Gov. Tony Evers and Veterans Affairs Sec. James Bond spoke an event for veterans in the state Capitol on April 22, 2025. (Photo via Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs Facebook page)

As Wisconsin policymakers honor Veterans Day Tuesday, the state continues to grapple with diminished resources for its most vulnerable veterans, those who are struggling with homelessness.

Debate in the state Capitol continues over the closure of sites in Green Bay and Chippewa Falls for the Veterans Housing and Recovery Program (VHRP), which provided support to veterans on the verge of or experiencing homelessness, including those who have been incarcerated, unemployed or suffered physical and mental health problems. 

Republican lawmakers recently proposed that the state create a new grant match program to help support homeless veterans. But some are expressing doubt that the bill would fill the gaps left by the recent closures, especially since it would rely on nonprofit organizations to start their own programs. 

Coauthored by Rep. Benjamin Franklin (R-De Pere) and Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), AB 596 and AB 597 would direct $1.9 million to be used for a state grant match program. 

To receive the funds, a nonprofit group would need to be participating in the federal per diem program, which currently provides about $82 per day per veteran housed to groups that offer wraparound supportive services to homeless veterans. The bill would offer state matching funds of $25 per day per veteran.

Finger pointing over funding continues 

The closures of the Green Bay and Chippewa Falls facilities were announced in July after lawmakers chose not to provide additional funding in the state budget for the programs. Both sites closed their doors in September. By that point, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs said it was able to find new places for each resident, including some who moved to a Union Grove site and others who were transferred out of state. 

The Legislative Fiscal Bureau had warned in a memo that without funding the sites would be at risk of closing, though the recent reaction of lawmakers who sit on the budget committee gave the appearance that they missed that warning. Gov. Tony Evers and Democratic lawmakers had called for additional funding and the Department of Veterans Affairs said staff had discussed the issue with the chairs of the Joint Finance Committee. Still, one member of the committee, Rep. Karen Hurd (R-Withee), said at a recent public hearing on the new bill that she was “absolutely blindsided” by the announcement of the closures.

While a handful of lawmakers have advocated for giving the department the additional funding to reopen the sites, the new Republican proposal takes a different approach that would limit the department’s direct involvement in the program.

Since the announced closures, some Republican lawmakers have blamed the Evers administration for not using money in the Veterans Trust Fund to keep the sites open and instead sending that money back to the general fund, even as the agency has said it can’t spend funds without the Legislature directing it to.

“There’s money in the account. It’s fully funded in the exact same way that it was funded last year. [Evers] just suddenly declared… he wasn’t going to use the trust account anymore,” Wimberger told the Wisconsin Examiner after he introduced the new proposal.

The Veterans Trust Fund receives general purpose revenue allocations from the state, though it doesn’t function as a big pot of money that can be used for anything. The funds have specific purposes, such as to be used for administrative costs and the Veterans Housing and Recovery Program. 

According to Joseph Hoey, assistant deputy secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the agency did use money from the trust fund to pay for administrative expenses to keep the buildings used for veterans’ housing in “good working order.” He said it was a legitimate use since the buildings are owned by the department and could be considered administrative purposes, but that wouldn’t be the case for other costs related to the program. 

“We cannot use that money to pay [Lutheran Social Services] or to run the VHRP [Veterans Housing Recovery Program] because there is a separate appropriation for VHRP,” Hoey said.

Wimberger and Republican lawmakers have also noted a 15% increase for veterans housing in the recent budget. The Department of Veterans Affairs noted that amount fell short of the $1.95 million that was requested by Evers to keep the sites open.

Unclear whether new proposal would fill gaps

Wimberger told the Examiner that a grant program would be “a lot simpler” and require “less of a direct monitoring” by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Hoey said he sees the proposal as “the first step in leaving this up to nonprofits and ultimately spending less state resources on homeless veterans.” He also expressed concern about whether the approach would fill the gaps left by the closures of the two sites in Green Bay and Chippewa Falls.

There are currently four entities that would be eligible to apply for the new grant program: Porchlight Inc. in Madison, Rock Valley Community Programs, Inc. in Janesville, as well as Center For Veterans Issues Ltd. and Guest House Of Milwaukee, Inc., which are both in Milwaukee.

“As you see from the locations of those organizations that are providing these services, they’re not meeting the need in other parts of the state, and WDVA was,” Hoey said. “I think we as a state have a commitment when people sign up to protect our freedom, I think we have an obligation to care for them, especially when they’re struggling.”

Hoey told lawmakers on the Assembly Veterans and Military Affairs committee at a hearing on the bill that the additional $25 per veteran likely wouldn’t be enough to encourage outside groups to open up new programs. He said it is estimated that it costs about $139 per day to house each participating veteran. 

“$83 is barely enough to house a veteran, let alone feed them, provide them with counseling and training that they need to get back on their feet, and it’s not enough to make the programs work,” Hoey said. “That’s why we asked for such a large amount in the last budget because these programs are just slowly getting harder and harder to operate.”

Lutheran Social Services, which was helping to operate the now closed sites in Green Bay and Chippewa Falls, could not do that work with $25 from the state, Hoey added. 

“We provide the facilities for them, so they’re not suddenly going to, in Green Bay, open up their own homeless shelter, because they don’t have the facility,” Hoey told the Examiner. “They have no way to pay for it, and the [grant and per diem payment], even with the bonus, probably wouldn’t cover their costs. It’s wishful thinking.”

Hoey also told lawmakers that it is possible the money would not actually lead to additional funding for participating nonprofit organizations. 

“Based on our preliminary analysis, we believe it is possible that all or part of the $25 state payment would be clawed back or offset by the federal VA,” Hoey said. “It’s the way the program is written at the federal level. It penalizes the programs for getting other state or government money.” 

Rep. Rob Summerfield (R-Bloomer) said it is a good bill and pushed back on the idea that only four organizations would be eligible.

“We have one entity in Eau Claire that would be eligible for this, but there’s no money,” Summerfield said. “They’re not going to commit til we actually put this in the statute, get the funding into it, so just to say it’s just going to be four entities — that is incorrect. It, maybe, is correct, but you cannot say that it’s going to be. It could be 10 more. We could have ones in Superior, Lacrosse, Eau Claire, Green Bay, including Milwaukee.”

Hoey told the Examiner that the proposal is at best an incentive for private organizations to apply for the federal grant and start a program from scratch. 

“It would be years before this could result in homeless transition services being provided for veterans anywhere other than in the Milwaukee and Madison areas,” Hoey said. 

The agency had previously said it could get the VHRP sites restarted within a year if the state provided the funding for the programs. 

Asked in an interview whether he is concerned about the prospect of nonprofit groups not opting into the program and being able to fill the present gaps, Wimberger said, “Oh sure, of course.”

“I wish DVA would have used the money we gave them, but this is, this is in response to the executive — Gov. Evers and his administration — just simply refusing to spend the money,” he said. 

Other proposals in limbo

Two proposals that would provide the Department of Veterans Affairs with funds to restart the closed sites remain in limbo.

A Democratic bill, coauthored by Sen. Jamie Wall (D-Green Bay) , Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) and Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick), would provide $2.6 million for veterans’ housing.

Another bill authored by Sen. André Jacque (R-New Franken) would provide $1.9 million.

Jacque’s bill passed committee on Oct. 8 and is available to be scheduled for a floor vote in the Senate. It has not received a public hearing in the Assembly. 

Democratic lawmakers have also expressed concerns about whether the new bill will be effective in filling the existing gaps. 

“If your objective is to fix the problem that we’re now lacking services for homeless veterans in northern Wisconsin” either a bill drafted by Republican Sen. André Jacque (R-New Franken) or a Democratic bill, both of which provide funds to the now-closed facilities, “does the trick,” Sen. Jamie Wall (D-Green Bay) said in an interview. “[Wimberger’s] bill does not.” 

Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) said at a press conference that Republican lawmakers had “walked away” from the solutions that would actually fix the problem and were trying to “rewrite history.” 

“Our veterans deserve better than political games. They gave everything for our country, and the least we can do is make sure that they have a safe place to live, recover and rebuild their lives,” Emerson said. “It’s time to stop pointing fingers and actually fix this problem.” 

Wimberger said he didn’t sign on to Jacque’s bill at the time because it was “premature” when it was introduced. 

“It’s not like I’m opposed to it… It’s not like a bad thing, but I don’t, I don’t feel like I want to be extorted to pay for a program twice this. This method just solves the problem without playing this politics with homeless veterans,” Wimberger said of his own proposal. 

As for Wimberger’s proposal, Jacque said in October that he was still “gathering information on what the likeliest real world effect would be” if it were adopted. He also said he was waiting to hear back from the Department of Veterans Affairs on their plans to submit a emergency supplemental funding request to the Joint Finance Committee to address the situation. He said that “could be the quickest option for a positive resolution.”

Hoey said the agency is thankful for Jacque’s work on the issue. 

“We greatly appreciate [Jacque’s] willingness to keep going — to keep trying to get the funding for this program,” Hoey said. “This is something that he believes in and it’s not lip service.”

However, Hoey told the Examiner that the agency is not sure the funding request would meet statutory requirements and be an appropriate avenue for providing the funding given that the Legislature purposefully didn’t include the funding in the budget. 

He said the agency is unsure the current situation would constitute an emergency as it would be used to restart a program, not keep one going, and the agency is also currently grappling with a deficit. The agency’s last such request related to the veterans’ housing and recovery program, submitted to the Joint Finance Committee in March, was never taken up by lawmakers.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Wisconsin Legislature is considering a bill to legalize online sports gambling. (Getty Images)

A bipartisan bill to legalize online sports betting in Wisconsin is speeding through the state Legislature.

After being introduced in late October, the Assembly and Senate versions of the legislation received public hearings this week, and on Thursday the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Revenue voted 5-3 in favor of advancing the bill to the Senate floor. 

Under the Wisconsin Constitution, any gambling must be managed by the state’s federally recognized Native American tribes. Sports betting was first allowed in the state in 2021, but all of those bets had to be made in person at tribal casinos. The proposed new legislation would allow online sports betting using a “hub and spoke” model in which the servers running the betting websites and apps are housed on tribal land. 

The structure is similar to the state of Florida’s agreement with the Seminole tribe, which owns and operates the Hard Rock Casino brand. 

Proponents of the bill, including a bipartisan mix of legislators, representatives of the tribes and the state’s professional sports teams, say that hundreds of millions of dollars in unregulated online sports bets are already being made in Wisconsin, so legalizing the practice will kill the black market while providing tax revenue and consumer protections. 

But critics say the Legislature is rushing through a bill that could face legal hurdles and ignoring the ways in which online sports betting can be especially harmful for people with gambling addictions. 

Wisconsin’s legalization move comes seven years after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized sports betting in 2018. So far, 39 states have legalized sports betting and 32 of them have allowed online or mobile sports bets. 

Wisconsin would be the first state to legalize online sports gambling since North Carolina and Vermont did so in June 2023. Only now, Wisconsin’s legislators are doing so amid a national reassessment of the country’s relationship with sports gambling. Ads for apps such as FanDuel and DraftKings are ubiquitous. Both the National Basketball Association  and Major League Baseball are dealing with the fallout of player gambling scandals. Questions have arisen about the healthiness of frictionless sports gambling for the predominately young, male users of these apps. 

“American culture, and American sporting culture is trying to adjust to this new widely legalized moment,” Dr. Jason Lopez, a professor at UW-Madison who studies sports media and gambling, told the Wisconsin Examiner. 

If the bill is passed and signed into law, sports betting wouldn’t be immediately legalized. The state and tribes would need to renegotiate their existing gaming compacts and then those new agreements would need approval from the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

But, Rep. Tyler August (R-Walworth), said at Tuesday’s Senate hearing, the state should get moving before the illegal betting market grows too large. 

“I don’t gamble, but I think  it’s the right thing to do, based on some of the data that we’ve seen,” said August, whose district is right on the Illinois border, which residents can easily cross to place online bets. “This is an activity that’s not declining, it’s increasing. And I think that it’s appropriate for us to deal with this now before it gets even bigger.”

Jim Crawford, attorney general of the Potawatomi tribe, said an estimated $1 billion in illegal online sports bets were made by Wisconsinites last year. At the hearing, tribal representatives highlighted the services tribal governments could improve with the increased sports betting revenue. 

“While online gaming is currently the wild west in Wisconsin with no regulations or protections for consumers,” Crawford said. “It does not have to be. This bill is a first step in ensuring that consumers will be able to have a legal, regulated and protected way of participating in this extremely popular technology.”

Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green), one of the bill’s co-authors, said he doesn’t believe the bill will put gambling addicts at further risk. But Sens. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken), Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) and Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) voted against moving the bill out of committee. Jacque said at the hearing he was worried about the recent gambling scandals in professional sports and the risk of gambling addiction. 

“This would allow them to place bets by their device anywhere in the state, as opposed to going on site at a casino, at a reservation,” Jacque said. “I would say, from an opportunity standpoint, that potentially could feed more into addictive behavior.” 

Noah Henderson, the director of the sport management program at Loyola University Chicago, said the frictionless nature of online sports betting is one of its challenges. 

“Brick and mortar sports books provide a cooling-off period, when people are trying to chase losses, if they have to get in their car again and go to the sports book, they might realize halfway there that they’re acting impulsively,” Henderson said. “It’s easier for families to see the signs of gambling disorder or problem gambling when individuals have to leave the home, right? It’s a lot easier to hide problem gambling or a gambling disorder when it’s only on a mobile device, where there’s no absences, they’re not leaving the house more than they normally do.” 

Henderson said there’s not much Wisconsin’s Legislature can do about the societal acceptance of legalized sports betting and a culture that has fully absorbed the promotion of gambling. 

“It is incredibly common to see on the pre-game show, the halftime show, the best bets, the best live bets, the best parlay combinations. So I think that there’s only so much Wisconsin can do to stop that, to stop sports gambling from being the culture of young men — predominantly young men — watching sports,” he told the Examiner. 

So, according to Henderson, the state is faced with a choice between legalizing and facing the broader cultural changes head-on while getting the tax revenue or hoping that prohibition disincentivizes sports betting. 

“I think that there might be a bit of harm reduction in this public policy where, if we keep mobile sports wagering outlawed in this state, it’s not going to curtail the sweeping normalization of sports gambling that we’ve seen,” Henderson said. “That’s at a national level. So Wisconsin has two options, which is to not allow it, and hope that the lack of resources for legal sports gambling incentivizes young men and women not to partake in this. But at the end of the day, there’s still a market and a need … they would rather regulate and tax it for consumer protection and to grow a tax base off of it and not have sports gambling happening without being able to derive some tax benefit from it that can go towards gambling education, public schools, or whatever else Wisconsin’s government deems important.” 

One organization that is against the bill is the Sports Betting Alliance, which represents the major online sportsbooks. 

The bill uses the federal Indian Gaming Regulation Act as a mechanism to allow online bets in Wisconsin. That law allows tribes to license their gaming operations out to third parties so long as the tribe gets 60% of the net revenue. 

Damon Stewart, an attorney for the alliance, said at the hearing that the revenue sharing requirement would make it too expensive for the most popular apps to partner with the tribes and provide their already existing apps and infrastructure. He also said he believes the law as currently written runs afoul of federal law. 

“We support the goal of legal online sports betting in Wisconsin. We want to work with the tribes. We want to partner with them,” Stewart said. “But this bill will only result in limited choices for customers. There’s no national brands, no chance for all the tribes to actually participate in the market, no ability to make an effective dent in the illegal market that already exists and years of litigation that will hold up the implementation of the law.” 

Stewart argued in his testimony that without the name recognition of the most popular apps, the legalization effort may not effectively kill the black market. Henderson said it’s possible for the tribes to develop their own infrastructure, but it’s easier to let the bigger companies manage the administration if the revenue sharing deal can be worked out. 

“This is probably a losing endeavor for those big sports books to enter a mid-sized sports gambling market with already pretty challenging margins,” Henderson said. “Especially when sports books enter a new market for sports gambling, there’s a lot of upfront costs that come with advertising that usually these businesses and markets take several years to even become profitable with more favorable regulations in place.” 

“Legislation can be amended. It doesn’t seem like this is the only formulation of it, but I think revenue sharing can definitely happen,” he continued. “I just don’t know if the 60-40 model makes sense for retailers to want to come in. Otherwise it would just be much like Florida, where tribal governments would have to build the infrastructure on their own or purchase white light label sports gambling software and pass it off as their own.”

In his testimony, Stewart called for the Legislature to slow down the process and get it right the first time. 

“I want to be respectful. It’s just my perception that with a bill dropped last week, two hearings this week, it does seem to be, compared to a lot of legislation, a bit of a rush,” Stewart said. “And on the topic of this complexity, a topic of this importance that affects a lot of citizens of the state, I would hope it would be seen as reasonable as asking to let us have the chance to work with the tribes.” 

The tribal representatives testifying said they were prepared to move forward without the big name apps. 

“We certainly appreciate the Sports Betting Alliance’s support of the goal of this legislation,” Crawford said. “But it’s also something that is a little bit concerning to us, that they are sort of implying that we don’t have the capability of operating statewide mobile sports, which, if you’ve ever been to our facility and to our retail sports betting, you know that we do a pretty good job, and the customers are happy. And so we look forward to doing that on a statewide basis, on a regulated basis, where the consumers are protected and they are generating revenues for the state of Wisconsin that stay in the state of Wisconsin.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Signs at a pro-life rally outside of the Republican National Convention in 2024. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.)

The Republican author of a bill that seeks to distinguish treatment for an ectopic pregnancy and other medical conditions from abortion said her bill was a reaction to Republicans struggling on the issue during elections and that she wants to ban abortion from conception.  

Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) and Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) introduced the bill in September and it will receive a public hearing on Wednesday in the Senate Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs committee. 

The authors have framed the bill as one to help clarify Wisconsin’s laws surrounding abortion by redefining certain medical procedures as not abortions.

At a September town hall posted to YouTube, hosted by the Wisconsin Conservative Coalition (WCC), a nonpartisan association of three conservative groups from the northeast part of the state, Goeben participated on a panel with Jacque and Reps. Nate Gustafson (R-Omro) and Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc). 

“It’s very simple,” Goeben said of her bill. “It is taking out the molar pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy — all of these things that we wouldn’t think of that as an abortion, but when there is an election we get killed on that on an emotional stance of, “Oh, this woman was going to die because she couldn’t get her health care,” Goeben said.

During the 2024 elections, Republicans lost 14 legislative seats under Wisconsin’s new voting maps. In many of those races, abortion was a major discussion point for Democratic candidates who criticized their Republican opponents for their positions on the issue. 

More will be at stake in 2026 for Republicans, who will be fighting to hold onto the majorities in the Senate and Assembly that they have held for 15 years. Democrats would need to win an additional five seats in the Assembly and an additional two in the Senate to flip each of those houses in 2026.

According to recent polling by Marquette Law School, abortion policy has declined as a “most important” issue among voters across all partisan groups in 2025 as compared to 2022, although 50% of respondents still said they were “very concerned” and 23% said they were “somewhat concerned” about the issue. 

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending federally protected abortion rights, health care providers in Wisconsin worried about criminal penalties under an 1849 law considered a near-total abortion ban denied care to women who faced miscarriage and life-threatening pregnancy complications.

But Goeben called claims that women are restricted from receiving health care under restrictive abortion laws are “an out and out lie.”

Her bill, she said, takes away ammunition from Democrats who criticize abortion bans as harmful to women. “I would love to see our Democrat friends vote against this bill because it is, again, simply defining — these things are not abortion,” Goeben said.

Abortion access in Wisconsin has been in flux since the overturn of Roe v. Wade. For about 15 months, abortion access was effectively eliminated. The state Supreme Court then found in 2023 that the 1849 law no longer applied to abortion since  subsequent laws regulating abortion had been passed after 1849, making abortions up to 20 weeks legal. 

Strict abortion laws have also resulted in high-profile cases in states including Texas and Georgia where women have died preventable deaths because they were denied timely care.

In recent months, access at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, the state’s largest provider of abortion services, was paused due to federal changes and then restarted about a month later. The upheaval in access has caused confusion among patients and providers as reported by Wisconsin Public Radio.

Some medical experts told the Wisconsin Watch that Goeben’s bill is misleading because it  attempts to distinguish medical procedures that end pregnancy under certain circumstances from abortion, which it defines as not including those circumstances.

Goeben said during the September panel discussion that she hopes the state eventually reverts to banning abortion at conception and told attendees that they could make that possible by helping elect candidates who align with their beliefs on the issue. 

“[The bill], unfortunately, isn’t changing the 20 weeks, which I hope at some point we can go back to conception, which is where life begins,” Goeben said. “You need to get online and educate and you need to vote in primaries for people who are 100% pro-life. We are going to have upcoming elections in safe seats. In those safe, conservative seats, are you getting a candidate who is 100% pro-life and is going to stand for that because there are people who are going to run in those seats who are not.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Lindsey Buscher, a volunteer with the Wisconsin chapter of Moms Demand Action, said at a press conference at the state Capitol that the group’s policies reflect Wisconsin values of “responsibility, accountability and community.” (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin gun violence prevention advocates, including Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, laid out their legislative goals for 2025 and spoke to lawmakers about their priorities on Tuesday, including a package of bills focused on gun trafficking. 

Lindsey Buscher, a volunteer with the Wisconsin chapter of Moms Demand Action, said at a press conference at the state Capitol that the group’s policies reflect Wisconsin values of “responsibility, accountability and community.”

“We believe in a safer future for our communities — one where every Wisconsinite, no matter where they live, work, go to school or attend their place of worship, can thrive without fear of gun violence,” Buscher said. “We all know that gun violence is shattering communities across our state from Milwaukee and Madison to the small towns that make Wisconsin who we are.”

The proposals will take several actions including requiring secure storage of inventory, employee background checks and recording gun sales, closing loopholes and ensuring that all gun sales require comprehensive background checks, ensuring that law enforcement can trace weapons and “shut down trafficking rings” and stopping bulk trafficking by prohibiting multiple gun purchases within a single month.

There were 762 firearm deaths in Wisconsin in 2023, including 502 firearm suicides and 236 firearm homicides, according to a report released this year by the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort (WAVE) Educational Fund, the state’s leading gun violence prevention organization, and the Violence Policy Center (VPC), a national research and advocacy organization working to stop gun death and injury. 

According to the report, 84.9% of firearms recovered in Wisconsin originate in state. 

Rep. Joan Fitzgerald (D-Fort Atkinson), who will sponsor the measures, called on her Republican colleagues to work with her on the legislation. Draft bills will be ready for official introduction in the coming weeks she said.

“If we want to stop that gun violence we have to start at the source, and that is at the sale of those guns,” Fitzgerald said at the press conference. “Each year, tens of thousands of illegal guns are trafficked across our country, getting into the hands of criminals… We need to crack down on those few bad actors who endanger everyone else and make our communities less safe. We need to finally bring Wisconsin law in line with the views of the majority of our citizens who value safe communities.”

“We don’t have to live in fear of our loved ones getting shot and killed,” said Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of the national Moms Demand Action. “Law enforcement, faith leaders, students, doctors, parents are all saying the same thing: enough. Enough is enough. I’m a woman of deep faith, but we can’t have just thoughts and prayers without action. That’s what we need from our lawmakers.”

Ferrell-Zabala said their “fight isn’t against the Second Amendment… We can respect responsible gun ownership in Wisconsin, as we should, while also stopping illegal gun trafficking and protecting our communities from violence.”

Other speakers at the press conference included Nessa Bleill, founder and president of the University of Wisconsin-Madison chapter of Students Demand Action and a survivor of a mass shooting at a parade in Illinois in 2022. 

After the press conference, Fitzgerald told the Wisconsin Examiner that she hasn’t spoken with her Republican colleagues about the proposals yet. Republicans currently control the state Assembly and Senate, meaning their support will be necessary to advance any bill. 

“Prior bills we’ve introduced had very little Republican support,” Fitzgerald said, adding that Democrats haven’t been able to get a public hearing on proposals either. 

Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) told the Examiner that in her experience, some of her Republican colleagues would say behind closed doors that they support some measures similar to those being proposed, but they won’t put their name on proposals publicly.

“I would say that they probably should find their backbone and do what the vast majority of Wisconsin voters want,” Andraca said. “Students are tired of being scared in their classrooms. Teachers don’t want to have to do lockdown drills. As a gun owner with my concealed carry permit, I am not worried about taking away anyone’s Second Amendment rights… We need these measures because we have too many guns in too many places, and it’s endangering our safety and all of our neighborhoods.”

Andraca said her colleagues should at least give Democratic proposals a public hearing. 

The lawmakers said the day of action, which includes advocates speaking directly to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, is helpful for ensuring that lawmakers know people want action.

“Otherwise, legislators say, ‘Oh, I never hear from anyone’,” Andraca said. “You have to keep showing up, so people know that you won’t go away, because that’s what they’re counting on.”

Fitzgerald, a freshman lawmaker, and Andraca, who is in her third term in office, were both volunteers with Moms Demand Action prior to running for office. Fitzgerald added that they are “good examples of taking advocacy and turning that into running for office” to change the makeup of the Legislature. 

“If they’re not going to react, then we need to start… holding them accountable — electing them out of office and electing people who will pass legislation to reduce gun violence,” Fitzgerald said. 

Advocates were scheduled to meet with over 50 state lawmakers, including about 30 Democrats and about 20 Republicans. Buscher said there were only a few lawmakers who weren’t in town or declined to meet and that they planned to drop off literature at their offices anyway.

While Democratic lawmakers are focused on bills that seek to prevent gun violence, Republican lawmakers are focused on proposals that would protect the Second Amendment and gun access in Wisconsin.

Republican gun proposals

Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) and Rep. Chanz Green (R-Grand View) are circulating two proposals, including a constitutional amendment. 

One bill would exempt firearms, including accessories, attachments and parts, and ammunition from the state sales tax. The bill would also exempt bows and arrows for archery and crossbows from the sales tax. 

“Taxing constitutionally protected rights can act as an effective restriction,” the bill authors wrote in a cosponsorship memo. “By reducing the tax burden on lawful firearm purchases, this bill ensures that law-abiding citizens can fully exercise their constitutional freedoms.”

Wisconsin already guarantees a right to keep and bear arms in its state Constitution, similar to over 40 other states. 

The constitutional amendment proposal, which would need to pass in two consecutive sessions and be approved by voters to become law, would add language to the state Constitution to ensure the the right of the people to keep and bear arms is without qualification, that it is “an inalienable and fundamental individual right that shall never be infringed” and that any restrictions on the right would be “subject to strict scrutiny.” 

Strict scrutiny, which is the highest standard of review a court can use, is a legal test that when applied would mean that any gun regulations would have to be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest and be the least restrictive means possible. 

Only a handful of states, including Louisiana, have changed their state constitutions to include this type of language, while others, including Kansas, have debated it.

“Do any of those bills do anything to make our community safe, to make our kids feel safe in school? Do they do anything to reduce gun violence?” Fitzgerald asked. “If they can prove that those are going to reduce gun violence, then let’s have that conversation again.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

University of Wisconsin campuses could be limited in their ability to raise tuition under two Republican bills that received a hearing in the Senate Universities and Technical Colleges committee. One would leverage tuition freezes on campuses as a penalty for free speech violations, while the other would aim to help with affordability for students and families by capping tuition increases.

With the conclusion of the budget process over the summer and a $250 million investment in the UW system, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have recently turned their attention to potential policy changes that could be made to the higher education system in Wisconsin. Democratic lawmakers announced their own proposals for helping with higher education costs last week.

Implementing financial penalties on UW, technical colleges for free speech violations

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said her bill would enshrine the principle of current University of Wisconsin system policy in law to clarify and protect the First Amendment rights of students, staff and visitors. 

Current UW system policy includes its commitment to freedom of speech and expression along with some accountability measures including conduct and due process mechanisms to address violations. 

A similar bill passed the Assembly in 2023, but failed to receive a vote in the Senate. Earlier versions of the policy were introduced after a controversial survey of UW campuses that found that a majority of students who responded said they were afraid to express views on certain issues in class. The survey had an average response rate of 12.5% across all UW System campuses. 

The latest iteration of the bill was introduced just six days after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, who has become a recurring point of discussion and debate. Lawmakers passed a resolution this week to honor his life.

Nedweski noted that another survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) that found that 35% of students say using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable at least in rare cases. The survey included responses from 423 people. 

“It’s clearly even more chilling in light of the recent political assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on a college campus. When we accept the false premise that speech is equivalent to violence, we allow violence to replace speech as a means of debate… We’ve seen many of our college campuses devolve into marketplaces of fear of certain viewpoints,” Nedweski said. “While Charlie Kirk’s assassination on the college campus is the most extreme example of this, it is not the first time conservatives on campus have been threatened or intimidated for their views.” 

Nedweski said the bill would help restore trust.

“The breakdown in public trust is real. It will only get worse unless our colleges and universities get serious about restoring intellectual diversity on campus, I believe,” Nedweski said. 

SB 498 would bar UW institutions from restricting speech from a speaker if their conduct “is not unlawful and does not materially and substantially disrupt the functioning of the UW institution or technical college.” It would also restrict enforcement of time, place and manner restrictions on expressive activities in public forum spaces, designating any place a “free speech zone,” charging security fees as a part of a permit application and sanctioning people for discriminatory harassment unless the speech “targets its victim on the basis of a protected class under law, and is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars a student from receiving equal access to educational opportunities or benefits.” 

If an institution is found to violate the provisions by a state or federal court, then it would receive a notice and a person whose expressive rights were violated would be able to bring action against the UW Board of Regents or a technical college board. A plaintiff could be awarded damages of at least $500 for the initial violation plus $50 for each day after the complaint was filed and the violation continues up to $100,000. A plaintiff could also be awarded court costs and reasonable attorney fees. 

Students, employees and campus organizations would have a due process guarantee under the bill. If the due process provisions are violated more than once in a five-year period, a campus would be required to freeze tuition for all students for the following two academic years.

Nedweski said she hadn’t spoken with the UW system about the legislation this session, but she is open to conversations. 

“I’ve expressed it from the start of the session for the UW to come and work with us on this to get to a place where they can be a thumbs up, but I haven’t heard from anyone,” Nedweski said. “They will express some concerns about certain language in the bill and definitions, and I’d like to say today that, of course, the door is still open.”

UW Interim Vice President of University Relations Chris Patton that the system’s concerns with the bills center on the penalties. 

Patton said the penalty of freezing state funding would put the system’s financial health at risk — and potentially compromise the system’s ability to carry out its mission of being a “marketplace of ideas.” 

“Freedom of expression and free speech is not just a constitutional principle. It’s at the very core of what makes our universities thrive,” Patton said. “The First Amendment guarantees this right, and our institutions take seriously our responsibility to uphold it for all students, faculty, staff, visitors and stakeholders at the Universities of Wisconsin. We already have really robust policies and procedures in place.”

Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton), a coauthor on the bill, urged lawmakers to “please understand” that the bill is “not to punish any of our institutions,” but is to “ensure that they’re following what’s already in the Bill of Rights.”

Sen. Chis Larson (D-Milwaukee), the top Democrat on the committee, expressed concern about the aims of the legislation, whether free speech was a top concern that was widespread on campuses and whether the bill could bolster harmful language. 

“I appreciate you guys coming up here to embrace DEI for Republican viewpoints, which this seems to be what this bill is all about — making sure that Republican viewpoints are more represented and encouraged and being inclusive to that,” Larson said. 

“You can call it DEI for conservatism, but there’s nothing in the bill that addresses anything specific to conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats,” Nedweski replied. “It’s free speech protections for everyone.”

Larson noted that he represents the UW-Milwaukee campus and often speaks with students about their concerns and free speech is typically low on the list. He said he hears concerns about affordability and safety more frequently. 

“Other concerns include safety, especially for students who are LGBTQ, students who are of a different race than Caucasian, of their safety on campus, of being targeted with hate crimes,” Larson said. 

Larson also brought up a recent Politico article, which exposed racist messages sent into a group chat of Young Republicans, to ask whether lawmakers thought their bill could encourage that type of speech. 

Larson said he wasn’t concerned with self-censorship that discouraged people from “saying these racist, homophobic, xenophobic, glorification of rape things out in the public, because that is something that in a free and open society should have consequences associated with it.”

“We do not have the exemption for hate speech in our laws and in the First Amendment. It does not exempt hate speech,” Larson said. “It seems to me that this [bill] would pave the way to be able to say, yes, that would be something that is not only allowed on campus, but encouraged.” 

Nedweski said she was not concerned that the bill would “further unhinge people.” 

“We’re all concerned about the political temperature that has risen so high in this country,” Nedweski said. “I don’t have concerns this bill is going to push anybody overboard. The intent is to protect people whether I agree with what their ideas… are or not. I have no association with the group that you’re talking about. I don’t agree with the things that they said. It’s unfortunate that that happened.”

Capping tuition increases

Under SB 399, the UW Board of Regents would be prohibited from increasing undergraduate tuition by more than the consumer price index increase in a given year. 

The bill, coauthored by Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) and Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville), was introduced this year after the UW system adopted its third consecutive tuition increase in July. The increases were a maximum of 5% for each campus and were implemented after the recent state budget did not reach the requests the system said would be needed to avoid a hike. 

“With the continued rising prices in almost every area of the economy, some increase in resident tuition is to be expected but we must set common sense guardrails so that any price increases are reasonable, ensuring the UW system remains a cost-effective option for Wisconsin families,” Jacque said. 

Jacque said the recent hike “might be the impetus for the timing this session” but he has seen it as a “reasonable policy” for a while, noting that versions of the bill have been proposed in previous years.

Murphy said he thought the legislation would make it so that lawmakers don’t “have to always be looking” at tuition.

“It’s just up and down and up and down and up and down,” Murphy said. The bill, he added, would help provide a semblance of predictability down the line. “If you have a youngster in the K-12 system and you’re looking at what college is going to cost in the future, you could probably have a good idea of where it is going to go.”

Larson said he found it “noble” what the Republican lawmakers were trying to accomplish with the bill, but asked about why there wasn’t any state contribution included in the bill.

He noted that the portion of state funding that makes up the UW system’s budget has been decreasing over many years. 

“It’s like the cost of groceries,” Larson said, comparing it to “shrinkflation,” a form of inflation where the price of a product stays the same but the size or quantity of a product is reduced. “We’re gonna freeze the cost of a loaf of bread, and then year after year, you’re going to get one slice less, one slice less, one slice less. It will still be the same cost, but you’re getting less. I worry… if you freeze it, we’re going to be getting the equivalent of one slice less every single year in terms of what the deliverable is from the University.” 

Murphy noted that the legislation would just cap increases, not freeze tuition. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

UW-Milwaukee offers its own tuition promise program which covers up to four years of tuition and segregated fees for students from families earning less than $62,000 per year. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Democratic lawmakers are proposing a package of higher education bills to help address affordability for students by investing in a statewide tuition promise program and to support faculty and staff members by reversing Walker-era collective bargaining and tenure policies. 

Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire), the ranking member on the Assembly Colleges and Universities committee, said Democratic lawmakers are looking for ways to ensure Wisconsin’s higher education system is strong and accessible to “anybody who has the talent and the work ethic to want to pursue something.” 

“That’s part of our American dream, is that no matter where you start out in life, you’ve got an opportunity to do better and to gain knowledge and training,” Emerson said. 

Emerson said Democratic lawmakers hope the bills can kickstart discussions about policy changes that could be made. She noted that Republican lawmakers have often stripped proposals from the budget, saying that policy should be passed through individual bills outside of the budget process.

“We’re putting some of these bills back out now and saying, let’s have the policy discussion,” Emerson said. “If you’re not willing to have that during the budget, let’s have the discussion now.” 

Emerson said the first pair of bills that lawmakers unveiled at a press conference last week seek to specifically help with the affordability of higher education. 

“A lot of us heard loud and clear last election that pocketbook issues are really what are leading people right now,” Emerson said, adding that it’s part of the reason she supported the recent state budget. “But it wasn’t a perfect budget, and so we thought, how can we make this a little bit better?”

One bill, coauthored by Sen. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D-Appleton) and Rep. Brienne Brown (D-Whitewater), would implement a statewide “tuition promise” program, allowing first-time, in-state students from households with an adjusted gross income of $71,000 or less to have their tuition covered at any UW school, other than UW-Madison. Under the bill, the state would dedicate nearly $40 million towards the program. 

The program would function as “last-dollar, gap funding” meaning it would fill in the rest of the tuition costs after all federal and state grants and scholarships are calculated.

According to The Hechinger Report , as of 2024, 37 states offered a statewide promise program. 

UW-Madison already offers “Bucky’s Tuition Promise,” which launched in 2018 and is funded with private gifts and other institutional resources, not state tax dollars. The program guarantees four years of tuition and segregated fees for any incoming freshman from Wisconsin whose family’s annual household adjusted gross income is $65,000 or less. 

Recent studies have found the tuition promise program increased enrollment among accepted students at UW-Madison and increased retention rates. 

UW-Milwaukee also offers its own program which covers up to four years of tuition and segregated fees for students from families earning less than $62,000 per year. 

The UW system also has a version of the program that recently relaunched in 2025 after the system secured private funding. The Wisconsin Tuition Promise first launched in 2023, but was ended in 2024 after Republican lawmakers declined to fund the program. 

Another bill by Dassler-Alfheim and Rep. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland) would invest $10 million in the UW system for student retention and talent development efforts. 

At the press conference last week, Dassler-Alfheim said the bills are essential for supporting the state’s workforce.  

“If our workforce is the engine that runs our economy, then our Universities of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Technical Colleges are the gasoline that power that engine as our baby boomers retire in droves. We have workforce shortages in every category. We have all struggled to schedule a doctor’s appointment, a plumber, an accountant, or even a cleaning at the dentist,” Dassler-Alfheim said. “The purpose of these two bills is to help qualified students access the higher education needed to advance themselves and to fulfill the promise to Wisconsin employers to develop the workforce necessary to maintain and grow Wisconsin’s economy.”

Democratic lawmakers also circulated bill drafts meant to help support staff and faculty at UW system campuses. 

One would again allow most UW system employees, faculty and academic staff to collectively bargain over wages, hours, and conditions of employment. UW employees were stripped of that ability under the Walker-era law Act 10. 

Another bill would reverse changes made in the 2015 state budget that eliminated language in state statute that protected tenure. Lawmakers said in 2015 that the changes were necessary to give the UW system flexibility to deal with budget cuts, though faculty members said then that the changes were an attack on tenure. 

Emerson said it is getting harder to recruit people to work at the universities in the state and that some of the changes could help. 

“If we’re making these big changes about how universities are dealt with, staff and faculty need to have a seat at the table for having these conversations and having a seat at the table in meaningful ways where their concerns are addressed too,” Emerson said. 

Emerson noted that in recent years Republican lawmakers have pushed through proposals and deals that triggered pushback from faculty members. 

The most recent budget deal negotiated between lawmakers and Gov. Tony Evers included new work load requirements for UW faculty, mandating that they teach a minimum of 24 credits per academic year, or four 3-credit courses, starting in Sept. 2026. The requirement has garnered concerned reactions from faculty, some of who have said it could be difficult to balance teaching and research demands.

In 2023, Republican lawmakers negotiated with UW leaders to secure concessions on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in exchange for staff pay raises and money for buildings. The deal garnered a lot of pushback from staff and students at the time.

“You know, the workload requirements that came through the budget, or the DEI deal that happened last session, none of those would have happened if we had collective bargaining in place,” Emerson said. “Those are two things that when you have people who don’t work in an industry trying to put working parameters around that industry, it falls flat.”

Bills likely won’t advance in Republican Legislature

The Democratic proposals will face a difficult road in the Republican-led Legislature. Emerson said the likelihood for a public hearing on the Democratic bills is “slim to none.”

However, Emerson said Democratic lawmakers plan to take the ideas to people in the state other ways. She and some of her Democratic colleagues will be on the UW-Stevens Point campus this week to start a tour of campuses around the state. 

Emerson said the purpose is to have as many conversations with staff, faculty and students as possible. 

“If we’re not going to have a hearing in Madison on it, we are ready to take this around to other campuses and other parts of the state and have the conversation on the college campuses,” Emerson said. “I want to hear what matters to the students. I want to hear what, you know, the career people need their students to have to get jobs. I want to hear from the business people in these communities.”

Emerson said part of the goal is to also start laying the foundation for if Democrats win more legislative power in 2026. 

“It’s always good when you’re making policy about something that you’re talking to the people that this is going to impact, so this is what we’re really hoping to do — work out all the kinks, and dust everything off, and, hopefully, have a little bit more governing power coming up in the next session, and be able to really hit the ground running with some of these bills,” Emerson said.

Emerson said Democratic lawmakers’ approach is focused on figuring out how the state can make higher education available for “anybody no matter their zip code, no matter their income level,” and she expressed skepticism the Republican bills will do that. 

“A lot of the bills that I see coming from my Republican colleagues about higher education tend to either be punitive — one person said one thing on one campus, therefore we have to make sure nobody ever says that again and getting into these free speech pieces — or they’re doing things in a way that tells me that they haven’t been on a college campus for a really long time,” Emerson said.

The Senate Universities and Technical Colleges Committee is scheduled to have a public hearing on eight Republican-authored higher education-related bills Wednesday. 

One bill, coauthored by Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) and Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville), would place caps on annual tuition hikes. It was proposed in reaction to the 5% tuition increase that was approved after the recent state budget was completed. The increase was the third annual hike in a row. UW President Jay Rothman and UW regents had said the tuition increases would be necessary if the system didn’t secure enough funding from the state. 

In a memo about the bill, the Republican lawmakers said the Legislature needed to “implement a common sense law placing controls on these types of skyrocketing tuition increases” and that a cap on tuition increases would provide families with “the predictability required to budget for college expenses into the future.” Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) has also argued that the bill is about “protecting affordability.” 

Under the bill, the UW Board of Regents would be prohibited from increasing undergraduate tuition by more than the consumer price index increase in a given year.

Emerson said she didn’t think the bill would have the intended effect of helping students and families afford school. She noted some of the effects seen during the decade-long tuition freeze implemented under the Walker administration. 

UW leaders said at the time that the freeze was unsustainable as it limited campuses ability to maintain its program and course offerings and wages for staff and faculty. 

“Students couldn’t get the classes that they needed… so people would sometimes have to go for an extra year to get all of the classes that they needed to complete their degree. It ended up costing people more because they had to stay in longer to get the one last requirement that they needed for their degree,” Emerson said. “It’s a good messaging point to say we’re gonna not increase [tuition] by a certain amount, but I don’t think that that has the end result that they’re thinking it does.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 3 minutes

A bill with bipartisan support scheduled for a committee vote on Tuesday could restore funding for Wisconsin veterans homes in Green Bay and Chippewa Falls that closed in September due to funding cuts in the 2025-27 state budget.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers told Wisconsin Watch he would sign the Republican-sponsored bill, even though it includes additional items that are not part of a Democratic “clean” proposal that only funds the veterans homes. But it’s unclear if the bill will pass the Republican-controlled Assembly.

Senate Bill 411, from Sen. André Jacque, R-New Franken, would provide the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs $1.95 million over the biennium to increase funding for the costs of running the agency’s Veterans Housing and Recovery Program, which supports veterans at risk of homelessness. The dollars would also cover costs for leasing a new facility in Chippewa Falls. Klein Hall, which housed VHRP veterans there, was nearly 50 years old and needed repairs, staff told Wisconsin Watch this summer. 

Veterans organizations, Republicans and Democrats spoke in favor of the bill at a public hearing in September, and no one spoke against it. The bill also requires the Universities of Wisconsin System Board of Regents to fund the Missing-in-Action Recovery and Identification Project and reduces the disability rating threshold for veterans or their surviving spouses to claim property tax credits. 

But the bill’s path beyond Tuesday’s executive session vote in the Senate’s Committee on Natural Resources, Veteran and Military Affairs, which Jacque leads, remains unclear at this point. 

Even if Jacque’s bill makes it to Evers’ desk for his signature, it would still take “a few months” to reopen the Green Bay facility and at least a year for a site to reopen in Chippewa Falls, said Colleen Flaherty, a spokesperson for the WDVA. The Chippewa Falls timeline is longer because the WDVA would have to apply for a new round of federal grants, Flaherty said.

Still, Jacque said in a statement to Wisconsin Watch that he was “heartened” by the support for SB 411 so far. 

“I look forward to continuing discussions with the Department of Veterans Affairs and fellow committee members to get this legislation to the governor as quickly as possible,” he said. 

How we got here

SB 411 is one of several legislative proposals brought forward after the state’s two-year budget passed without additional funds to cover the rising costs of running veterans homes across the state. 

Evers originally proposed $1.9 million in new funding for the low-cost housing option, but the Legislature’s Republican-led budget writing committee removed those dollars during the legislative process.  

Political finger-pointing followed as the state prepared to close the Green Bay and Chippewa Falls facilities. Evers placed the blame on the Republicans in the Legislature. Republican lawmakers, such as Sen. Eric Wimberger, R-Oconto, argued Evers and the WDVA already had funding to keep the veterans homes open. 

According to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the WDVA receives an appropriation for “general program administration,” which has been underspent its funding by $600,000 to $2 million in each of the last six fiscal years. The agency has broad enough stipulations that it could use extra funds to support the veterans housing program. 

But it’s possible the WDVA believes the Legislature did not intend to continue to support the veterans homes when it did not approve the specific funding proposed during the budget process, the LFB said. Flaherty, with the WDVA, said the agency “needs legislative approval for the funding.”

Evers spokesperson Britt Cudaback said the governor is “hopeful” the Legislature will “work quickly” and pass SB 411 in its current form, which he would sign into law.

“While it’s great to see that Republicans have now decided they support Gov. Evers’ budget requests, it’s disappointing they chose not to approve these investments months ago when they had the chance, which could have prevented two facilities serving homeless veterans from closing,” Cudaback said. 

Wimberger, in a statement to Wisconsin Watch, continued to place the blame on Evers.

“I’m not opposed to Senator Jacque’s bill,” Wimberger said. “However, Governor Evers is extorting the Legislature since the program already has funding. If paying twice makes Governor Evers stop sending veterans out on the streets, maybe we do that.” 

What’s next for SB 411?

Should SB 411 move beyond the Senate’s committee, it would then go to the full Senate for consideration. The chamber has not met since early July. 

It’s also unclear how far SB 411 would go in the Assembly. State Rep. William Penterman, R-Hustisford, who leads the Assembly Committee on Veterans and Military Affairs, did not respond to questions from Wisconsin Watch on if he would hold a hearing on Jacque’s bill. 

Two Assembly bills that also seek to restore veterans home funding, one from Democrats and another from Republicans, have not received any public hearings yet. Nor has another Senate Democratic-sponsored bill, which would only provide funding for veterans homes. 

In the meantime, the WDVA found new placements for all of the veterans who previously called the Green Bay and Chippewa Falls sites home. The last veteran left Chippewa Falls on Sept. 9 and Green Bay on Sept. 12, Flaherty said. 

Can Wisconsin’s split government pass a bill to support homeless veterans? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.