

Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), said drivers testified in favor of the legislation that “they don’t want to be employees.” Bradley is the lead author of the Senate companion legislation. 

“If you watch any of the hearings, they’ll tell you, ‘We love the flexibility of being an independent contractor.’ They chose to be independent contractors because of the flexibility.”

Under state law and regulations, the state Department of Workforce Development (DWD) uses a nine-part test to determine if workers are employees rather than independent contractors, said Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) during the Assembly debate.

“The big problem with this bill, though, is that it actually allows the executives of these companies to dictate their own test to fit their own needs,” Sinicki said.

‘Difficult way to pay the bills’

“Driving for ride-sharing services like Lyft or Uber is a grueling, difficult way to pay the bills,” said Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), who said he’s a ride-share driver.

He said the industry’s claims that a driver collects $25 or $30 an hour are based on the travel time alone.

“So in an hour, if I take two people on rides which cost them $7 each and I get about $3.50 from each of those, Lyft might report that I got $30 an hour because they don’t count all the minutes between the rides. But I actually gross $7 that hour,” Clancy said.

The bill allows a company to contribute up to 4% of a driver’s earnings to the proposed benefits account. He said Uber drivers have an average weekly revenue of $513, so 4% “would come out to just $267 a quarter” — too little to cover a health insurance premium.  

The bill aims to keep drivers from being classified as employees because “it’s far easier to exploit an independent contractor than it is an employee,” he said.

Clancy said drivers across the U.S. have been “trying to get recognized as the employees they are, and to try to get access to basic benefits and workplace protections and access to unemployment insurance, just like the vast majority of employees in Wisconsin.”

Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez (D-Milwaukee), a co-sponsor of the bill was the only Assembly Democrat to support, although three other Democrats were initially recorded as voting “yes” before being granted a request to change their vote to “no.”

“I heard countless testimonies from drivers who wanted the flexibility of being independent contractors,” Ortiz-Velez said, adding that she has received “a ton of emails, a ton of support” for the bill this year as well as in the last two-year session.

“This bill offers portable benefits that right now don’t exist,” Ortiz-Velez said. “It won’t exist if we don’t pass this bill.”

Dallman, the bill’s lead Assembly author, said on the Assembly floor that critics of the bill can simply choose not to work for the companies it covers.

“This is for the independent contractor and the freedom that they have to get ahead in life by working a couple extra jobs, a couple extra trips on a weekend to make a little bit of extra cash,” Dallman said. “While at the same time, voluntarily partnering with one of these companies . . .  to pay for their benefits, to pay for their retirement. Again, the opportunity for workers to make choices on their own to get ahead in life.”

This report was updated Friday, 6/20/2025, to update the Assembly vote on SB 269 after the Assembly journal reported on a request by three Democrats to change how their vote had been recorded.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE