Senate Chambers in the Wisconsin State Capitol. (Baylor Spears | Wisconsin Examiner)

During its last floor session of the year, the Wisconsin Senate passed bills Tuesday that would eliminate the annual $325 per pupil revenue increase for school districts, define abortion to not include treatment for ectopic pregnancies and other emergency medical conditions and block state and local dollars from being used on health care for people not legally in the country.

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) said she is “dismayed” and “disgusted” that lawmakers were not taking up bills that focused on affordability. She said she is open to working across the aisle on the issue.

“Republicans do not care about affordability, and they have no plan about affordability either,” Hesselbein said. “There are no bills on this calendar that will lower prescription drug costs, increase access to health care, lower housing costs or make child care more affordable.”

Sen. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) noted a few of the more than 60 bills lawmakers were scheduled to take up and questioned whether they addressed pressing matters. 

“Republicans, who determine the issues and bills we focus on, today are addressing things like exempting tobacco bars from the public smoking ban, delaying the implementation of commercial building code rules,” Keyeski said. “While these may be worthy issues to discuss, I would suggest that it does not meet the threshold of emergent need when families are facing dire economic circumstances. GOP legislators are essentially forcing us to sit idly by and watch Wisconsinites suffer.”

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) said at a press conference that Democratic lawmakers were just “filibustering” and rejected the claim that Republicans weren’t working to help with affordability in the state.

“We passed a budget which had the second largest tax cut in state history to get money back into people’s pockets for utility bills, for retirees on fixed incomes, for middle class tax cuts. We’re doing everything we can to try to keep things affordable, ending the 400-year veto so taxes don’t go up in the next budget process,” LeMahieu said. “We are very concerned. It seems like Democrats can make these statements, but yet they’re introducing bills that let local governments increase their levies to tax, raise property taxes, and everything else, so it seems a little disingenuous.”

Republicans advance bill to eliminate 400-year veto

The Senate voted to pass a bill that would reverse Gov. Tony Evers’ partial veto that extended school revenue limit increases for 400 years. 

Lawmakers during the 2023-25 state budget gave school districts a $325 increase to schools’ revenue limits for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years. When the bill reached Evers’ desk, he exercised his partial veto power, striking two digits and a dash from the years to extend the annual increases through 2425, to lawmakers’ dismay. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in April that the partial veto was within Evers’ powers.

In response, lawmakers introduced SB 389 to eliminate the $325 per pupil school revenue limit increase beginning in the 2027-28 school year. It passed along party lines. 

“We’re very concerned with the ruling of the state Supreme Court, but what we want to do is to clarify that the original intent of the Legislature in the budget was to increase school funding for the next budget period,” Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), a coauthor of the bill, said. “He changed the bill in a way that no governor in the history of the state of Wisconsin has changed [a bill], and that’s very concerning for us because the Legislature is where the voice of a people is supposed to take place, and the governor is supposed to look at that and use his veto authority to determine where he stands on that, but he went far beyond what’s ever been done before.”

Democratic lawmakers defended the revenue limit increases, saying it is helping school districts that have struggled without inflationary increases in state funding.

“As fists clench over the 400-year veto, know this, it doesn’t even make up for inflation. What it does is, it provides a minimum increase for what people can expect,” Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said. “Unfortunately, with this vote, it is trying to go back and trying to actually make a horrible budget even worse by saying not only are we giving you zero dollars in general aid increase…, but more than that, we’re also going to bar the local school district from making up for that gap by being able to allow them to vote for an increased property tax.”

Larson said that the law could have been changed during the 2025-27 state budget process and that it is the state’s fault that property taxes are bearing the brunt of the increases.

“Everybody who voted for the budget, in essence, voted for the continuation of the $325 dollars per pupil increase to be passed on to local taxpayers to make up the difference,” Larson said. “If you had wanted to change it, there were two things that you could have done. One, you could have voted to have that ended and substituted with a different per-pupil increase. Second thing is, you could have had the state actually fund those increases using funds from the increasing general aid or using the vast surplus that we have, taking money from the agriculture manufacturing tax credit [or] anywhere else, and you could have actually funded our kids.”

Redefining abortion

The Senate also passed SB 553, which seeks to redefine abortion to exempt treatments for certain medical conditions including the removal of a dead embryo or fetus, an ectopic, anembryonic or molar pregnancy.

Bill coauthor Sen. Romaine Quinn (R-Birchwood) said during a press conference that he wanted to remove confusion from state statute, saying he is “pro-life” and hasn’t wanted to stop women from being able to receive the medical care that they need. 

“Women who need medical attention due to situations of stillbirths, miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies or other related issues, can and should receive the care that they need. That has always been the pro-life position,” Quinn said. “This bill before us today does not ban abortions. It does not restrict abortions, it simply clarifies our laws so that both women and medical providers can do what is necessary in those situations.”

Wisconsin has a web of abortion restrictions in place, including a 20-week ban, but confusion soared in the state after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. An 1849 law interpreted as a near-total abortion ban led health care providers afraid of felony charges to deny care to women who faced miscarriage and life-threatening pregnancy complications.

Recently, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, the state’s largest abortion provider, stopped providing abortion care in part due to federal changes.

Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said the lawmakers were trying to distance themselves from “the horrors that we are seeing in states that have banned and restricted abortion.” The Assembly coauthor, Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) said in September that she introduced it in part because Republicans are getting “killed” on the abortion issue during elections, although she said she favors a total abortion ban.

“Women being turned away from hospital emergency rooms repeatedly, being left to bleed out in Walmart parking lots. In fact, women are dying because they are denied timely abortion care that could easily have saved their lives, and their children left orphaned,” Roys said. “That’s the reality of what it looks like when you ban and restrict access to abortion in this country.”

Recent polling done by Marquette Law School found that 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. 

Another recent poll found that 78% of voters support protecting health care professionals from criminal charges related to providing abortion care and 72% of voters favor allowing advanced health care providers like nurse practitioners and midwives to provide abortion care.

Roys said she was also concerned that the bill could push physicians to do emergency C-sections rather than terminate pregnancies as a way of addressing health issues. 

“Abortion is a necessary medical procedure that sometimes pregnant people need to save their lives, to preserve their health, to preserve their future fertility, and nothing in this bill is going to change that,” Roys said. “This bill will instead push physicians to force women to have unnecessary C-sections or to induce delivery rather than providing them with abortion. A C-section is much more dangerous. It is much more invasive. It’s major abdominal surgery that takes weeks or months to recover from, and it also impairs a woman’s future ability to be pregnant to have the labor and delivery that she wishes.”

The bill will now go to the Assembly for consideration. 

Restricting health care for immigrants

The Senate concurred 21-12 in AB 308, which 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. Sens. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi), Brad Pfaff (D-Onalaska) and Jamie Wall (D-Green Bay) joined Republicans in favor. 

Bill coauthor Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) said the bill would ensure that Wisconsin doesn’t begin spending large amounts of money on people who aren’t legally in the country. He noted that other states, including Minnesota and California, have rescinded or paused providing coverage for people not legally in the U.S. 

“[Illinois] did an audit and found that they had spent nearly $900 million on health care benefits for illegal aliens, about a 200% increase, and then in Minnesota, the Legislature, by bipartisan vote, they voted to end the eligibility for illegal immigrants due to questions about their state’s financial well-being, and then, lastly, wonderful, California. Gov. [Gavin] Newsom recently froze enrollment of illegal immigrants into the state’s medical programs, citing California’s $12 billion budget deficit,” Wanggaard said at a press conference. “We’re looking at something that is really a no-brainer.”

Wisconsin already doesn’t allow immigrants without legal authorization to apply for the state’s Medicaid program, BadgerCare.

There are two programs available to those without legal status outlined on the Department of Health Services website: 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 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.

Democratic lawmakers accused Republicans of seeking to make a political point and neglecting to address health care costs and accessibility.

“We are not in an affordability crisis because of less than 1% of BadgerCare funds that are used to save lives,” Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) said. “This is cruel, it is a mean-spirited bill that is attempting to score cheap political points off of a group that’s already marginalized enough.” 

Advocates have warned that the bill could have a “chilling effect,” discouraging people from seeking care when they need it.

“Why is this sort of thing even coming up for discussion? Are we that heartless? Have we really lost our vision for this country?” Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick) asked. “These are all messaging to somebody’s base. Terrible people who are coming here to work in our factories, in our fields without the proper papers need to be punished… How heartless are we to make political points? Go ahead and make your god dang political points.”

The Assembly passed the bill in September, so it will now go to Evers for consideration. 

Other bills passed by the Senate Tuesday include:  

• AB 165, which would ban local governments from using tax money to create guaranteed income programs without a work or training requirement. The Assembly passed the bill along party lines in April and the Senate concurred in it 18-15 so it will now go to Evers for consideration. 
• AB 265, which would require judges to sentence people convicted of human trafficking to at least 10 years in prison, or at least 15 years for trafficking a child, was concurred in in an 18-15 party line vote. Democratic lawmakers expressed concerns about young victims of sex trafficking potentially facing mandatory minimums if they are forced to participate in trafficking, while Republicans brushed away those concerns. 
• SB 498 passed 17-16 with Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) joining Democrats against it. The bill would place specific freedom of speech requirements into state statute, including barring campuses from restricting speakers on campus, and implement new penalties, including a tuition freeze, if a campus violates any parts of the bill.
• SB 394 would make it a Class I felony to damage or graffiti structures, plaques, statues, paintings or other monuments on public property or that is maintained by the state or any county or municipality. It passed 18-15 along party lines.
• SB 11, which would require school districts to provide an opportunity for certain federally chartered youth membership organizations, including the Girl Scouts, to give students information about their organizations. It passed by a voice vote. The Assembly is scheduled to vote on the bill on Wednesday.
• SB 16, which would make the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association subject to open records and open meeting laws, passed 22-11.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

SB 403 would prohibit a political committee, political party or conduit from accepting contributions that are made with a credit card online unless the contributor provides their credit card verification value (CVV) or code and the billing address associated with the card is located in the United States. Wisconsin State Capitol (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

Wisconsin lawmakers considered proposals to crack down on political contributions made with credit cards online and to provide additional information on constitutional amendment proposals to voters during a Senate Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs committee meeting Wednesday. The committee also took up a constitutional amendment proposal to forbid the government from shutting down places of worship during a state of emergency. 

New requirements for credit card political donations

Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee) said his bill creating new requirements for political donations made with a credit card online will  ensure there is a “good, secure” process in place in Wisconsin. 

“Let’s acknowledge that we need to know that unlawful sources and foreign entities are not infiltrating our campaigns and elections,” Tomczyk said, and that “citizens are funding candidates here in Wisconsin.”

The bill, SB 403, would prohibit a political committee, political party or conduit from accepting contributions that are made with a credit card online unless the contributor provides their credit card verification value (CVV) or code and the billing address associated with the card is located in the United States. 

If a U.S. citizen is living outside the country and wants to make a contribution from a credit card that doesn’t have a U.S. billing address, then the person would need to provide a mailing address used for voter registration. 

“I’m trying to make elections more secure, the donation process more secure,” Tomczyk said. 

The bill comes as Republicans and the Trump administration have targeted ActBlue — a Massachusetts-based platform that processes donations to Democratic campaigns — claiming that the platform facilitates so-called “smurfing,” a form of money laundering where large sums of money are broken down into smaller, less noticeable transactions and could allow for “straw donors” and foreign contributions. Stakeholders, including ActBlue and Democrats, have said that the action by the administration is an attack on the democratic process.

Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, in his position as chair of the U.S. House Committee on House Administration, launched an investigation into ActBlue asking whether it required CVV information from contributors in 2023. 

The company said at the time that while it did not, it has many other measures in place to confirm the permissibility of contributions and prevent fraudulent transactions including a requirement for passport information if a donor provides an address outside the U.S. 

Steil has since proposed federal legislation that would require credit card verification for online donations. 

Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) expressed concerns over how the bill could create barriers for individuals looking to contribute.

“Why are you trying to ban citizens from being able to donate by credit card?” Larson asked. 

“If they’re not voting in the United States, they’re allowed to donate by credit card if they’re providing all the information that the bill outlines. If they don’t have a voting address, it’s kind of odd,” Tomczyk replied. “I’m pretty sure it’d be a pretty small amount of people.”

The authors of the bill also said people could still donate by check and other methods if they didn’t have the necessary information. 

“It sounds like this is just putting up additional hurdles for people who want to donate by credit card and it just seems like, especially for smaller dollar donations, people who aren’t writing a lot of checks,” Larson said. “Most of the people that I know are giving with credit cards because they don’t use checks.”

Larson said the bill could make it harder for people to participate in democracy through political contributions. 

The authors of the bill claimed there have been examples of “smurfing” in Wisconsin, though they provided no specific examples when asked. 

“This is not something that comes up out of the blue. People have been interviewed about contributions that they gave with their credit card that they said they never gave,” Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville) said. 

“You guys sound like Gargamel as much as you’re talking about smurfing,” Larson said at one point, referring to the fictional antagonist in the Smurfs cartoon franchise. “Come up with an example. Give me some proof really if you want the governor to be able to sign it.”

“In testimony, I don’t think I have to show proof. I have to provide information and… get enough support to pass it through,” Tomczyk said. 

Providing information on constitutional amendments

Lawmakers are also proposing a way to ensure Wisconsin voters have information on the potential effects of constitutional amendments. 

SB 205 follows years of the Republican-led Legislature turning to constitutional amendment proposals as a way to make changes to law without going through Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. The most recent constitutional amendment that was approved by voters enshrined voter identification requirements in law, and other amendment proposals are circulating this session, including one to restrict the governor’s partial veto power. 

The committee heard from Tomczyk and Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond Du Lac) on their bill, which seeks to provide information about constitutional amendments to voters ahead of elections. 

“I’ve heard from countless friends and constituents, even people with college degrees and professional titles, all who tell me that every time they vote on a constitutional amendment the wording on the ballot makes no sense to them,” Tomczyk said. “The legalese, if you will, that is used on the ballot, is of course necessary and should be presented, but for regular everyday residents of Wisconsin, it might as well be in a different language. There has to be a way to explain what these amendments do so that people know what they are voting for.” 

“This is only meant to inform voters better about what they are voting for or against,” Tomczyk said. 

The bill would require a notice to go to voters that would include the date of the referendum, the text of the ballot question, the plain language summary of current law, an explanation in plain language of a proposed constitutional amendment and an explanation in plain language of the effects of a “yes” versus a “no” vote.

O’Connor said the Legislative Reference Bureau, the nonpartisan agency that drafts bills and proposals for the Legislature, would be responsible for writing the information in a black box. 

“The black box we cannot touch as legislators,” O’Connor said. He added that the legislation is “non-partisan, bipartisan and voter focused.” 

While the bill only has Republican cosponsors, it advanced through the Assembly Campaigns and Elections committee unanimously with support from two Democratic lawmakers. The bill is also supported by the League of Women Voters, the ACLU of Wisconsin, Disability Rights Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. 

Places of worship constitutional amendment

The committee also took up Senate Joint Resolution 4, a constitutional amendment proposal that would prohibit the state from ordering the closure of places of worship during a state of emergency. 

This is the Legislature’s second consideration of the proposal, which was first introduced and passed by the Legislature during the 2023-25 session. 

The proposal was introduced in reaction to actions taken during the COVID-19 pandemic when Gov. Tony Evers’ administration declared a state of emergency. 

Evers’ initial “Safer at Home” order in March 2020 explicitly designated religious entities as essential, though it said any gatherings should include fewer than 10 people in a room or confined space at a time and that people needed to adhere to social distancing requirements as much as possible. It also advised and permitted places of worship to have drive-in services. 

Before the constitutional amendment proposal, Evers vetoed a bill in 2021 that would have prohibited local health officers from taking any action to close or forbid gatherings in places of worship to control outbreaks and epidemics of COVID-19. 

Tomczyk noted an incident at Pilgrim Lutheran Church in West Bend where a law enforcement officer showed up to shut down a service after a neighbor called in to report the gathering. According to a Wisconsin Public Radio report, the incident was a misunderstanding and the police department later apologized to the church.

“In America, in Wisconsin, law enforcement stopped the church service because the government decided that a virus was more important than the constitutional rights of Americans. That is unacceptable,” Tomczyk said. “Many people in our great state seek solace in times of difficulty within their church, synagogue, or other plates of worship. It is critical that we continue to protect every individual’s ability to gather and worship at the times when they rely on their faiths the most.” 

Larson asked Tomczyk whether he was open to holding a religious organization liable if people “get sick and die” because they decide to meet against the direction of a public health emergency.

“No,” Tomczyk replied. 

“So… if there is a deadly pandemic, people are dying… and their parishioners die, you are fine with those deaths?” Larson asked. 

“I’m supportive of people’s constitutional right to gather and to worship at the times that they choose and, and if they make that decision, God bless them,” Tomczyk said. 

According to the constitutional amendment draft, voters would be asked whether the state constitution should be “amended to prohibit the state or a political subdivision of the state from ordering the closure of, or forbidding gatherings in, places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including a public health emergency?”

The proposal received a hearing in the Assembly in May, but has not yet been voted on there. 

If the bill passes the Assembly and Senate this session, it would be placed in front of voters during the November elections in 2026 alongside a slate of other high-profile races, including the one for governor.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

“It's been deeply disappointing to see attempts to turn this serious issue into yet another partisan political sideshow. Our kids deserve better than that. Wisconsin families deserve better than that,” Underly said at a press conference. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

State Superintendent Jill Underly said allegations of mishandled sexual misconduct and grooming by teachers have been turned into a “partisan political sideshow” as she announced that her agency is launching a database to list the names of teachers  who have surrendered  their licenses or had them revoked. She also laid out other actions that could be taken to improve the current system for responding to allegations.

It was the first time that Underly spoke to the public in person since the publication of a CapTimes report that found there were over 200 investigations into teacher licenses due to allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023. The investigation led to an outcry from lawmakers, who said they want action to ensure students are safe. 

Underly was absent from the first informational hearing on the subject held in the Assembly Government Oversight, Accountability and Transparency (GOAT) committee about two weeks ago. She was out of state to accept an award from her alma mater Indiana University. 

Underly told reporters at a press conference ahead of the hearing Tuesday in the Senate Education Committee that she was interested in “protecting Wisconsin’s children” whether they are in public, private or charter schools and she called on policymakers to work towards solutions and stay away from “finger pointing” and “political theater.” 

“It’s been deeply disappointing to see attempts to turn this serious issue into yet another partisan political sideshow. Our kids deserve better than that. Wisconsin families deserve better than that,” Underly said. “But we won’t be distracted or deterred, and our focus remains exactly where it belongs on protecting kids.” 

Underly’s comments come after U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, a Republican gubernatorial hopeful, who stood alongside state Republican lawmakers, suggested during a press conference that Gov. Tony Evers needed to “call on Jill Underly to either do her job or step aside” and connected the issue of sexual misconduct and grooming to “indoctrination” through liberal curriculum in schools. Washington County Executive and gubernatorial hopeful Josh Schoemann outright called for Underly’s resignation. 

Underly told reporters that calls for her resignation are “preposterous.” 

Underly said she will also attend the Joint Audit Committee hearing on Wednesday where lawmakers plan to launch an audit into the educational licensure revocation, suspension, restriction and investigation at DPI. 

During both the press conference and the committee hearing, Underly rejected claims that the agency is shielding information from the public, but said there is more work that can be done to strengthen the agency and the state’s current processes.

“The department does not cover up misconduct. We do not shield information from the public. We do not ignore allegations. We do everything in our power to remove those who harm children from classrooms, and we do it urgently and decisively,” Underly said. “Unfortunately, some have chosen to use this deeply sensitive issue to score political points and that doesn’t protect children. It distracts from real solutions.”

Sen. John Jagler (R-Watertown), who chairs the Senate Education Committee, opened the Senate hearing by saying that the response by DPI, including Underly’s absence from the GOAT committee hearing, was “disturbing” to him.

“The bottom line is kids’ safety needs to be the No. 1 priority, full stop, and I believe that’s what we hope to investigate today and look into how we can help make this a better situation for our kids,” Jagler said. 

Underly said there are several “practical” and “achievable” steps her agency is taking and Wisconsin policymakers could take to bolster safety for students.

Defining grooming 

One of the top steps that Underly identified is for the state to define “grooming” in state law. She said that the agency already investigates and pursues license revocations for teachers accused of grooming students for sexual exploitation and for predatory behavior, but clarifying a definition could help ensure consistency. 

“Grooming and predatory behaviors are not just school issues. They are societal issues that happen in every corner of our communities, and that’s why we need to do more as a state to prevent, identify and address these behaviors wherever they occur,” Underly said. “Without stronger laws and clear definitions, the referrals we receive can be inconsistent. Wisconsin urgently needs to clarify grooming and define it as a crime so that law enforcement can act swiftly and consistently, no matter where it happens.”

A bill, coauthored by Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) and Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp), would define “grooming” in state statute and make it a felony to engage in grooming a child for sexual activity.

Underly said she welcomes conversations about the bill.

Under the bill, “grooming” would be defined as “a course of conduct, pattern of behavior, or series of acts with the intention to condition, seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child for the purpose of engaging in sexual intercourse or sexual contact, or for the purpose of producing, distributing, or possessing depictions of the child engaged in sexually explicit conduct.” 

It also lists examples of behavior that would constitute grooming including verbal comments or conversations of a sexual nature directed at a child; inappropriate or sexualized physical contact; written, electronic and communication over text and social media to lure or entice a child; promising gifts, privileges, or special attention to lower a child’s inhibitions or create emotional dependence; and acts intended to isolate a child from family or peers. 

The authors of the bill said in a memo that the bill builds on the state laws on grooming that exist in Florida, Texas, Ohio and Illinois. 

A person convicted of a grooming charge would be guilty of a Class G felony, that would increase to a Class F felony if the person is in a position of trust or authority, and to a Class E felony if the child has a disability and to a Class D felony if the violation involves two or more children. A convicted person would also need to register as a sex offender.

Other agency and legislative steps

Lawmakers on the committee also asked about the number of staff dedicated to investigating allegations. 

Underly said they have 1.5 employees working on license investigations and those employees have access to the agency’s team of attorneys. 

Jagler asked whether that was sufficient. 

Underly said it would be helpful to have more resources, though she emphasized that providing subpoena power to the agency would help speed investigations along. 

“We need to strengthen our investigations today. The DPI lacks subpoena power during investigations, meaning we rely on voluntary cooperation of witnesses, district officials, and others to gather critical information,” Underly said. “Even limited authority would allow us to gather evidence more efficiently and act faster to protect kids.” 

Deputy State Superintendent Tom McCarthy noted during the hearing that the agency can become involved in any stage of the process of dealing with allegations, but it is not typically the primary investigator in cases. 

“Most of the time, we are being notified by law enforcement, by county child welfare, by a district who has subsequently said, ‘Hey, we have a teacher who is being investigated by law enforcement or there’s a scenario over here.’

The agency’s role focuses on investigating whether an educator’s license should be removed or whether they should seek a voluntary surrender from someone under investigation. During investigations, McCarthy said the agency typically relies on gathering credible information from law enforcement, school districts, local partners and others. He said even if there isn’t information readily available to be shared with the agency they are still working to “go after these people.” 

“What’s happening with the 1.5 staff is, they’re often following up, saying, ‘Hey, sheriff’s department, have you completed this? Hey, school district, are you done with this particular investigation.’ Without subpoena power, we’re doing that in a voluntary fashion with them. Sometimes they tell us to pound sand, and we have to wait and we have to wait and wait and wait. Sometimes we get tired of waiting and actually, just move into a voluntary surrender or revocation action, but it would be way better for the system if we weren’t always way delayed in the back seat of this entire process so that we could take swifter action.”

Underly said the agency is also working on a statewide code of conduct, which will soon be published for public comment through administrative rules and will serve as a guide for school boards developing policies on professional boundaries. 

DPI has a model policy on its website for school districts, but it isn’t mandatory. 

“That’s something you all would have to talk about as to whether you want that to be more than just recommended on the website,” said Jennifer Kammerud, who serves as DPI’s educator licensing director.

Another step, Underly said, includes the launch of a new online database to allow the public to view licenses that have been revoked or surrendered. She said the new tool will create more transparency by expanding on the current teacher license lookup tool. 

Currently, the public can see the status of a teacher’s  license on the primary database, a teacher’s name is required to check a license status. The new database lists names of individuals in alphabetical order who have voluntarily surrendered or had their licenses revoked. 

McCarthy said it would be a little while before the website is updated with information about the reasoning behind license revocation or surrender because the information is not electronic yet. He said DPI must locate individual revocation orders and will add the information as it is gathered.

In addition, Underly said that the state needs to modernize the licensing system used for educators, but the agency needs resources to get it done. She said that allowing DPI to keep 10% of licensing fees, which is currently diverted away from the agency, would allow investments in licensing improvements and investigations. 

The agency also requested $600,000 in the most recent state budget process to modernize its online background checks and licensing platform, but that was rejected by the Republican-led Legislature. 

During the hearing Republican lawmakers questioned why Underly hadn’t come specifically to them with her requests. (During the most recent budget process, the Joint Finance Committee, which typically hosts agency heads to explain their budget requests, declined to invite Underly or DPI to make a presentation.)

“Obviously, I’ll never tell you how to do your job, Superintendent, but you mentioned requesting for funding — how [Joint Finance Committee] has never asked you to come talk to them. I guess in my experience [Department of Safety and Professional Standards] Sec. Dan [Hereth] was in my office asking and explaining those things,” said Sen. Romaine Quinn (R-Birchwood), who is a member of the Joint Finance Committee. “I would just say no one is going to ask you to come in and ask for more money.” 

Underly also said the state needs to close loopholes for private schools. Educators employed at private schools in Wisconsin are not required to hold a DPI license, meaning staff at those schools fall outside of the agency’s investigative authority. The agency is only able to investigate and keep individuals out of schools via the licensure system.

Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) emphasized that he wanted discussions about improving the process to cover students in public, private and other schools. 

“I would hope that as we focus our attention on what is happening in the public domain, and what information is publicly available and was pulled off of a public website, and then publicly reported, that we don’t pretend that because things are private and happening in private schools and behind closed doors that the 125,000 students who are in classrooms where there is not a required licensure and where there is not required reporting and where information is not public, that we pretend that there are not problems that exist there,” Larson said. 

At one point during the committee hearing, Larson asked his colleagues whether they would want to work to help close the loophole. Sen. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) nodded.

“It’s a dangerous loophole and we need to close it,” Underly said.

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

“All they do is critique process and complain about things,” Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said of his Democratic colleagues. “But we're getting bills done.” (Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin State Senate met for a floor session for the first time in over 90 days, advancing bills that would ban cellphones in schools, require coverage of breast cancer screenings for women at high risk and allow candidates to remove themselves from ballots. 

Ahead of the session, Senate Democrats criticized their Republican colleagues for the sparse number of floor days and for the issues they chose to take up. 

“We are feeling the effects of the big, ugly bill on our families, our farmers and our neighbors who need food assistance or who are covered by Medicaid,” Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) said at a press conference. She was referencing the federal law approved over the summer that made cuts to the SNAP and Medicaid programs to help pay for tax cuts. “So what is the Republican agenda today? Nothing that addresses any of those concerns. The fact that some Republicans are here at all in this building is pretty unusual.” 

The Democrats displayed a poster that showed the number of times the Senate has met per legislative session from 2003 to 2025. Tuesday was the first time the Senate has been on the floor since July, when lawmakers passed the current state budget. 

During the current two-year session, the Senate has held seven floor sessions. In 2019, the Senate met 13 times on the floor. 

“We are on the path to become one of the least active state Senates in Wisconsin’s history. It’s irresponsible and reckless, but this is the Republican majority,” Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) said, adding that Tuesday also marks the 14th day of the federal government shutdown.

According to WISN 12, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) has said there is enough funding for WIC and FoodShare benefits through October, but those programs will face shortfalls if the shutdown continues into November. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers has said he would consider  taking executive action if the shutdown continues.

“Congressional Republicans are refusing to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies that would prevent Wisconsinites from seeing their monthly insurance premiums doubled next year,” Drake said. “There is not one item on our calendar today aimed at making health care more affordable for Wisconsinites or to lower costs for Wisconsin families.”

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) said that compared to the Assembly, the Senate typically takes up a larger schedule of bills when it comes in. The Assembly has met three times this fall. 

“All they do is critique process and complain about things,” LeMahieu said of his Democratic colleagues. “But we’re getting bills done.” 

LeMahieu added that the Senate is going to meet in November, January, February and March before the end of the legislative session. Legislators will “keep looking at different things” to address gaps caused by the federal government shutdown, he added.

Cellphone ban bill

The Senate voted 29-4 to concur in a bill that will require school districts across the state to adopt a cellphone ban policy. The four opposing votes came from Democrats.

Under AB 2, school districts’ policies would need to ban cellphones during instructional times. School boards would be required  to implement the new policy by July 2026 and would need to include exceptions for emergencies, for educational purposes and cases involving student health care, individualized education plans (IEPs) or 504 plans (learning environment accommodations). 

“These are devices that are taking away from our kids’ learning, and folks are asking us to do something about it,” Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) said at a press conference ahead of the session.

A recent Marquette Law School poll found that 89% of voters support banning cellphones during class periods. The poll also found that 72% of voters support banning cellphones throughout the school day, including lunch and between classes. 

“Wisconsin wants this. Wisconsin is asking for this,” Cabral-Guevara said on the floor. 

According to NPR, at least 31 states and Washington D.C. had adopted a cellphone ban as of September. 

According to a recent Wisconsin Policy Forum report, cellphone policies vary widely across the state, though most school districts already restrict student cellphone usage to common areas. 

Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) listed a number of concerns about the bill, including whether the bill would impede parents’ ability to communicate with their children when there are safety concerns and would hinder local control. 

“Why are we, the state, worried about taking away kids’ cellphones before we enact legislation that prevents kids from having access to guns and prevents mass shootings?” Ratcliff asked. “While I understand the intent behind this bill, which is to reduce distraction in the classroom, we cannot ignore the profound and tragic reality of our current times. This measure, though well-meaning, would be a dangerous step backward in ensuring the immediate safety of our children, especially in the wake of recent horrific shootings.”

Cabral Guevara noted that the bill includes an exception for emergencies. 

The bill passed the Assembly in February, so it will now go to Evers’ desk.

Lawmakers also concurred in AB 5, which would implement new requirements for allowing residents to inspect textbooks, curriculum or instructional materials. 

Wisconsinites currently have the ability to submit open records requests to school districts to receive school materials. Under the bill, school districts would need to comply with requests within 14 days and textbooks would need to be listed online. 

This is the third session where lawmakers have pursued this policy. The 2023-25 version of the bill passed the Assembly, but never received a vote in the Senate. The 2021-23 version was vetoed by Evers. 

The current iteration of the bill passed the Assembly earlier this year.

Breast cancer screening coverage

Lawmaker advanced a bill that would require health insurance policies to provide coverage for diagnostic breast examinations and for supplemental breast screening examinations for an individual who has dense breast tissue. It would require that coverage include no patient cost-sharing.

The bill, SB 264, passed 32-1. Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) was the lone opposing vote. 

According to KFF, breast cancer is the most diagnosed cancer among women in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death. According to the American Cancer Society, women with dense breast tissue have a higher risk of breast cancer. Dense breast tissue can also make it harder for radiologists to see cancer on mammograms. 

Cabral-Guevara said she started work on the bill when a constituent of hers, Gail Zeamer, came to her about the issue. Previous versions have failed two times before. 

Zeamer was diagnosed with cancer at a late stage. She had dense breast tissue and didn’t receive additional screening. She battled cancer for eight years and passed away in June 2024 at the age of 56.

During the press conference, Cabral-Guevara said that “40% of the women in Wisconsin have dense breasts… if you’re one of those 40%, you do need a secondary screening to be truly covered to determine if you do not have breast cancer.” 

“In memory of Gail, who has passed, as well as all the other women that have been affected by breast cancer living as well as deceased,”  she added,  “this bill is a true testament that we can work together here in this Capitol building and get things done.” 

Wisconsin already requires that insurance policies provide coverage for two mammograms for women between the ages of 45 and 49 and annual screenings for women over the age of 50. Insurance companies are not required to cover additional screenings for women with dense breast tissue or at higher risk. 

Speaking in favor of the bill, LeMahieu shared that his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer and she has dense breast tissue. He said they have been on a journey to deal with the diagnosis. 

“There are people who don’t know their risk that they have dense breast tissue. They don’t know that a simple mammogram might not catch it. Fortunately, she did her research,” LeMahieu said. “My wife is the exact type of person this bill is intended to help.”

The bill is now in the Assembly where the Health, Aging, and Long-Term Care Committee is scheduled to have a public hearing on it Wednesday. 

Allowing candidates to remove their name from ballots

The Senate also concurred in AB 35 in a 19-14 vote. The bill would make it easier for candidates to remove their names from ballots in Wisconsin. Sen. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D-Appleton) joined Republicans in favor.

Lawmakers introduced the bill after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was not allowed to remove himself from the Wisconsin presidential ballot in 2024 after he dropped out and endorsed President Donald Trump. Currently, candidates can only have their names removed if they are dead. 

Sens. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) proposed adding additional language so that the law would only apply if someone hadn’t been bribed to get out of a race. 

“There are instances in our recent past where candidates have been taken aside and promised positions if they agree to drop their candidacy, so if we want to make sure we have the integrity of free and fair elections without the interference of corrupting influence. This is one small step in that,” Larson said. 

His amendment was voted down by Republicans. 

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) said he has similar concerns about someone being pressured out of a race and also concerns about how the withdrawal mechanism would practically work. 

“Once [a] primary is done and somebody has won and their name is going to be printed on the general election ballot, if you take their name off, then you have now denied voters potentially a choice between one of the two parties, and there’s no mechanism in this bill to actually replace that party’s nominee on the ballot,” Spreitzer said. “If there were such a mechanism — and other states have that — I’d be open to something like this, but here, there could be a situation where a safe Democratic seat or a safe Republican seat ends up without a name.”

Candidates withdrawing from national or statewide races would have to pay the Wisconsin Elections Commission a $1,000 fee. Non-statewide candidates would need to pay $250. Under the bill, a person would face a Class G felony with a maximum penalty of up to $25,000 and imprisonment for up to 10 years if they intentionally filed a false statement withdrawing a person’s candidacy. 

Other bills advanced by the Senate: 

• SB 214, which would allow health care providers with a credential from another state to provide telehealth care services in Wisconsin. It passed 18-15 along party lines and will now go to the Assembly. 
• AB 39, which would require state employees to return to in-person work for at least 80% of their time, passed 17-16 with Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) joining Democrats against it. It passed the Assembly in September and will now go to Evers. 
• AB 162, which would require state agencies to collect a series of metrics on training and workforce development programs, including the unemployment rates and median earnings of participants six months after they graduate from a program. The Senate concurred along party lines. It now goes to Evers.
• AB 168, which would allow felony fraud claims related to unemployment to be prosecuted up to eight years after a crime was committed, passed along party lines. The  current statute of limitations is six years.
• AB 169, which would allow an employer to report to the Department of Workforce Development an unemployment recipient who declines or fails to show up to a job interview or declines a job offer. A report could be used to determine benefits. It will now go to Evers.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The memorial service is held for conservative political activist Charlie Kirk at State Farm Stadium on Sept. 21, 2025 in Glendale, Arizona. The Wisconsin Legislature held a contentious floor debate before passing a joint resolution honoring Kirk Tuesday.(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

The Wisconsin Senate and Assembly passed a joint resolution honoring the life of Charlie Kirk, the right-wing activist and ally to President Donald Trump who was assassinated last month. Debate was intense as Democrats said the resolution should have focused on condemning political violence, rather than honoring Kirk’s legacy. 

Senate approves without political violence condemnation

The first iteration of the resolution, offered by Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken), focused on Kirk’s life, saying Kirk “dedicated his life with unwavering conviction to advancing the timeless principles of faith, liberty, and truth” through his organization Turning Point USA and that his “powerful voice, seen in his writings, broadcasts and countless speeches, challenged complacency, awakened courage, and emboldened millions to take up the cause of freedom with renewed strength and clarity.” 

“Beyond his public mission, Charlie Kirk was first and foremost a devoted husband and loving father, fiercely committed to his wife and their two young children, whom he treasured as the heart of his life,” the resolution stated. “The brutal and senseless act that claimed his life has shaken our hearts, leaving an immense void not only in his family but across our nation, which looked to him as a steadfast champion for liberty… the Wisconsin Legislature honors Charlie Kirk’s extraordinary life and legacy with deepest gratitude, recognizing his fearless devotion to God, his unshakable love of family, and his tireless service to country.” 

Democratic Senators objected to the lack of a condemnation of political violence as well as the positive light the resolution cast on Kirk’s legacy. They introduced an amendment  that would have focused the resolution on condemning the assassination and political violence wholesale. 

“Your resolution doesn’t mention political violence at all. It is just about what a great guy Charlie Kirk was,” Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) said. “That’s not what’s going to bring 33 senators here today together… What could have brought 33 senators here together is the universal condemnation of the assassination.” 

“The Wisconsin Legislature strongly condemns the assassination of Charlie Kirk and extends their deepest condolences to his family and loved ones,” the Democratic proposed resolution stated. “Democracy in the United States depends on the peaceful and civil debate of ideas—not intimidation, violence, or assassination.”

Republican senators rejected the proposal, saying it wasn’t relevant to the resolution at hand. 

The rejection kickstarted heated debate about Kirk’s legacy. 

“I find myself reflecting on the stark contrast between my celebration and the heartbreaking truth that today would have been Charlie Kirk’s 32nd birthday. Charlie Kirk should have had many more birthdays,” Jacque said. “Through Turning Point USA, he challenged a generation, not to surrender to cynicism or drift into apathy, but to stand firm in their beliefs… He was a voice of clarity in a time of confusion, and that voice so full of passion and purpose was silenced in unspeakable act of violence.” 

Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) started her remarks by quoting Kirk nine times. 

“Quote one,” Johnson said. ‘The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.’ Quote two: ‘If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service, who’s a moronic black woman, I wonder, is she there because of her excellence or is she there because of affirmative action?’’ Quote three: ‘I have a very, very radical view on this, we made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.’” 

“Tell me, which one of you is willing to stand up and publicly admit that you or your constituents support this foolishness?” Johnson asked. She then called Kirk’s comments racist. 

Johnson said that Kirk’s legacy was emboldening people with his “hatred” and turning “them loose to be open to accepting their own racism and affirming their bigotry.” 

“My heart goes out to his wife and to his babies. My heart aches for them, but the empathy that I have for his family, Charlie never spared or even thought about extending that type of empathy to people who look like me,” Johnson said. “Choosing to whitewash his legacy and death does not erase who he was or what he stood for.” 

Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) agreed. 

“I will support any resolution condemning his assassination, political violence, because it is the right thing to do, but I will not honor any legacy that undermines the advancement and equality of all Americans,” Drake said.

Republican lawmakers, including Jacque and Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), said that Democratic lawmakers were taking the quotes out of context.

Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said he thought the resolution should have focused on condemning political violence and expressed concerns about the way that Kirk’s death was being used by some to go after perceived political opponents. He started reading from an article about the Elkhorn associate principal who was targeted after conservative influencers falsely claimed she had made posts on social media about Kirk’s death. 

Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) ruled Larson out of order and shut off his microphone. 

The Senate ultimately voted 18-15 along party lines to advance the resolution.

Assembly amends resolution 

The Assembly voted 54-42 to concur in the resolution after it was amended to condemn political violence and included some of the language that Democrats had in their proposal. 

The resolution did not go as far as Assembly Democrats suggested. A proposal from them also aimed to condemn the assassinations of both Kirk and former Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives Melissa Hortman. 

Assembly Assistant Minority Leader Kalan Haywood (D-Milwaukee) noted that Black History Month resolutions written by the Black Legislative Caucus have often faced difficult paths in the Republican-led Legislature. He specifically mentioned the year when the inclusion of civil rights activist and former quarterback Colin Kaepernick on a resolution kept it from coming to the floor.

Haywood said Kaepernick was “demonized for taking a silent knee to protest police brutality.” 

“I have watched several times as Black History Month resolutions and other resolutions recognizing people of color from Wisconsin and their history have been put under a magnifying glass and faced the most intense scrutiny,” Haywood said. “These resolutions over the last seven years have either been left off the calendar or threatened to not be included on the calendar because of the smallest quote, post or like your members find uncomfortable… What is the bar? Is there a different bar for people of color from Wisconsin and their lives and legacies to be recognized and honored by this body?” 

Haywood read off some of the quotes that Kirk made over the course of his life, echoing Johnson.

“These are quotes from Charlie Kirk, who was not a Wisconsinite, nor [did he] have any meaningful ties to our great state or any contributions to our state, and yeah, you are using his name and his death to score political points from Fox News and your far-right donors,” Haywood said. “Your resolution doesn’t even mention condemning political violence. This is all performative theater.”

Haywood said that Republicans were dividing people.

Rep. William Penterman (R-Hustisford) clarified that his amendment did include language about the increasing threats of violence that public figures are facing. He then noted that Kirk would have turned 32 on Tuesday.  

“Most of us in this body are over 32. I myself am not yet,” Penterman said. “As a human being, he had two young kids. He was married. Just having experienced the birth of my second child between last session and this and witnessing that miracle, my heart goes out to his wife, to his kids, and his family. He was a person. He was a husband. He cared about his community. He cared about Turning Point USA… His impact has been felt here in this state and will continue to be.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE