Voters approved more than 60% of school district referendums last week as schools face declining enrollment, rising inflation and stagnant state funding.
Over $1 billion in referendums from 73 school districts were on the ballot Tuesday. Wisconsin voters passed 46 out of 75 school referendums, totaling over $564 million in increased property taxes.
The resulting 61% passage rate is below the 70% average from 2020 to 2025 but slightly above last year’s 56%.
Wisconsin school districts are increasingly patching holes in their budgets with referendums, which ask voters whether school districts can increase property taxes beyond the limits set by state law to generate more revenue.
Two kinds of referendums were on the ballot this year. Operational referendums ask to raise taxes to fund the cost of running schools, such as educational programs, salaries and transportation services. Only 37 of the 63 operational referendums passed.Capital referendums ask for increased taxes to fund capital construction projects, like building upgrades. Voters passed nine of the 12 capital referendums this year.
Polling shows voters are growing weary of property tax increases. A February Marquette University Law School poll warned that a record high 60% of registered voters said they would rather reduce property taxes than increase spending on public schools.
Two districts — Howard-Suamico and Sauk Prairie — asked voters to approve both capital and operational referendums. Both of Sauk Prairie’s failed while both of Howard-Suamico’s passed. The northeast Wisconsin district will use the capital referendum funds to upgrade six of its eight schools.
Of the 20 districts where voters rejected a referendum in 2025 and they tried again this year, 16 passed a new referendum.
After rejecting referendums in 2024 and 2025, voters in the Oakfield School District approved a $4 million operational referendum this year by a margin of 41 votes. Sarah Poquette, the district’s administrator, said the referendum will help to offset operational costs from inflation and also expand math and literacy support programs and staff professional development.
“I want our voters to know that we’re still going to remain fiscally responsible and know that we want to spend our funds continuing to offer the great services to our students,” Poquette said. “We know the decision wasn’t made lightly to vote yes, and we want to make sure that we’re continuing to provide high-quality education to all of our students.”
Poquette said better communications about the school district’s expenses helped change the outcome this year.
Jason Bertrand, district administrator of the Crandon School District, also cited transparency — “really opening up all of our books” to taxpayers — as the reason the district’s referendum passed by a narrow 19-vote margin after the previous year’s rejection.
Because Crandon is a rural school district with fewer than 6,000 residents, Bertrand recognized the $3.75 million price tag was a significant ask of taxpayers.
“It was a successful referendum, but I don’t want to do this again. I don’t feel it’s an appropriate thing that 90% of our public school districts have to keep going to a referendum and asking our local taxpayers to pay more and more money, especially when we see a $2.5 billion surplus,” Bertrand said, referring to the state government’s unallocated funds that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Republican lawmakers can’t agree on how to spend.
“I think that we were taxed enough where we can provide funding for our public schools,” Bertrand said. “So that’s what my goal is in the next couple years, is to be able to work with our federal and our state as well as our tribal partners to figure out a sustainable method to be able to fund our public schools.”
Voters in the Denmark School District approved a $925,000 package they’ve passed four times since 2017.
“Being able to maintain the same amount of $925,000 a year while still balancing our budgets, even with the funding from the state that hasn’t met inflation, has really proven to our community that we are fiscally responsible,” Superintendent Luke Goral said. “We also, with that, do our very best to give staff the raises and things that we can but we don’t go above and beyond what our budget allows.”
Voters in the Appleton Area School District approved the district’s $60 million operational referendum by a sweeping 31-point margin. The district said in a statement it plans to use the new funding to add counselors and social workers, among other things.
“With voter approval of a $15 million-per-year increase in funding over the next four years, the AASD will be able to maintain current programs, services, and staffing levels while continuing to address our ongoing budget challenges,” the statement said. “We recognize that this represents an investment from our community, and we are committed to using these resources responsibly, transparently, and in ways that directly benefit students.”
In 2024, Wisconsin voters saw a record number of referendums: 241. The majority of those happened in fall election cycles — the August primary and November general — so Wisconsin voters could see many more asks from school districts later this year.
The operational referendums schools passed generally cover three to four years, Jeff Mandell, president and general counsel at Law Forward, said. It’s not “a long-term solution” as school districts will have to introduce another referendum when the current one expires if the funding stress remains.
Law Forward is representing several school districts, unions and individuals in lawsuits against the state Legislature and the Joint Finance Committee over public education funding. The Wisconsin Assembly is expected to respond to the lawsuit by Monday, April 13.
“By failing to adequately fund our public schools, the State Legislature is offloading its constitutional responsibilities onto the shoulders of local property taxpayers, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet,” Mandell wrote in a public statement.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers has called lawmakers to the Capitol on Tuesday for a special session to ban partisan gerrymandering.
It remains to be seen whether Republicans, who control the Legislature, will shrug off Evers’ request as they have in past special sessions on issues like abortion rights and gun safety. It’s possible, given the way political winds of the 2026 midterm elections appear to favor Democrats, Republican lawmakers could come to the table, though not likely.
Last week liberal Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor defeated conservative Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar by 20 points for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The race, while technically nonpartisan, saw public support split along party lines.
Evers, who is not running for reelection, has proposed a constitutional amendment, which requires two consecutive approvals by the Legislature in separate sessions and ratification by voters. The language of the amendment is just two sentences: “Districts shall not provide a disproportionate advantage or disadvantage to any political party. Partisan gerrymandering is prohibited.”
Following a bill signing last week, Evers said his office was continuing discussions with Republican and Democratic leaders about his proposal.
“We’re still working with legislative leaders and will continue doing that until that moment when they come back,” Evers said.
State lawmakers hold the power to draw legislative and congressional districts in Wisconsin, typically once a decade after the federal government conducts the U.S. Census. Democrats, who last controlled the Assembly, Senate and governor’s office during the 2009-10 legislative session, did not pass any redistricting changes ahead of the 2010 U.S. Census and lost power to enact policy after Republicans took control of the executive and legislative branches that election year.
“The Democratic trifecta was faced with a choice: secure fair maps for prosperity, or wait and hold out for a possible retaining power for another decade,” Evers said when he signed the special session executive order in March. “And we know how that story worked.”
In 2011, Republican lawmakers crafted maps that kept the GOP in power for more than a decade, even after Democrats won statewide offices in 2018. The Republican-drawn maps remained in place until the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck them down in late 2023. Cases challenging the state’s congressional maps are still making their way through the courts, but decisions are unlikely ahead of the midterm elections.
Evers signed new legislative maps into law in 2024, and Democrats flipped 14 legislative seats under the new maps in an otherwise Republican-friendly election year. Those gains set up real competition for control of the Legislature this fall.
The challenging political environment for Republicans in 2026 could create an avenue for some kind of reform if GOP lawmakers are interested, redistricting experts said in interviews with Wisconsin Watch.
Legislative Republicans will have to consider what kind of consequences might come if Democrats take some form of power during the 2026 elections, said Jonathan Cervas, an assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon University who specializes in redistricting and served as one of the consultants to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the case challenging the state’s legislative maps. Republicans in that case compromised with Evers on the best path forward rather than letting the consultants draw maps, Cervas said.
“I really liked that they decided to compromise. I thought that was maybe the best case scenario outcome, though it may not have felt like the best case scenario for any of the other parties,” Cervas said. “I’m not sure that that’s what the Democrats wanted. I’m not sure it’s what the Republicans wanted. But I think from the voter standpoint, that’s a really good outcome.”
Cervas and Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Washington, D.C., office, both said there are similarities between the political environment in Wisconsin today and in the Virginia legislature around 2020 that led to redistricting reform ahead of the state’s 2021 map-drawing process.
Virginia lawmakers initiated a constitutional amendment to create a bipartisan redistricting commission in 2019 when Republicans still held power in the state legislature.
Democrats won a majority in Virginia elections that year, and the state party eventually objected to the constitutional amendment. Virginia voters in 2020 approved the bipartisan redistricting commission that shifted full control of map-drawing power away from state lawmakers. In 2021 the group failed to agree on legislative or congressional maps, and the decision fell to the Virginia Supreme Court.
Now in 2026, Virginia voters will decide in a special election on April 21 whether to temporarily undo the 2020 changes and approve mid-decade Democratic-drawn congressional maps that could give the party four more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. It’s part of the redistricting wave initiated after President Donald Trump called on Texas and other Republican states to enact mid-decade redistricting ahead of the midterms to help Republicans hold on to the U.S. House.
“You just see this unraveling of the reforms that were once seen as promising, and largely because it’s such an unbalanced playing field,” Cervas said.
What key players are saying
Longtime Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, who is not seeking reelection, was critical of Evers’ proposal in mid-March, but told reporters he would be open to working with the governor on something that is nonpartisan.
“If we could negotiate and try to find something that is truly nonpartisan, you never know,” Vos said.
Vos added that drawing district lines “should be about demographics. It should be how many people, what are the municipal lines and all those kinds of things. It shouldn’t be about how people vote.”
That’s not how the process worked when Republicans drew the lines in 2011. Instead the maps were drawn in secretive conditions with computer programs that allowed the districts to be calibrated to protect the Republican majority even in a Democratic wave election. When Evers and the Legislature couldn’t agree on maps after the 2020 Census, the then-conservative state Supreme Court ruled the new maps should adhere to a “least change” principle that had no basis in law or the constitution.
A spokesperson for Vos did not respond to additional questions from Wisconsin Watch last week about where Assembly Republicans stand ahead of the special session. Nor did a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, who in March announced he is also not seeking reelection later this year.
Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is running for governor, said at a press conference in Madison last week that he would also want to see a nonpartisan proposal from Evers.
“He should produce a nonpartisan bill,” Tiffany said. “He should produce nonpartisan ideas because what we see is that his ideas are consistently partisan.”
While Republicans hold power over the Legislature’s moves this week, Evers also faces potential objections about a partisan gerrymandering ban from some members of his own party.
Neither Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer, D-Racine, nor Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein, D-Middleton, expressed clear support for Evers’ plan following the governor’s executive order in March.
Both noted the challenges gerrymandered maps favoring Republicans pose for Democrats participating in the legislative process, but said they supported a future redistricting process that allowed voters to be heard.
The top Democratic candidates running for governor told Wisconsin Watch they support some form of nonpartisan redistricting, even in the wake of Taylor’s double-digit victory margin in the state Supreme Court race.
“Wisconsinites have been subjected to one of the worst gerrymanders in the nation for too long,” Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley said in a statement. “Letting the people’s voices be heard is the very foundation of democracy. We owe it to every Wisconsin voter, Republican or Democrat, to fix this system once and for all.”
Joel Brennan, the former Department of Administration secretary, said the gerrymandered Republican maps “deeply harmed the state.” Fair maps now have voters “choosing their own representatives, not the other way around,” Brennan said.
Madison state Rep. Francesca Hong said she supports a nonpartisan commission to create fair maps without “elected officials meddling in that process.” Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez said Wisconsin needs to keep map drawing “outside of political hands” to stop the power swing that happens when Democrats or Republicans come into power.
Madison Sen. Kelda Roys, who stood with Evers when he signed the special session executive order in March, said she supports fair maps and a constitutional amendment to ban gerrymandering.
“The party that earns the most votes should get the most seats,” she said in a statement.
Missy Hughes, the former Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. CEO, and former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes pointed to mid-decade redistricting efforts led by Trump in Republican states ahead of the midterms.
Hughes said nonpartisan redistricting methods are necessary to protect Wisconsin voters.
“Wisconsinites deserve it, and as Governor I will use every lever at my disposal to ensure that our vote is protected from Donald Trump, and our maps are fairly drawn,” she said in a statement.
Barnes said fair maps are important, but he also doesn’t want Wisconsin to “fight with one arm tied behind our backs” if there continues to be future partisan redistricting pushes from the federal government.
“There should be fair, nonpartisan redistricting all across the country,” Barnes said. “If that is not the case across the country and Wisconsin finds ourselves in a position where we ultimately have to save democracy, we need to look at all available options.”
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Madison poll workers on Election Day counted 23 absentee ballots that arrived at four polling places after 8 p.m. Tuesday, despite a state law requiring that absentee ballots be “delivered to the polling place no later than 8 p.m.” in order to be tallied.
The law provides no clear exception to that deadline and says ballots not delivered on time “may not be counted.” But court rulings have given boards of canvassers broad discretion in these cases, allowing them to count ballots as long as there’s “substantial compliance” with election laws and no evidence of “connivance, fraud, or undue influence.”
A past Wisconsin Supreme Court case held that election statutes don’t need to be fully complied with, so long as election officials preserve the will of the voter.
City election officials instructed poll workers to count and mark the affected ballots — which all arrived by the end of the night on Monday, the day before Election Day — in case the city, county or state decides to exclude them.
The Madison canvassing board on Friday unanimously voted to count the 23 ballots. Assistant City Attorney Amber McReynolds said the error was made by the city clerk’s staff, not voters, and that past precedent supports counting the ballots. The county canvass begins Monday.
It is unclear why the ballots — which had been in the city’s possession for several hours before the deadline — were so delayed in arriving at the polling places.
The late delivery marks another potentially significant error in how the city handles its ballots after it faced extensive public scrutiny and a state investigation for disenfranchising 193 voters whose ballots were misplaced in the November 2024 election.
It’s the first high-turnout election run by City Clerk Lydia McComas, hired to replace the clerk who oversaw the 2024 ballot snafu. McComas said her office had informed the Wisconsin Elections Commission of the situation.
Ballots left the city late and got to polls after deadline
Those ballots were in the hands of a ballot courier, who left a city election facility around 6:30 p.m. to deliver ballots to the polls. The courier arrived at those final four polling locations after 8 p.m., reaching the final one at about 8:30 p.m, delivering a combined 23 ballots to all of them.
“Due to a longer-than-usual delivery time, the very last few ballots arrived at four polling places shortly after polls closed,” McComas said.
When similar incidents happened in the past, the county board of canvassers didn’t count those votes in the final canvass based on legal advice, Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell said. He said he’s waiting for more details before deciding how to proceed with these ballots at Monday’s county canvass meeting.
In those past incidents, the county board decided that not counting the ballots in the final county tally “was an obvious choice based on the way the statute’s written,” McDonell said. “The statute isn’t vague.”
Given the ballots’ timely arrival, McDonell said, “they should have gotten out to the polls and should have been counted on time.”
Other municipalities have counted ballots discovered late
Other election officials have at times decided to count ballots discovered after the 8 p.m. deadline, but the rules for municipalities are different depending on their procedures for counting absentee ballots.
In November 2020, Milwaukee workers discovered nearly 400 uncounted ballots during a recount. A campaign representative for President Donald Trump objected to those ballots being included, but the municipal canvassing board unanimously decided that they should count.
At the February 2022 election, Wauwatosa election officials discovered 58 unopened ballots. After consulting the Wisconsin Elections Commission and the city attorney for advice, the city clerk convened the Wauwatosa Board of Canvassers, which included the missing ballots in the totals.
But the rules that allowed Milwaukee and Wauwatosa to count those ballots may not apply to Madison. In both of those cities, absentee ballots are counted in a central location. In Madison, absentee ballots are counted at the polling locations where the registered voter would have voted in person.
In cities like Madison, election workers must deliver absentee ballots to polling places by 8 p.m. For central count municipalities, by comparison, state law only says election officials there shall count ballots received by the clerk by 8 p.m., without clarifying that they must be in a certain place by that point.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission has said the 193 ballots Madison missed in 2024 could have been counted had the city made the appropriate notifications to state authorities. But those ballots were likely already at polling places on Election Day — unlike the 23 ballots here, which arrived after the deadline.
Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.
Gov. Tony Evers announced April 3 that he’s reviving the state’s commutation process, allowing Wisconsin prisoners to apply to have their sentences shortened for the first time in 25 years.
Immediately, the news began echoing through the state’s prisons.
Some people caught it on the 4 o’clock TV news. Some got texts from excited family members and friends.
With the news came questions. Who exactly will be eligible? How will the process work? How will people behind bars get the records they’ll need to apply, especially those who don’t have outside help?
Without access to the open internet, it’s notoriously hard to get reliable information in prison and even more so on a still-developing issue.
Incarcerated people began calling and texting the people they trust on the outside, looking for answers. Several wrote to Wisconsin Watch reporters, sharing questions and reporting misinformation they’d heard.
Here at Wisconsin Watch, we’ll be following this developing issue in the coming weeks and months.
As a starting point, we asked advocates for incarcerated people what potential candidates for commutations most need to know right now. They told us they’re still waiting for details, but they offered tips on how people can start preparing.
Here are our sources:
Diego Rodriguez, coalition coordinator for Justice Forward Wisconsin.
Beverly Walker, executive director of the Integrity Center and administrator of the commutations committee at WISDOM, a statewide network of faith-based organizations.
Harm Venhuizen, government and public affairs specialist at the Wisconsin State Public Defenders Office.
How big a deal is this news?
The last Wisconsin governor to commute sentences was Tommy Thompson, who issued seven commutations during his 14 years in office. Gov. Evers has granted more than 2,000 pardons since taking office in 2019. Pardons restore some rights but do not shorten a person’s sentence. Currently, they are available only to Wisconsinities who have completed their sentence, including any required supervision.
Walker, who leads WISDOM’s commutations committee and worked with the governor’s office for three years on reviving the commutations process, called last week’s announcement “life-changing.”
“People were excessively sentenced and they just deserve an opportunity to have freedom, if they’ve done the work, to have a chance to come home,” Walker said.
Rodriguez agrees. “This is huge news,” he said. “This is the time for people to celebrate because we can safely lessen our prison population in a way that can help promote community, promote family bonds.”
Rodriguez said the members of Justice Forward Wisconsin, who belong to various Wisconsin groups that advocate for current and formerly incarcerated people, are working to gather as much information as they can for incarcerated people and their loved ones. They’re looking for answers to the potential challenges that could keep people from applying, like if they can’t afford to send mail or make photocopies.
But overall, he said, “there’s a general level of excitement and hope.”
Venhuizen of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders said in an email that “establishing this board provides hope that people who have done all the hard work of rehabilitation won’t have to languish but can instead return to their families and communities.” The process offers a much-needed “second look” at convictions, he said, but it doesn’t address the reasons so many Wisconsinites are in prison.
“Wisconsin’s epidemic of over-incarceration is complex and deeply entrenched,” he said. “On the individual level, it’s going to be life-changing for the people who will receive commutations. At the system level, this is a step in the right direction, but it’s not a cure-all.”
How can incarcerated individuals and their loved ones learn more?
Monitor the governor’s office’s commutations page and read its frequently asked questions. Check back for announcements about who will be on the commutations board. “The governor’s office is the best source of information on this topic right now,” Venhuizen said.
Attend Justice Forward Wisconsin’s commutations webinar 9:30-11 a.m. on Saturday, April 11. Click here to register.
What steps can incarcerated individuals take now if they’re interested in applying for a commutation?
“Start preparing now if you meet the initial eligibility criteria, as we expect this board to move quickly ahead of the gubernatorial election,” Venhuizen said.
He recommends the following:
Review the application requirements listed on the governor’s commutations website and begin compiling the required documents.
Start making plans with the people you’d want to write letters of support for you.
Write a “clear and compelling story of your growth and rehabilitation.”
Draft a post-release plan that explains where you would live and work and what programs you would participate in.
For those who are incarcerated and want help with the process, Rodriguez recommends contacting ProSay, an organization advocating for people on parole in Wisconsin, by messaging hello@weareprosay.org through the GTL app.
“I would say the biggest advice is to reach out to a group that is doing this work,” Rodriguez said. “This work gets so much easier when you’re involved in a community of other people that are doing it … And then keep asking questions until you get the answers that you need.”
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers on Wednesday signed a bill bringing Wisconsin in line with a federal law seeking to prevent the kind of post-election chaos that President Donald Trump and his allies sowed after the 2020 election.
The Democrat also vetoed a Republican-authored bill that would have required the state election commission to hear administrative complaints against itself alleging violations of the federal Help America Vote Act, in line with a U.S. Justice Department demand for the state. That vetoed bill also would have required the state’s Legislative Audit Bureau to conduct audits for potential noncitizen voters.
The bill Evers signed updates Wisconsin’s deadlines for certifying presidential election results and casting electoral votes to match federal timelines set by Congress in 2022, after President Donald Trump claimed to have won the 2020 election and hundreds of individuals stormed the U.S. Capitol to prevent certification of President Joe Biden’s victory.
The mismatch led to a lawsuit in the 2024 presidential election, when the state’s Republican electors were uncertain which day to cast their Electoral College votes because state and federal law set the dates one day apart. The new law resolves that discrepancy.
The measure passed the Senate last session but stalled in the Assembly. With its passage, Wisconsin is among more than 20 states to update their laws to align with the Electoral Count Reform Act.
Vetoed bill would have imposed U.S. DOJ demand
The HAVA bill that Evers vetoed followed a U.S. Justice Department letter sent to the Wisconsin Elections Commission last year. It claimed the WEC was violating the law by declining to hear complaints filed against it.
Under HAVA, a 2002 law that overhauled voter registration and election administration, any state receiving federal election funding must also establish an administrative process for complaints about alleged violations of the law. If a violation is found, the state must provide a remedy; if not, it can dismiss the complaint.
In recent years, however, the WEC has dismissed HAVA complaints related to its own actions, citing a Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion saying it would be “nonsensical” for the agency to adjudicate a complaint against itself.
For example, the commission dismissed a complaint against the agency filed by a Democratic voter seeking to bar Trump from the ballot and has repeatedly dismissed complaints filed by election conspiracy theorist Peter Bernegger that allege various kinds of election mismanagement.
“If a person has a complaint about the legality of the conduct of the commission, that person should file suit in court,” Evers said in his veto message Wednesday.
The vetoed bill also would have required the state to undertake audits of its voter registration list to identify potential noncitizen voters.
Evers said he objected to the “additional burden that could be placed on citizens to provide documentary proof of citizenship after they have already been lawfully registered to vote.”
Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.
Wisconsin voters Tuesday elected Madison-based Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor to a seat on the state Supreme Court, a decision that expands the high court’s liberal majority to five justices and cements liberal control until at least 2030.
Taylor, a former Democratic state lawmaker and former policy director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, defeated conservative Waukesha-based Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar in the race to replace outgoing Justice Rebecca Bradley, a member of the court’s conservative wing. Wisconsin Supreme Court justices are elected to 10-year terms.
“Tonight, the people of Wisconsin stood up for our rights and freedoms, our democracy, our elections and a strong state Supreme Court that will protect the independence of our beloved state,” Taylor told a packed room of supporters at the Madison Concourse Hotel. “Once again, Wisconsin showed the entire nation that we believe that the people should be at the center of government and the priority of our judiciary.”
The Associated Press called the election only 36 minutes after polls closed as early returns showed Taylor dominating the liberal bastions of Dane and Milwaukee counties, while leading or running close behind Lazar in rural counties. Taylor told supporters that Lazar called her to concede the race.
The state’s court races are technically nonpartisan contests, but like recent high court elections, public support for Taylor and Lazar broke along party lines with Taylor backed by Democrats and Lazar by Republicans.
Taylor’s victory further cements liberal control of the state’s judicial branch, even as a new governor enters the executive branch and Democrats and Republicans fight for control of the state Legislature later this year. Lazar had raised concerns that a five-member liberal bloc could prevent certain cases from reaching the bench because three votes are needed to take up an appeal.
Wisconsin Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar gives her concession speech after losing the Wisconsin Supreme Court race to Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor during her election night watch party at The Ingleside Hotel on April 7, 2026, in Pewaukee, Wis. (Jonathan Aguilar / Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service / CatchLight Local)
Since Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s 2023 election win that secured a liberal majority for the first time in years, the high court has been a factor in disagreements over the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches and has made major decisions on politically charged cases, such as the 2025 ruling that invalidated Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban.
The 5-2 liberal court is likely to continue to play a major role in such cases, including challenges to the limits on collective bargaining rights for public-sector unions under Act 10 redistricting of Wisconsin’s congressional maps. Conservative Justice Annette Ziegler already announced she won’t seek reelection next year, creating another open seat that could further entrench a liberal majority.
Liberals have now won five of the last six Supreme Court elections going back to 2018. UW-Madison political science professor Barry Burden called the election results “a remarkable turning of tides” from a decade ago when conservatives controlled the court and Ziegler didn’t have an opponent in 2017.
“Republicans have had a difficult run in Wisconsin during the Trump years,” Burden said. “With the court now out of reach, there will be tremendous pressure on the party this fall to take back the governorship and hold the state Legislature. The GOP is facing serious headwinds in a midterm year that will favor the Democrats nationally.”
Despite a sleepier race, politics remained a part of the 2026 election. In addition to political party support for each of the candidates, Taylor and Lazar represented starkly different judicial philosophies and career paths to the bench.
Taylor centered her campaign on protecting rights and freedoms. In campaign stops across the state, she warned of future threats to Wisconsin’s elections and highlighted her advocacy work in the state Assembly and for Planned Parenthood to support reproductive health care and victims of domestic violence.
Lazar’s campaign frequently zeroed in on Taylor’s legislative career and painted her as an activist and a politician rather than a judge. Lazar, who said the 2025 court race went “overboard” on politics, also sought to refocus Wisconsin’s Supreme Court elections on judicial experience instead of political issues.
“I have led the type of campaign that I always said I would,” Lazar told her supporters Tuesday night in Pewaukee. “I have been honest. I’ve been transparent. I have been above board. I have led with integrity, and I want you to know that that is how we need to run races in the state of Wisconsin.”
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Reading Time: 8minutesClick here to read highlights from the story
Wisconsin allows child welfare agencies to take federal benefits and child support payments meant for children who are in foster care.
The practices cost foster children and their parents more than $10 million annually.
While there’s been increasing bipartisan support for restrictions and bans on these practices, Wisconsin lawmakers haven’t acted.
Who foots the bill when a child is placed in foster care? In Wisconsin, it’s sometimes parents — and even the kids themselves.
Like many U.S. states, Wisconsin allows child welfare departments to take federal benefits intended for children who have a disability or a deceased parent. The practice means some foster children are paying for care the state is legally required to provide — care others get for free.
The state also bills some parents for foster care — even when parents are trying to bring their kids home and struggling to make ends meet.
In Wisconsin alone, these practices cost foster children and their parents more than $10 million a year.
Now those approaches are facing growing criticism for prolonging family separation and depriving kids and families of much-needed resources. In response, some states have enacted bans or restrictions, but Wisconsin hasn’t — despite bipartisan support.
Advocates decry ‘orphan tax’
Wisconsin child welfare authorities take around $3 million each year in Social Security benefits intended for foster children, according to the state’s Department of Children and Families.
Five years ago, nearly every U.S. state was taking these payments, NPR and The Marshall Project reported in 2021. Their investigation focused on Alaska, where hundreds of former foster youth sued in 2014, demanding the state return their money. Many didn’t know about the payments — often several hundred dollars a month — until they were about to age out of the foster care system, reporters found. On their own, those young people often struggled to afford things like rent, car payments and college tuition.
“We get out and we don’t have anybody or anything. This is exactly what survivor benefits are for,” one former foster youth told NPR and The Marshall Project.
Last year, Alaska’s Supreme Court ruled in their favor. It ordered the state to notify foster children if they are entitled to Social Security benefits and allow eligible children to choose to have their benefits managed by someone else instead of the state. It did not require the state to repay the estimated $1.8 million in lost benefits.
Chief Justice Susan Carney recommended banning the state from taking such funds in the future.
“I urge the Legislature to consider joining those of our sister states that have restricted their child protection agencies from depriving vulnerable children of these benefits intended to help them overcome extraordinary trauma as they move to adulthood,” Carney wrote.
Nationwide – largely after the Alaska case was filed – 38 jurisdictions have introduced legislation or executive actions to preserve those benefits for foster children, according to the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego, which has been lobbying for such change for years.
Ten of those jurisdictions have barred authorities from taking any Social Security benefits intended for foster youth: Arizona, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington, D.C.
“The attention has been truly overwhelming. It’s like a tsunami,” said Amy Harfeld, national policy director for the institute.
Consensus grows in Wisconsin
The agency that oversees foster care in Wisconsin now favors ending the practice too. Children who turn 18 in foster care are at a higher risk of homelessness, incarceration and health problems.
For those children, the state’s goal should be to “help launch them into success,” Department of Children and Families Secretary-designee Jeff Pertl told lawmakers at a March hearing. Holding these payments in trust is one way to do that.
“We do a lot of things for kids who are aging out of care as an agency, but I would say (this is) probably one of the areas where we could spend just a little bit of resources and generate pretty significant improvements in people’s lives,” Pertl said.
Last year, Gov. Tony Evers proposed limiting the practice. Under his plan, child welfare departments must screen all incoming foster children for eligibility for Social Security benefits, apply on behalf of eligible children and hold the money in trust. The proposal included $3 million to hire a contractor to apply for benefits and manage those accounts.
The plan would have allowed the money to be used for expenses the agency would not typically cover for a child, as is the case now, but it would have barred agencies from using it to reimburse themselves for the care they’ve already agreed to provide. Leftover funds would be transferred to the child or their guardian when they leave foster care.
The proposal was one of more than 600 items Republicans on the Legislature’s budget-writing committee removed in a single vote, a move that has become routine in Wisconsin’s divided Statehouse.
Months later, President Donald Trump’s administration called for an end to the “orphan tax.” The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services sent letters in December to 39 governors. The letters demanded their child welfare agencies stop taking children’s Social Security survivor benefits, which are based on contributions made by a deceased parent.
“Every earned benefit dollar belongs to these foster youth, not the government agencies or bureaucrats,” Alex J. Adams, assistant secretary of the department’s Administration for Children and Families, said in a statement.
Sen. André Jacque, seen during Gov. Tony Evers’ State of the State address at the Wisconsin State Capitol in Madison, Wis., on Feb. 15, 2022, introduced a bill to require child welfare authorities to save Social Security benefits for foster children in their care. (Coburn Dukehart / Wisconsin Watch)
In February, in the final weeks of the legislative session, Wisconsin state Sen. André Jacque, a Republican from New Franken, introduced Senate Bill 990, which would require child welfare authorities to save Social Security benefits for foster children in their care. Unlike Evers’ proposal, it does not require authorities to check eligibility or apply for benefits.
“Children who enter foster care are already at a disadvantaged position in life,” Jacque said at a hearing on the legislation. “Preserving their benefits can provide a modest but meaningful financial foundation as they transition into adulthood, helping them pay for education, secure housing, purchasing a first car or beginning a new career.”
Parents billed for foster care
Years before the Trump administration decried the taking of Social Security payments, President Joe Biden’s administration urged states to limit another controversial practice: charging parents for foster care.
For years, the federal government required billing parents as a way to lower its own costs. It changed its guidance in 2022, after NPR reported the practice was separating families — sometimes permanently.
Outside of the foster care system, a parent who doesn’t have custody of their child may be ordered to make monthly child support payments to the custodial parent or guardian. Parents who don’t pay can rack up thousands of dollars of debt.
When a child is placed in foster care, child welfare departments often apply to collect that money, along with any past-due payments, in the child’s name. That can leave the parent who used to receive those payments struggling to cover rent or basic expenses.
To defray its costs, the child welfare department may seek a court order requiring the custodial parent to pay child support, too. That’s despite the fact that many of those parents are already struggling financially. About two-thirds of the foster children in Wisconsin were removed from their biological homes because of neglect — a condition often tied to poverty, Pertl said.
Wisconsin foster care authorities seldom seek new child support orders, but they do regularly apply to collect payments on existing orders, said John Tuohy, executive director of the Wisconsin County Human Service Association. The group represents child welfare departments in all 72 counties.
Child welfare authorities bill the parents of 7 in 10 foster children in the state, according to the Department of Children and Families. In recent years, parents have paid an average of more than $7.6 million a year. Studies show those bills can make it harder for parents to bring their children back home.
Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison compared data from Wisconsin counties that tend to collect child support for foster children to counties that don’t. A charge as low as $100 delayed reunification by more than six months, they wrote in a 2017 paper.
Another UW-Madison study, published in 2024, found children whose parents were ordered to pay for foster care spend more than twice as long in care — an average of 21 months instead of nine — and are less likely to be reunited with their parents.
“The research suggests (allowing parents to keep that money) would help that parent to maintain a residence and have the financial capacity to have a home ready for the kids to go back to,” Tuohy said.
Meanwhile, charging parents can actually increase the cost to taxpayers. For every dollar the department spends trying to collect these payments, it recoups only 88 cents, according to Connie Chesnik, administrator of the department’s Division of Family & Economic Security, which oversees child support collection. The department estimates ceasing this practice would substantially reduce the time those children spend in foster care, saving counties approximately $18,000 per affected child.
“The evidence indicates that cost recovery child support orders for children in out-of-home care are not in the best interest of children and families, and they’re not in the best interest of government or taxpayers,” UW-Madison social work professor Lawrence Berger told lawmakers.
The Department of Children and Families wants the practice to stop, too.
“It’s very clear that this kind of change in policy and practice will yield real results in terms of reunification with families,” Pertl said.
Bipartisan support, little action
As with Social Security payments, Evers proposed allocating funds to stop child support collections for most children in foster care. The $1.87 million provision was one of the hundreds cut by the Republican-led budget committee. GOP lawmakers then introduced their own legislation at the end of the session.
“The cost of care should not be subsidized by those who can least afford it,” Sen. Jesse James, R-Thorp, said at a hearing for Senate Bill 1072, which would bar child welfare departments from collecting child support for most foster children. Rep. Karen Hurd, R-Withee, led the Assembly companion to James’ bill.
At the hearing, lawmakers from both parties voiced support but acknowledged the bills wouldn’t pass so late in the Legislative session.
Sen. Sarah Keyeski, D-Lodi, wondered aloud why the bills didn’t get a hearing until after the Assembly had gavelled out for the session.
“These are good bills, and I’m just disappointed we didn’t hear them sooner, because we could have done something about them,” Keyeski said.
Sen. Sarah Keyeski, D-Lodi, applauds as Gov. Tony Evers delivers the 2025 state budget address, Feb. 18, 2025, at the Wisconsin State Capitol in Madison, Wis. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
Lawmakers could come back to the Capitol this year to take action on spending the state’s $2.4 billion surplus, but ideas floated by Evers and Republican legislative leaders don’t include proposals on foster care payments.
Both James and Jacque said they plan to reintroduce their bills in the next budget cycle, although both lawmakers must first survive reelection bids in 2026.
“I see a path to it getting done,” Jacque said of his proposal. “It’s certainly an idea that should have bipartisan appeal.”
In Wisconsin, status quo persists
The lone opposition to the measures comes from the local governments that run foster care in every Wisconsin county except Milwaukee, where the Department of Children and Families directly administers care. Tuohy, of the Wisconsin County Human Service Association, said counties will face a budget shortfall if they can’t collect funds from children or parents.
“County human service budgets are very tight,” Tuohy said. “Counties cannot afford to absorb that fiscal impact.”
He said his group is open to such policy changes, as long as lawmakers allocate funding to make up for what agencies will lose and hire experts to administer these funds.
“Our group is willing to work with both the Legislature and the governor on those types of things. We want to do what’s best for kids and families and to get better outcomes for kids who go into out-of-home care,” Tuohy said. “But … until you address the fiscal effect, it’s hard to really talk about what’s good policy or not.”
The Department of Children and Families agrees.
“I’ve been doing this a long time. You know how we get these things done? We keep folks whole,” Pertl said. “In the scheme of the state budget, this is not a particularly expensive proposal. This is a very doable thing.”
Doable or not, any such legislation will likely have to wait until lawmakers return to the State Capitol in January. Jacque and James said they plan to add funding when they reintroduce their bills, to help counties make up the difference.
When they do, Harfeld believes the pressure will be on, especially when it comes to the taking of Social Security benefits. That practice, she said, has riled people of assorted political persuasions.
“We’ve got the support from Evangelical groups who just see this as an affront to God, in addition to violating at least six different biblical prescriptions on stealing from orphans. We have gotten a lot of attention from the MAGA right, who are seeing this now as waste, fraud and abuse,” Harfeld said. Libertarians, meanwhile, see the practice as government overreach, she said.
“How many issues are you seeing that have really broken through all of the political divides and resulted in this consensus between very unusual bedfellows?” Harfeld asked. “This is one of them.”
Have you or your children been in foster care in Wisconsin? I’d like to hear how foster care costs have affected you and your family. Please email me at nyahr@wisconsinwatch.org or call me at (608) 620-5610.
Bill Watch takes a closer look at what’s notable about legislation grinding its way through the Capitol. Subscribe to our newsletters for more from Wisconsin Watch.
A possible billion-dollar data center in southwest Wisconsin’s Driftless Area would be built without any tax incentives and would produce more than $5 million annually in property tax revenue, according to a local economic development official involved in the discussions.
Ron Brisbois, executive director of the Grant County Economic Development Corp., also told Wisconsin Watch he expects to learn this month whether a developer chooses Grant County over sites in Indiana and North Dakota.
Asked if progress has been made, Brisbois said: “I’ll use the word ‘promising’ because I’m about fostering economic development, and I see this project for being a quality project. So, yes, I think it looks promising, from my perspective.”
When the proposal first gained attention in February, Brisbois said little more than the data center is expected to be worth $1 billion. He is now offering more details:
Scope: The facility would cost $1 billion to $2 billion, span about 500 acres and employ about 50 people.
Tax breaks: Local governments would not have to provide any tax incentives, such as a tax incremental district — a common development tool that delays when municipalities and school districts receive additional property tax revenue from a project.
Tax revenue: Brisbois said his “conservative estimate” is that the data center would pay $5.6 million annually in property tax revenue to local governments and school districts.
Brisbois has refused to identify the company that is scouting sites, but said the data center would be run by one of the major tech companies. “People will recognize the name,” he said.
Brisbois would not identify the part of Grant County being considered, other than to say it’s near power transmission lines.
But talks have taken place with officials in the town of Cassville, population 400, where opposition has emerged.
Cassville town residents voted 54-3 last month to authorize “village powers.” The move is aimed at giving the township more control over matters such as zoning. It was sought by residents who want more control over any data center proposal.
The “No Data Centers in the Driftless” Facebook page has 2,700 members.
One of the Facebook group’s leaders, Grant County resident Pete Moris, said he was pleased that more information is being released but wants more.
“The more transparency we can have on this project, the better,” he said.
“If we’re going to embark on the largest project ever developed in Grant County, it would sure be nice for citizens to know who we’re inviting into our county.”
The use of a tax incremental district for a $15 billion data center under construction in Port Washington, north of Milwaukee, spurred backlash.
Data center opponents pushed a referendum that will be on ballots next Tuesday. If approved, the city would have to get referendum approval to create any tax incremental district worth over $10 million. The city created a $175 million TIF district for the data center.
Hyperscale data centers are also under construction in Mount Pleasant, south of Milwaukee, and in Beaver Dam.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Months before becoming one of the nearly 200 Madison voters in 2024 whose absentee ballots were never counted, Nathan Haimowitz did what he thought he was supposed to do.
As a journalist living in Spain and out of the habit of voting, the 26-year-old former poll worker said he wanted the 2024 presidential election to “be the thing that would spur me to vote more consistently.” To make sure everything was in order, he emailed Madison officials to confirm they had received his absentee ballot application. They told him they had, so he filled out his ballot, sent it in and assumed his vote would be counted.
“It was definitely a deterrence,” he said. “I didn’t know why my vote hadn’t been counted.”
Early signs suggest the error is already reshaping how many of the disenfranchised voters engage with elections — pushing some away from absentee voting and, in some cases, out of the electorate altogether. Interviews with affected voters also reveal a broader disconnect: Many say they are dissatisfied both with how the city handled the mistake and with the high-profile lawsuit filed in its wake to seek damages for the disenfranchised voters. The city, they say, has not been appropriately responsive, and the lawsuit does not reflect their values.
Until now, the public conversation has largely reflected the perspectives of the eight voters who joined the lawsuit as named plaintiffs. But others Votebeat spoke with described a different perspective — one that questions whether financial compensation is the right remedy at all.
Nathan Haimowitz (Courtesy of Nathan Haimowitz)
Mark Ediger, a recently retired chemistry professor at UW-Madison, for example, said he found the lawsuit “pretty bewildering,” adding that as a Madison taxpayer, it would be people like him footing the bill.
The 193 voters range from dozens of students who are only in Madison for a few years to some of their professors and other longtime city residents. Their responses to the error are just as varied.
Some, like Haimowitz, stopped voting entirely. Others, like Ediger, say the incident was a one-off mistake that hasn’t impacted their voting behavior. Notably, Ediger is the only voter among the disenfranchised group who has voted absentee in both of the two elections following the error, according to election data obtained by Votebeat.
“The incident has not diminished my trust in elections,” Ediger told Votebeat, adding that he’s satisfied the city has appropriately addressed its cause. “I don’t see how this should change my voting behavior moving forward.”
But other voters said their experience will change how they vote in future elections. “I’m definitely going to prioritize in-person voting,” Joanne Fairbotham, one of the disenfranchised voters, told Votebeat.
“There’s growing evidence that when someone tries to vote and they are prevented from doing so for one reason or another, it makes them less likely to vote in the future, and it can change their behavior,” said Kevin Morris, a senior research fellow and voting policy scholar with the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program. “You can lose a lot of trust very easily, and it can be very difficult to build that trust.”
All of the disenfranchised voters cast absentee ballots in the 2024 presidential election. But, among the 22 who cast ballots in the February 2025 primary for state superintendent of public instruction and city council, nearly all did so in person. Two months later, two-thirds of the 132 who voted in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race did so at the polls, a share similar to how the same group voted in previous April elections.
Disenfranchised voters question city follow-up
Shortly after learning that her ballot hadn’t been counted, Fairbotham — a 35-year-old medical coder who lives in Madison — wrote to City Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl, saying the error was “beyond devastating as an American who prides herself in voting in every election.”
“This is how people lose faith in their government that their rights will be protected,” she said in the letter, calling on Witzel-Behl to resign.
Fairbotham said she never received a response from Witzel-Behl, who has since resigned — or anyone else employed by the city.
“Not hearing a peep,” she said, is the most frustrating part. Fairbotham’s vote in the 2024 presidential election was the first time she cast an absentee ballot since the peak of the pandemic in 2020. She has only cast in-person votes since and said the incident still makes her angry.
Madison City Attorney Mike Haas disputed the characterization that the city didn’t communicate the seriousness of the error, pointing to a city and state investigation and a public apology from the mayor.
Still, some voters said the city’s outreach fell short after such a significant error. Haimowitz, for example, didn’t hear from the city when most of the voters did — a separate oversight by city officials meant overseas voters did not receive the same notice as those living locally. Until speaking with Votebeat, Haimowitz said, he didn’t know whether the mistake that kept his ballot from being counted was his or the city’s, nor what steps officials had taken to prevent it from happening again.
Election administration experts say direct, proactive communication can be critical in rebuilding trust. After a mistake like the one in Madison, jurisdictions should reach out to affected voters, review what went wrong and clearly explain how it will be prevented in the future, said Jennifer Morrell, CEO of The Elections Group and a former Colorado election administrator.
The city has completed the first two steps, Morrell said, but it did not fully follow through on the third.
After sending an initial notice telling voters they could reach out with questions, the city held no further public hearings, said Haas, a longtime election lawyer and former administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Few of the disenfranchised voters followed up, he added.
Some disenfranchised voters find lawsuit bewildering
The divide among disenfranchised voters extends to the lawsuit filed in the aftermath of the error.
In March 2025, the liberal group Law Forward filed a claim seeking $34 million from the city and Dane County over the error, later turning it into a lawsuit. In February, a circuit court judge ruled that the city could be held liable for monetary damages.
A small group of affected voters has joined the case, arguing it’s one of the only ways to hold the city accountable for failing to count their ballots.
But others see it differently. “In an era where the reliability of elections is being challenged by some groups in completely spurious ways, it seems to me that this lawsuit just adds to that noise,” Ediger said.
Lawsuits seeking monetary damages for disenfranchisement are now rare, but were more common in the late 1800s and 1900s, when Black voters were intentionally and repeatedly disenfranchised by election workers. Then, the fines forced the government to think twice, said Ediger. But there’s no similar pattern of errors or intentionality here in Madison, he added, which makes him doubt the lawsuit’s purpose.
Haimowitz said he also opposed the lawsuit, despite how much it has shaken his confidence.
“I’m not sure that the city should pay such a heavy price for this,” Haimowitz said, adding that at a time when some Republicans are peddling “Stop the Steal” narratives and casting doubt on election integrity, especially in battleground states like Wisconsin, the Law Forward letter unnerved him.
“That kind of money could be debilitating to a city elections board that is already under immense scrutiny and pressure to get it all right,” he said.
Law Forward staff attorney Scott Thompson pushed back on comparisons between the case and post-2020 lawsuits filed by Republicans, including one that sought to throw out over 200,000 absentee ballots in Wisconsin.
“That cavalier attitude towards votes that we saw in 2020 is simply unacceptable, and not compatible with democracy,” he said. “And so what do we do with that? Well, I can tell you what we will not do: We will not stand idly by if hundreds of people in a community lose the right to vote because their ballot simply wasn’t counted.”
He said that lawsuits often make people uneasy, but that their perspective may change when a fundamental right is taken away. He declined to directly comment on some of the disenfranchised voters’ issues with the case.
For some disenfranchised voters, financial damages are part of accountability. Precious Ayodabo, a named plaintiff, wrote in a Cap Times column that her disenfranchised absentee vote “is worth enough” to warrant compensation.
“It’s worth enough that I waited for hours in line to cast it. It’s worth enough that politicians spend millions of dollars to receive it. It’s worth enough that people have put their lives on the line and died to protect it,” she wrote.
Thompson declined to make Ayodabo and the other plaintiffs available for interviews. Of the 193 voters, eight are plaintiffs in the case, he said.
Others who support the lawsuit say it’s less about personal payment and more about forcing systemic change. Fairbotham said she’s grateful the case is pushing the city to take the error seriously, particularly after the Wisconsin Elections Commission found the city violated state law.
Thompson said the lawsuit isn’t about making sure the government knows “every single jot and tittle” of absentee voting procedure, but to ensure election officials count every vote, which he defined as “the absolute most basic obligation.”
“If we’re setting an unrealistic expectation that any mistake made by an election administrator opens you up to a lawsuit, that feels like an impossible situation to be in,” she said. “Election administrators take this so seriously and do everything they can to ensure mistakes don’t happen,” she added, “but they do.”
For Haimowitz — a voter who has helped others register to vote and served as a poll worker — the question isn’t just whether the city fixes the problem. It’s whether he can move past having his ballot go uncounted.
“It was something that made me think it’s clearly not that easy to vote,” he said.
Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.
Wisconsin’s Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program, the state’s primary way of preserving green space and wetlands from development, is set to expire June 30 — but only after the Republican-controlled Legislature failed to form a consensus after months of negotiations and potential amendments to the initial bill.
Internal drafting documents obtained by Wisconsin Watch show that the Republican reauthorization bill — authored by Rep. Tony Kurtz, R-Wonewoc, and Sen. Patrick Testin, R-Stevens Point — went through at least 10 drafts between fall 2024 and when the bill was released in June 2025.
Despite the contentious negotiations over the program’s future, environmental advocates say there is still widespread popularity for Knowles-Nelson in Wisconsin.
“There is no controversy about the program outside of Capitol politics,” said Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives at Gathering Waters, Wisconsin’s Alliance for Land Trusts. “That kind of stunning gap between what the conversation about the program is inside the Capitol and what the conversation about the program is across the rest of the state is really startling.”
Kurtz and Testin did not respond to a request for comment.
A program built on compromise, now caught in a political fight
Knowles-Nelson was signed into law in 1989 by Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson and has survived both Republican and Democratic administrations, consistently drawing support from both parties. It funds everything from land acquisition by the DNR to grants for nonprofit conservation organizations and local governments.
“Knowles-Nelson is how we conserve land to protect environmentally sensitive areas. It’s how we provide access for hunters and anglers and silent sports recreationists,” Carlin said.
In the latest budget cycle, the bipartisan support unraveled after the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down a mechanism that had allowed members of the Joint Finance Committee to anonymously block individual DNR land purchases.
Conservation advocates cheered the ruling, but Rep. Joel Kitchens, R-Sturgeon Bay, who has tried to push for a compromise to save the program, warned advocates “they should be careful what they wish for.”
“I thought there was a good chance that that would be the end of the program,” Kitchens said. “So, you know, here we are.”
Why did the bill fall apart?
The Kurtz-Testin bill introduced in June 2024 would have funded the program at $28.25 million per year through 2030.
After failing to take action on Knowles-Nelson through the state budget process, Republicans in the Assembly passed an amended version of that bill funding the program until 2028 hoping to maintain existing land, not fund new projects.
Cody Kamrowski, executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, said that his organization supported the initial version of the bill, even though it wasn’t an ideal starting place.
“And then some additional amendments were made. Some more amendments were made, and then it morphed into something that wasn’t Knowles-Nelson,” Kamrowski said. “I mean, Knowles-Nelson stewardship is a land acquisition program, and with all those amendments that were put in, it wasn’t a land acquisition program.”
The Kurtz-Testin bill would have required the full Legislature to specifically authorize any DNR land purchase with a grant award of $1 million or more — effectively meaning every significant land deal would need to pass as its own bill before any money could move.
Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin, D-Whitefish Bay, the author of a competing reauthorization bill, said the timeline alone makes that unworkable. “There is no real estate acquisition in history that could last over two years,” she said. “They’re very time-sensitive.”
Kamrowski emphasized that land acquisition opportunities don’t wait for political windows to reopen. “A lot of times it’s a once-in-a-generation or once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to purchase a key piece of property,” he said.
The Republican bill would also have funded the program at roughly $28 million per year — less than the $33 million it had been receiving since 2021, and far below the $72 million Habush Sinykin proposed or the $100 million in Gov. Tony Evers’ version of the budget.
An angler casts a line near the Echo Lake Dam on Sept. 1, 2022, in Burlington, Wis. The Echo Lake Dam project tentatively received a grant for over $700,000 from the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund for development of gathering spaces adjacent to the lake and got a $10 million earmark in the state budget. (Angela Major / WPR)
Funding for Knowles-Nelson has fallen significantly since its peak in 2011. Program spending in 2018 was about a quarter of what it was in 2007, according to the nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum.
The Kurtz-Testin bill never came to a vote. In February 2026, Senate Republican leaders pulled the bill from the floor schedule without explanation. When Habush Sinykin introduced an amendment to simply extend the program for one more year at its existing $33 million funding level, it got struck down along party lines.
“All it would have done was give the program one more year at $33.25 million, the exact same level since the 2021 budget,” Habush Sinykin said. “But it was rejected.”
Before the bill was introduced, internal drafting notes show that when Kurtz’s office took over the bill in February 2025, one of the listed priorities was to “shift focus from north to south, green space in urban areas” — removing a restriction that had prevented the program from funding parcels smaller than 10 acres.
Kitchens said the bill has been historically controversial in the northern parts of the state because the high proportion of publicly owned lands don’t contribute to the tax base.
“It’s a program that is viewed very differently in different parts of the state,” he said. “In the Northwoods, where they have less of a tax base, they really don’t like seeing property coming off the tax rolls. There’s always been more of a geographical split than it is really liberal, conservative.”
If the funding expires June 30, the program itself does not disappear from the statute books, but the program will no longer be funded, Carlin said. However, the practical consequences of this mean the planning landscape will be scrambled for land trusts.
The expiration also lands on top of an already strained conservation system. Carlin noted that Wisconsin has accumulated more than $1 billion in deferred maintenance at state properties and faces tens of millions of dollars in habitat management shortfalls. Letting Knowles-Nelson lapse, he said, doesn’t solve those problems.
“I think this is going to have to be a central conversation in the next state budget that can be as simple as appropriating money to the stewardship program in the short term,” Carlin said. “And then there’s a much broader conversation to be had about, how do we again get serious about taking care of our land and water so that our kids and grandkids inherit a better Wisconsin than we do.”
Evers’ office said he remains optimistic that Republicans and Democrats can reach a deal as legislative leadership and the governor’s office negotiate a potential K-12 funding increase from the projected $2.37 billion state surplus.
“The governor has been clear that he expects the Legislature to stay in session until they’ve finished the people’s work,” spokesperson Britt Cudaback said.
U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the top Republican running for governor in November, said his focus would be “on maintaining the lands we already own for future generations, while being fiscally responsible with the more than $500 million in outstanding debt taxpayers still owe.”
He also said that the stewardship program has helped protect some of our most special places. “Wisconsin’s outdoor traditions are part of who we are,” Tiffany said.
Habush Sinykin, meanwhile, said Democrats are looking to flip enough Senate seats to break the Republican supermajority on the Joint Finance Committee — turning the current 12-4 split to 8-8.
“That’ll make a big difference to allow us to reauthorize the program,” she said.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Democratic Gov. Tony Evers on Monday signed legislation that would give raises for the first time in a decade to permanently and totally disabled people receiving worker’s compensation.
The bill, which includes other changes to the worker’s comp system, was passed by the Assembly (97-0 vote) in January and by the Senate (32-1) in February. Both chambers are majority Republican.
The bill would help people like 65-year-old Bob Hurley, who suffered a back injury in 1982, at age 22. While helping build a car wash, he fell 15 feet from a forklift and “landed flat on my back in a concrete pit.”
Bob Hurley after his back injury in 1982 and pictured with his nephew, Chad Hurley. (Courtesy of Bob Hurley)
Through four surgeries, Hurley continued working for 17 years before being declared PTD.
Hurley, now living in Minnesota, said he receives $2,900 in monthly worker’s comp benefits. He said his only other income is $2,600 monthly in Social Security benefits. Without cost-of-living adjustments in his PTD payments, “it gets harder and harder every year,” he said.
Wisconsin Watch reported in September that more than 300 permanently and totally disabled recipients haven’t received a raise in their worker’s comp benefits since 2016.
The bill would also make these changes for PTD recipients:
Make an estimated 210 more PTD recipients eligible for raises. Currently, only PTD recipients injured before Jan. 1, 2003, are eligible for raises. The bill would change that date to Jan. 1, 2020.
Raise the maximum weekly benefit for PTD recipients by 57%, from $669 to $1,051.
Give PTD recipients annual raises, with the amounts set shortly before taking effect. The raise amounts would vary based on when the recipients were injured and their earnings at the time.
Jimmy Novy, seen at home on July 29, 2025, in Hillsboro, Wis., is one of more than 300 permanently and totally disabled individuals collecting worker’s comp checks from the state since his injury in his late 20s. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
One example, provided by the state Department of Workforce Development: A PTD recipient injured in 1985 and receiving $535 a week would get a 57% increase to $840. The increase would amount to nearly $16,000 per year.
Bill Watch takes a closer look at what’s notable about legislation grinding its way through the Capitol. Subscribe to our newsletters for more from Wisconsin Watch.
Reading Time: 6minutesClick here to read highlights from the story
At least five Wisconsin communities have signed nondisclosure agreements with data center developers, including the town of Beloit.
Even in communities without an NDA, there has been pushback against transparency. For example, Port Washington was sued because it released emails referencing a project, but not the attached files.
It’s unclear if the state Senate will take up a bill that would ban data center NDAs, but the Assembly has already adjourned without passing the bill.
At a Jan. 28 public forum on Wisconsin data centers, Port Washington Mayor Ted Neitzke boasted that his city did not sign a nondisclosure agreement that would have concealed plans for a $15 billion facility that is now under construction.
“If you’ve got the courage and you push back and say, ‘Listen, we’re just not going to do it,’ (the data center developers) will find a way to operate without having to sign an NDA,” Neitzke said. “So, we did not and we will not.”
On the same day Neitzke was touting his community’s openness, Port Washington was in court over its refusal to provide communications about its data center. The city had turned over emails, but not documents attached to the emails.
It’s one example, beyond NDAs, of local governments hiding details of proposed large-scale AI data centers, which are projected to span hundreds of acres, cost billions of dollars and transform communities.
Wisconsin Watch reported in January that NDAs were signed in at least four Wisconsin communities where artificial intelligence data centers are proposed or being built — Beaver Dam, Kenosha, Janesville and Menomonie. Since then, Wisconsin Watch has learned about a fifth project with an NDA, this one in the town of Beloit — showing that discussions there occurred more than a year before any public announcement was made.
Port Washington stymies public records requests
Construction began in December on Lighthouse, the 672-acre Vantage-OpenAI-Oracle data center campus in Port Washington, north of Milwaukee.
Four months earlier, philanthropist Lynde Uihlein, a town of Port Washington resident, environmentalist and major Democratic donor, made a public records request of the city. She asked for any communications between the city and the data center developer dating back to Jan. 1, 2025.
The Wisconsin public records law declares that “all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government” and that governmental bodies must respond to requests “as soon as practicable and without delay.”
After nearly three months, the city did not reply to Uihlein’s request, so she sued.
The city responded by turning over emails, but not the documents attached to those emails, such as a draft development agreement. The city’s attorney explained that Uihlein didn’t specifically ask for the attachments.
“When cities want to court large, community-changing development, they also should be prepared to act with maximum transparency,” said Madison lawyer Christa Westerberg, one of the lawyers representing Uihlein.
“The city of Port Washington has been too slow to respond to requests about the data center and even when it has, there are gaps, like providing emails without attachments. This was foreseeable and avoidable.”
Wisconsin Watch is one of Westerberg’s clients, but is not a party to this case. Westerberg did not participate in the writing or editing of this report.
City Attorney Matthew Nugent told Wisconsin Watch: “The assertion that the city refused to produce email attachments is inaccurate. The city reasonably interpreted the original request to seek the email communications themselves, that is, the body of the email message, not the separate documents attached to those communications.”
At a court hearing Jan. 28, Ozaukee County Circuit Court Judge Adam Gerol rejected the idea that documents attached to emails aren’t part of the emails themselves. “There has not been a complete response to the open records request,” he said.
In February, the city turned over emails along with attachments to Uihlein, and Gerol ruled that city officials must submit to depositions to answer questions from Uihlein’s lawyers.
Gerol will be asked to determine whether the city has fully complied with the public records law, whether its delay in replying violated the law and whether it should have to pay Uihlein’s legal fees.
Another denial
The city used the same rationale to partially deny another public records request.
Port Washington resident Michael Beaster, an opponent of the data center, asked the city Nov. 20 for emails and other communications between city officials and the data center developer.
The city replied six weeks later, sending some emails but no attachments to the emails. An attorney for the city told Beaster he would need to submit another request if he wanted attachments because Beaster did not specifically request those.
“It feels like they’re being overly cautious in trying to protect the city,” Beaster said, “which certainly isn’t serving the public.”
Beaster is running unopposed April 7 for an open seat on the Port Washington city council. He helped lead a failed effort to recall Neitzke over the data center.
Neitzke said he could not comment on why the city has not turned over email attachments, other than to say he is not part of the process of releasing records.
NDA for possible Beloit data center
News surfaced this month of a possible data center an hour southeast of Madison in the town of Beloit. The town, saying it was responding to information “being disseminated” about a possible data center, announced it had begun “very preliminary discussions” and signed a predevelopment agreement with Delaware-based Cambrin LLC.
Wisconsin Watch has since learned that the town signed an NDA with Cambrin in February 2025 — more than a year before making its announcement.
The NDA and other documents provided to Wisconsin Watch in response to a public records request do not directly refer to a data center.
The documents indicate that “Project Corn Maze” would initially include 700,000 square feet of buildings, employ 50 people and require tax incremental financing from the town.
The records also show that the town has exchanged emails about the project since April 2025. They indicate that Cambrin LLC was formed to make the development proposal and don’t identify what company would operate the data center.
Signs of openness
Access to records also was at issue for the first phase of a data center complex south of Milwaukee in Mount Pleasant. The first center in that Microsoft complex is expected to open later this year.
This month the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council announced it is giving its annual citizen openness advocate award to Midwest Environmental Advocates. The public interest law firm successfully sued the city of Racine for records disclosing how much water it is projecting to provide for the Mount Pleasant data center.
Amid reports of a possible data center in Grant County and as Meta seeks to add a data center to one it is building in Beaver Dam, there is movement toward more openness on several fronts.
Beaver Dam residents weigh in as second data center proposal looms. (Video by Trisha Young / Wisconsin Watch)
The state Public Service Commission, which approves requests for new utility plants and utility rates, initially accepted a confidentiality request from Alliant Energy in its application to serve the Beaver Dam data center despite numerous redactions — including how much energy the center would use.
On Feb. 26, however, state administrative law judge Michael Newmark, who is overseeing the PSC hearings on the request, told Alliant to resubmit its request with fewer redactions. Alliant did the next day with less information blacked out.
“It seemed like the redactions were not going to allow us to do sort of the basic functions of open government,” Newmark said at the hearing. Fewer redactions would enable the commission to rule on the application in a way that is “defensible in court and in the court of public opinion,” he said.
Last week the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Center for Water Policy released a model for state legislation to “promote transparency and environmental protections” for data centers.
The model, which recommends temporary statewide moratoriums on data centers, makes several recommendations to increase transparency, including a ban on local governments signing NDAs and requiring public disclosures on water and electricity use before any approvals are given.
The “continued absence of comprehensive and timely disclosure requirements,” the report said, “undermines public understanding and limits informed decision-making around siting, permitting and environmental impacts.”
And on Friday, a state Senate committee on a 4-1 vote approved Senate Bill 969, which would prohibit local governments from signing NDAs with data center developers. No further action has yet been scheduled.
The committee also advanced, 3-2, Assembly Bill 840, which would require the Public Service Commission to protect ratepayers from the costs of providing electricity to data centers. The bill contains a controversial requirement that renewable energy used for a data center be located on the site. The Assembly passed the bill 53-44 in January.
Legislation banning NDAs is pending in several states, including two that took action last week.
A Minnesota House of Representatives committee approved a bill banning data center NDAs and sent it to the House floor.
In Florida, a provision banning NDAs that industry groups lobbied against was removed from a data center bill.
A report released last week by the Alliance of Great Lakes urged governmental bodies to limit the use of NDAs so that the public can know how much water and energy a data center will use.
“When critical information is withheld, decision-making shifts risk from private developers to communities and public utilities,” the report said.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that highlights how judges can apply different interpretations of the law and constitution to suit their ideological viewpoints.
The case resulted from disagreements between the Republican-led Legislature and Attorney General Josh Kaul following the 2018 lame-duck session that limited the powers of the incoming Democratic administration.
The lawsuit, which the Legislature filed in 2021 when there was a conservative majority on the state Supreme Court, focuses on who has oversight of the dollars the state receives from legal settlements. The Legislature argues the 2018 law requires the attorney general to put money from a financial settlement in the general fund, which state lawmakers control. Kaul argues that he can put settlement funds in accounts that the Department of Justice oversees and still comply with the law.
In December 2024, the 2nd District Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling reversed part of a circuit court decision that said Kaul could continue to direct settlement dollars into DOJ-controlled accounts.
The Appeals Court opinion was written by Judge Maria Lazar, a conservative who is running for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April against liberal Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor. Lazar ruled the language in the 2018 law aligns with the Legislature’s arguments that settlement dollars belong in the general fund.
“Despite the legislation expressly designed to bring all settlement funds under legislative control and despite the simple and plain language of that legislation, the Attorney General has continued to act precisely in the manner which the Legislature sought to end,” Lazar wrote.
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul speaks during a press conference, April 2, 2025, at the Risser Justice Center in Madison, Wis. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
But in a dissent, retiring Appeals Court Judge Lisa Neubauer, the only liberal on the Waukesha-based District 2 Court of Appeals, criticized Lazar for basing her decision on what the Legislature intended, rather than a strict reading of various clauses in the law that may give the attorney general wiggle room.
The oral arguments this week follow a series of decisions in recent years on lawsuits challenging the separation of powers between the Legislature and the executive branch. In June, the court unanimously struck down a portion of the 2018-era lame-duck laws that required the attorney general to receive approval from the Legislature’s budget-writing committee to settle most civil cases. For the 4-3 divided liberal-majority court, the rulings in these cases have shown agreement among the justices over the need for clear boundaries between the core powers of the branches of government, legal experts said.
Where this latest lawsuit differs is the debate seems focused more on the language of the law than the separation of powers, said Chad Oldfather, a professor at the Marquette University Law School. Typically the conservative approach to statutory interpretation has been to focus on the basic meaning of the law while the liberal approach has been to examine the law’s intent. That has been the opposite in this case, Oldfather said.
“The advocates are kind of flipping a little bit the usual ideology of the statutory interpretation approach,” Oldfather said. “And all that’s going on while it’s clear that there are some people on the court who want to fundamentally shift the way the court does statutory interpretation. So there’s a real interesting mix of issues going on in this case.”
The law in question has been wrapped up in a yearslong debate over separation of powers that has made its way to justices in recent years, said Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. In many of those cases, the Supreme Court opinions have shown the justices interested in balanced branches of government.
“There seems to be an inclination to reinstate greater separation of powers between the branches and preserve the important roles of various actors, whether that’s the attorney general or the governor or the Legislature,” Godar said.
For example, in a 6-1 decision in 2024, with Justice Annette Ziegler dissenting, the court ruled the Legislature’s Republican-led budget-writing committee could not block spending by the Department of Natural Resources for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund.
“While the legislature’s motivation for overseeing the public fisc may be well-intentioned, fundamentally, the legislature may not execute the law,” Justice Rebecca Bradley, a member of the conservative bloc, wrote in the majority opinion. “The people gave the executive alone this power.”
In the 7-0 decision last June on the Legislature’s approval of the attorney general’s civil case settlements, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote that the constitution does not give lawmakers the ability to execute the law when there are financial decisions.
“If the Legislature has a constitutional interest in the execution of the laws every time an executive action involves money, there would be virtually no area where the Legislature could not insert itself into the execution of the law,” Hagedorn wrote.
There are still areas of disagreement among the court in these types of cases. Last July, the court reached a 4-3 decision in a lawsuit between Gov. Tony Evers and the Legislature, which determined 2018 lame-duck legislation that gave a legislative committee the ability to delay rules and policy changes from executive agencies was unconstitutional.
In that case, the court’s four liberal justices were in the majority. Hagedorn wrote an opinion both concurring and dissenting with the majority’s decision, while Bradley and Ziegler dissented.
“The majority has created a grave constitutional imbalance by strictly construing, and thus confining, the constitutional powers of the legislative branch while not doing the same when it comes to the power of the executive branch,” Ziegler wrote.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
When this legislative session began, Wisconsin Senate leaders made the unusual decision not to create a committee dedicated to election policy for the first time in nearly two decades. That choice has had a measurable consequence: The Senate has taken up far fewer election bills than the Assembly, and several measures that cleared the lower chamber are now stalled with no clear path forward.
Of the 19 election bills that Votebeat has tracked this legislative session, 18 have gotten at least a public committee hearing in the Assembly, compared with nine in the Senate. Fourteen of those bills passed the Assembly, compared with six in the Senate.
Even in a session when the Senate has generally moved more slowly than the Assembly on many issues — as of Feb. 25, the Assembly had passed 439 bills since the start of the current two-year session, while the Senate passed 276 — the disparity is especially stark on elections.
Both chambers’ election activity is down compared to last session. With a dedicated election committee in the Senate, about 30 election bills received a committee hearing, compared with about 45 in the Assembly. Republicans have controlled both chambers for more than a decade.
“The lack of the dedicated committee has definitely changed things,” said Sen. Mark Spreitzer, a Democratic member of the local government and government operations committees. Without a clear Republican point person on election policy in the Senate, he said, the chamber is allowing the Assembly to drive most of the legislative action.
Some of the bills that have moved through the Assembly but haven’t passed the Senate include proposals to expand early voting hours and to bring the state in line with a 2022 federal law regarding the timing of casting electoral votes and certifying election results in presidential elections, designed to prevent the kind of post-election chaos that President Donald Trump and his allies sowed after the 2020 election.
“The lack of the dedicated committee has definitely changed things,” says Sen. Mark Spreitzer, D-Beloit, who is shown in a Senate session, June 7, 2023, at the Wisconsin State Capitol in Madison, Wis. (Drake White-Bergey / Wisconsin Watch)
Clerks have told Votebeat that some of the stalled bills would significantly improve their efficiency — including an omnibus proposal to create a system tracking voters adjudicated incompetent and also send voters text notifications on the status of their absentee ballots, said Rock County Clerk Lisa Tollefson, a Democrat. That proposal passed through the Assembly in November, but hasn’t been heard in the Senate.
Given the absence of a dedicated Senate election committee, Tollefson added, the Assembly has been doing the heavy lifting. But even with ready-made bills, the Senate does not appear to be eager to pass election legislation.
In every legislative session since 2009, there has been a Senate committee formally tasked with covering election legislation. Committee chairs typically serve as the go-to experts on their panels’ subject areas. They consult with lobbying groups, schedule public hearings and set up committee votes — giving them the power to advance or stall legislation.
But when election bills are scattered across multiple committees, there’s no clear point person in the Senate to guide them through the process.
In the absence of a dedicated election committee in this session, several committee leaders declined to explain whether or when the stalled election bills might move. And some voting groups say it has made it harder to know who to consult with in the chamber to discuss election legislation.
At a WisPolitics event in Madison on Feb. 12, Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said that the absence of a Senate committee “doesn’t make it hard to pass election bills.” He added that there are “definitely avenues where election bills can run in the Senate,” including the Senate Committee on Government Operations, Labor and Economic Development and the Senate Committee on Transportation and Local Government.
LeMahieu, a Republican, didn’t respond to Votebeat’s request for comment. Sen. Dan Feyen, the chair of the government operations committee, didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment. Sen. Cory Tomczyk, who chairs the local government committee, also didn’t respond to a request for comment.
But even some of their fellow Republicans are seeing the effects. For example, Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara is the author of two of the bills languishing in the Senate, which would require and fund a certain number of early in-person voting hours in every municipality. Those reforms, she said, are “crucial to restoring confidence in our election process.”
She said in the Assembly, municipalities and clerks are working on a few details before the bills receive a final Senate vote, though both proposals passed the Assembly in November. The proposal to require the in-person hours got a Senate hearing in late January but has seen no activity since, while the bill to fund it hasn’t gotten a hearing at all.
There could still be a late flurry of committee activity. On Feb. 27, the Senate government operations committee approved the proposal to bring the state in line with new federal laws regulating presidential elections. But the next presidential race is two years away, and most of the bills that would affect all elections — not just presidential ones — remain stalled. Another bill to require the Wisconsin Elections Commission to hear complaints against itself was scheduled for a March 3 hearing.
With the legislative session entering its final stretch, though, the stalled bills face increasingly long odds. The last general floor session period of the biennium ends on March 19, and the Assembly is effectively finished for the session. That means the Senate only has a few weeks left to consider election bills that already cleared the lower chamber, and if the Senate modifies any of them, the Assembly is unlikely to return to approve the changes.
Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.
Reading Time: 4minutesClick here to read highlights from the story
While no hyperscale data centers are operating yet in the state, Wisconsin companies are helping power massive facilities elsewhere by supplying parts and equipment.
Just three Wisconsin companies have already amassed more than $1 billion in data center-related business.
It’s still unclear how much large-scale Wisconsin data centers will ultimately contribute to the state’s economy — and some question their long-term impact.
None of the billion-dollar-plus data centers planned for Wisconsin are yet online, but the nationwide, artificial-intelligence-fueled market is already spurring economic growth in the state.
Wisconsin business leaders say no comprehensive accounting has been done. But just three Wisconsin companies have already amassed more than $1 billion in data center-related business:
Regal Rexnord, a Milwaukee maker of motors, announced in February it had received $735 million in orders from data centers.
Generac, a Waukesha-based manufacturer, told Wisconsin Watch it has a backlog of $400 million in orders for backup generators for data centers. Moreover, Generac announced Feb. 19 it is acquiring a 120-employee Illinois engineering company to help meet data center demand.
Racine-based Modine announced in February 2025 it received $180 million in orders from a new customer for data center cooling systems to be manufactured in Virginia and Mississippi. In addition, the company in November opened a 155,000-square-foot plant in suburban Milwaukee to manufacture the systems.
Many companies don’t publicly report details on data center business they do, so it’s impossible to tally total economic impact in Wisconsin. But there are other examples.
Trane Technologies is manufacturing cooling systems for data centers in La Crosse, where it was founded in 1913, and says data centers are a strong part of its business. In November 2023, Excellerate opened a 385,000-square-foot plant in Little Chute, primarily to manufacture “modular electrical buildings” for data centers. Maysteel, a Washington County manufacturer, opened a data center hub in November 2024 and announced in February it is expanding the operation.
The sheer demand to outfit data centers has meant that some business has trickled down from larger companies to smaller ones.
Modular Power & Data has 90 employees in Dane County and suburban Milwaukee to manufacture electrical distribution products. Chief Operating Officer Erik Thompson told Wisconsin Watch that Modular did $10 million of data center business in 2025 and expects to more than double that in 2026.
That work is “transforming a very small company into what I believe will be a very large Wisconsin manufacturer,” Thompson said. “Without this growth, we’d always be much smaller.”
Employees at Modular Power & Data work on modular power systems in Cudahy, Wis., Feb. 25, 2026. (Trisha Young / Wisconsin Watch)
Copper is shown at Modular Power & Data in Cudahy, Wis., Feb. 25, 2026. It’s used in electrical components that help power data centers. (Trisha Young / Wisconsin Watch)
Because no hyperscale data centers are scheduled to begin operating in Wisconsin until later this year, their ultimate economic impact remains unknown.
Nationally, data centers are known for spurring construction work. That includes companies such as Brownsville-based Michels Corp., a lead contractor on the $15 billion data center under construction in Port Washington, and Waukesha-based Boldt Co. But those jobs are often temporary.
“The standard data center development model — speedy dealmaking and opaque negotiations — delivers short-term construction jobs and revenue, but little durable local economic upside,” the Washington, D.C.- based Brookings think tank concluded in February.
In Wisconsin, data center expenditures are projected to raise the state’s gross domestic product from $354 million in 2024 to $881 million in 2029, according to University of Virginia economist João-Pedro Ferreira, author of a study done for the Joyce Foundation. The data center workforce is expected to triple from 360 to 1,143 jobs, but constitute only 0.09% of the overall labor market.
“The impacts might seem a lot, but they are not,” Ferreira said.
At least $46 billion in hyperscale data centers are under construction or under consideration in Wisconsin. Besides Port Washington, $20 billion worth of data centers are under construction and planned in Mount Pleasant, and a $1 billion facility is being built in Beaver Dam. Proposals are pending in Janesville, Kenosha and Menomonie.
That’s as concerns about impacts on land, water and electricity spur loud opposition to data centers in Wisconsin. On Facebook alone, more than 24,000 people have joined groups to fight hyperscale centers that are proposed or under construction in the state.
But Wisconsin businesses see more growth from AI. In November, a foundation connected with Waukesha County-based Pieper Electric announced a $2 million donation to expand Waukesha County Technical College’s Applied AI Lab.
Dale Kooyenga, CEO of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce and a former Republican state lawmaker, said skills being developed for data center construction have value after the facilities are built.
“These men and women building these data centers aren’t building just buildings, they’re building the world’s largest computers,” he said.
A generator for use in a data center manufactured by Waukesha-based Generac is shown at its plant in Oshkosh, Wis. (Courtesy of Generac)
Kooyenga also pushed back on claims that AI will be bad for the economy.
“The concept that robots and technology are out to get your jobs has been a concept in America since 1900. That’s not a new fear,” he said. “But the fact is, is that there will be a different-looking economy and different opportunities.”
AI’s growth is affecting workers unevenly across industries.
It’s reducing employment in the most AI-exposed industries, such as computer systems design, and it’s especially hitting younger workers, according to a new Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas analysis.
But wages in those sectors have continued to grow as AI tools are benefiting veteran workers — those who have gained knowledge from experience.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Seventy-two Wisconsin school districts are going to referendum in April seeking just over $1 billion from taxpayers at a time when voters indicate they are less likely to support increased funding for schools.
A record high 60% of registered voters said reducing property taxes was more important than increasing spending on public schools, according to the recent Marquette University Law School poll conducted in February. Fifty-seven percent of voters in the same poll said they would vote against a school referendum, same as October, but a reversal from six years ago when 57% said they would support one.
The public concern about property taxes creates an especially difficult environment this year for the school districts seeking financial approvals from voters. Sixty-two districts are pursuing operational referendums this spring, according to data from the Department of Public Instruction. Operational questions ask voters to approve whether school districts can increase taxes to pay for things such as educational programs, technology and transportation services.
The rest of the referendums in April would allow districts to borrow money for capital construction projects. Two districts, Howard-Suamico and Sauk Prairie, are asking voters to approve both capital and operational referendums.
Approval rates for districts have declined since 2018, according to research from the Wisconsin Policy Forum. A record number of school districts proposed referendum questions to voters in 2024, but the 70% approval rate was the lowest passage rate for referendums in a midterm or presidential election year since 2014. More than 20% of the districts going to referendum this April are returning to voters after failed referendums in 2025.
In the meantime, debates continue at the Capitol over state funding for public schools. Gov. Tony Evers and Republican legislative leaders are expected to continue negotiating over how to use the state’s $2.4 billion surplus and what amount should be used to lower property taxes and support public schools. Just last week, a group of Wisconsin parents, four teacher unions and five school districts sued the Legislature arguing it’s failing to fund public schools. The Necedah Area School District, one of the plaintiffs in the case, is asking voters in April to approve a $5.8 million operational referendum across the next four school years.
Meanwhile, Wisconsin school districts continue to battle with the financial impacts of declining enrollments and rising costs as district leaders say state funding they receive has not kept up with inflation. The Appleton Area School District is seeking a $60 million operating referendum spread out over the next four years, which would fund efforts to help students struggling with poverty and mental health issues and plug a $13 million operating deficit that formed over three years of high inflation rates that outpaced available funding, Superintendent Greg Hartjes said.
“Certainly the timing is not good,” Hartjes said of Appleton’s operating referendum. “But it is because of that three years of high inflation that we can’t sustain another year. If we don’t pass a referendum, we are going to cut $13 million from our budget next year. And that’s a lot of services for kids.”
Why a school district goes to referendum
The two main sources of revenue for Wisconsin school districts are state funding and property taxes. In 1993, Wisconsin lawmakers put limits on how much school districts can increase funding from those two revenue sources. State law allows districts to go to referendum to ask voters to exceed the revenue limits with additional property taxes.
“It sometimes gets talked about as if it’s a fluke, or if it necessarily means that something bad is happening. That isn’t always the case,” said Sara Shaw, the deputy research director at the Wisconsin Policy Forum. “You might have an instance where a local community says, ‘Actually we’re fine with this. You tax us more. We have the means to be taxed more and we have the desire to fund education more.’”
School district revenue limits were connected to inflation until 2009, during the Great Recession, when a Democratic-controlled Legislature and Democratic governor chose to decouple them. Since then, as Republicans took control of state government in 2011, state education spending has not kept pace with inflation or the national average, according to the Policy Forum.
In recent years, the lack of inflationary increases to revenue limits and declining school district enrollment are among the main reasons why districts have gone to referendum, said Dan Rossmiller, the executive director of the Wisconsin Association of School Boards.
“At the same time, your fixed costs, such as transportation, heating, lighting, insurance, health insurance for your employees and the salaries of your employees and the portion you pay toward their retirement are all coming up generally,” Rossmiller said. “So that puts school districts in a bit of a vice.”
The Wisconsin Rapids School District, which is asking voters to support a $19 million operating referendum over the next five years, is one of those examples. The district has an existing five-year operating referendum approved in 2021 that expires this school year, but was boosted by pandemic-related funds that are no longer available. Inflation, rising insurance costs and declining enrollment have put the district in a difficult position, said Wisconsin Rapids Superintendent Ronald Rasmussen.
“The district is in a situation now where our expenses exceed our revenue,” Rasmussen said.
But referendums are about compromise, Sen. Romaine Quinn, R-Birchwood, said at a February meeting of the Legislature’s budget-writing committee. It’s also not just schools that are feeling the impacts of inflation, Quinn said.
“There isn’t anybody in their family budget, a local entity unit of government or state government that can afford to keep up with the inflation that we’ve had to endure over the last four to six years,” Quinn said.
What about the 400-year veto?
During the 2023-25 state budget process, Evers used the governor’s veto powers to provide an annual $325 per pupil increase to school district revenue limits for 400 years.
Republicans have repeatedly slammed the veto and advanced proposals seeking to limit the governor’s partial veto powers in the future. In February, the Legislature added to the November ballot a constitutional amendment to prevent the governor from using veto powers to increase taxes or fees. It’s unclear if the proposed language would have affected the 400-year veto because the veto didn’t directly increase taxes or fees. Instead, it gave school districts more discretion to increase property taxes.
School leaders say they’re appreciative of the revenue authority coming from the 400-year veto, but it doesn’t make up for the lack of consistent inflationary increases since 2009. Districts are also still dependent on how the Legislature acts on revenue limits or general state aid.
“The more state aid we get means we get less property taxes,” Rasmussen said. “And this year, the revenue limit changed by $325, but the aid we got from the state that line stayed the same, so the difference was made up by local property taxes.”
Hartjes and Rasmussen said they are approaching frustration about property taxes by trying to inform residents about the basics of school funding, being transparent with potential voters about district finances and breaking down the cost of the referendum on a typical home in their community.
Districts across the state that are going to referendum this spring are holding similar information sessions to answer questions from potential voters and creating webpages for people seeking more information.
It’s not an easy task, especially as the cost of living remains the top issue for Wisconsin voters this year.
“Your price of everything else that you have to buy as a consumer is difficult,” Hartjes said. “And then to ask to have your property taxes raised? We understand the challenge for families.”
The election is April 7. Early voting starts March 24.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
The city of Madison on Monday appealed a ruling that allows it to be sued for monetary damages for disenfranchising nearly 200 voters in the 2024 election, arguing the decision would unrealistically require “error-free elections” and expose municipalities across the state to liability for mistakes.
The appeal comes after Dane County Circuit Court Judge David Conway’s Feb. 9 ruling that Madison could face potential financial liability for disenfranchising 193 voters whose absentee ballots were unintentionally left uncounted. Notably, the city did not specifically contest the judge’s rejection in that ruling of its earlier argument that absentee voting is merely a “privilege” under state law — a claim that would have shielded it from damages.
Instead, the appeal centers on who has the authority to enforce election laws and whether voters can sue for negligence. The city argues that such complaints must go first to the Wisconsin Elections Commission and asks higher courts to revisit a landmark 1866 case that allowed damages against election officials who deprive citizens of the right to vote.
“It is not difficult to imagine how the circuit court’s ruling may be perceived as an opportunity by partisan actors to influence the election,” attorneys for the city, former Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl and Deputy Clerk Jim Verbick wrote in the filing.
A permanent path to sue for damages over accidental election errors without going first through the commission could “chill the willingness of individuals to volunteer to assist with elections, and the willingness of voters to participate in the political process,” they wrote.
Madison asks court to revisit landmark voting case
Much of Madison’s appeal asks the court to revisit a key finding in the landmark 1866 case that secured the extension of the franchise to Black Wisconsinites, Gillespie v. Palmer. In that case, the court held that state law allows plaintiffs to sue election officials for damages if they “negligently deprive citizens of the right to vote.”
The case arose after Ezekiel Gillespie, a Black man, was turned away from the polls in 1865. While voters had ratified a measure extending the franchise to Black residents 16 years earlier, it went largely unenforced, as state officials still disputed whether the change was valid. Gillespie sued, and courts ultimately ruled in his favor, concluding in 1866 that Black Wisconsinites had been wrongfully disenfranchised for 17 years.
Although Gillespie was intentionally barred from voting, the court’s ruling established negligence — not just intentional misconduct — as a basis for disenfranchised voters to seek damages. The Dane County Circuit Court relied on that broader standard in allowing the Madison lawsuit to proceed.
Madison officials in their latest appeal argue the lower court misapplied the precedent. In their view, Gillespie was about protecting the right to cast a ballot — a right that they say isn’t disputed in this case. No election official in Madison denied that the 193 Madison voters had a right to vote, they wrote. Rather, they contend, the voters’ ballots were unintentionally left uncounted after being cast.
If Gillespie is extended under these circumstances, the defendants argue, Wisconsin would be the first state to allow “any voter whose ballot is accidentally uncounted a right to sue for monetary damages,” a premise that they say requires immediate review by higher courts given the impending 2026 midterms.
They also contend the 1866 ruling predates Wisconsin’s modern election system, and relying on “such an archaic interpretation of Constitutional rights in Wisconsin is grossly in error and requires intervention before the case proceeds further.”
Madison’s filing “seeks to erode the protections” guaranteed in Gillespie, said Scott Thompson, staff attorney for Law Forward, which filed the case. “This argument follows the city’s failed attempt to throw out this case by arguing that the right to vote does not protect absentee voters from disenfranchisement. The right to vote has value, and the voters the city of Madison disenfranchised look forward to having their day in court.”
Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative, clarified that a court wouldn’t need to overturn the historic Black voting rights case entirely to rule that it doesn’t apply in the lawsuit against Madison.
“You could potentially read that case in a more narrow way, as applying only to intentional deprivation of the right to vote, as opposed to negligence and deprivation,” she said, adding that it’s likely that only a higher court could reinterpret Gillespie in such a way.
Law Forward’s response to Madison’s appeal is due on March 9. Then the Madison-based District 4 Court of Appeals is expected to determine whether the appeal may move forward.
Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.
Inside the mostly empty town hall in the town of Wausau on County Road Z last week, a handful of voters cast ballots in wooden booths for a school board race. The biggest question on the minds of local election officials wasn’t who would win — it was who would run elections next year.
After two clerks left within a year, longtime town supervisor Sharon Hunter stepped in because no one else would. Hunter’s term ends in April 2027. Nomination papers for a potential successor are due in January 2027, but local officials still don’t know who comes next.
“Sharon’s not going to do 29 years,” Deputy Clerk Amy Meyer said, referring to the long tenure of the clerk who resigned in late 2024, setting off the cascade of brief replacements.
Hunter, 72, laughed. “I’d be over 100 years old,” she said. “I don’t think you want me here with my walker.”
Hunter’s decision to step up in a town of 2,200 may seem insignificant. But Wisconsin’s election system — one of the most decentralized in the country — depends on people like her. The state requires each of its 1,850 municipalities to run its own elections. That means hundreds of local clerks are needed to keep the system running. By contrast, Texas, a state with nearly five times Wisconsin’s population, relies on county-level election offices and has about one-sixth as many local election officials.
That structure leaves Wisconsin unusually dependent on small-town clerks. Between 2020 and 2024, more than 700 municipal clerks here left their posts, the highest turnover by raw numbers in the nation. As rural communities age and fewer residents are willing or able to take on an increasingly complex job, replacing them has become harder — raising questions about how long the state’s hyper-local model can hold.
The system can absorb one vacancy. It strains under dozens. Elections get stitched together, paperwork piles up, and the quiet machinery of local government — licenses, payroll, meeting notices — shifts its weight onto whoever is left.
The town of Wausau municipal building is pictured Feb. 17, 2026. The town has had three clerks in the past year and struggled to keep the position filled until Sharon Hunter stepped in, giving up her vote as town supervisor. (Alexander Shur / Votebeat)
Meyer, 55, understands why people don’t want the job — she doesn’t want it either. Like her mother, she has worked elections in town for much of her adult life. She considered becoming clerk, but it wasn’t the right time. She doesn’t want residents coming to her house with ballots or questions, as they once did under the longtime clerk.
“There comes a point in the day where I want to turn my phone off,” Meyer said from the town hall, situated at the center of loosely stitched county roads dotted with ranch homes and small farms, some of them no longer in operation. “I don’t want to hear that your garbage didn’t get picked up, or your neighbor’s dog is barking,” she said. “I just don’t.”
In a small town, the clerk is often the first call for everything from election deadlines to everyday complaints — and the learning curve is steep.
“It’s going to take you practically the first year to learn everything,” Meyer said. “Now, we have somebody new in it, and we have spent half the term relearning.”
Older residents have long filled these roles, but clerks say the job has grown more demanding, with little added support. It is often thankless work for modest pay. In Wausau, the clerk earns about $27,000 a year with no benefits.
Even so, many residents remain committed to keeping elections at the town level. Hunter said preserving local control was her biggest reason for stepping in, though she has not decided whether to seek another term.
“But we do need to have someone coming after me,” she said. “Because I am old.”
In an aging town, succession is unclear
The rural town of Wausau sits just east of the city of Wausau, a community of about 40,000 that began as a logging town in the 1830s and now centers on manufacturing and a burgeoning ginseng farming industry. As the city has grown, the town has increasingly become a bedroom community, as its lower property taxes attract commuters. A handful of farms remain, but the town is less agricultural than it once was.
Its population is slowly growing — and steadily aging. That’s because retirees also make up a large and growing share of the town’s residents. Its median age has climbed by roughly a decade since 2000 and now hovers around 50 — a decade older than the statewide average. The town still must run elections, issue licenses and post meeting notices. What’s less certain is who will do it.
Here, as in many communities nationwide, the responsibility will likely fall to older residents. Nationally, nearly 70% of chief election officials are 50 or older, according to the Elections & Voting Information Center. In Wisconsin, that share climbs to almost 80%, with the oldest officials concentrated in the smallest jurisdictions.
One poll worker, knitting pink yarn during a lull between voters, said at 71 she was too old to take on the clerk’s job. She had encouraged a younger neighbor to consider it, she said, but the woman had just given birth.
Wausau’s shift reflects a broader reality in rural Wisconsin: The state built a system that depends on hundreds of small-town clerks and their deputies — a structure rooted in an era when farms were multigenerational, churches were full, and civic roles widely shared. That foundation is thinning. About a quarter of Wisconsin’s farms closed between 2002 and 2022, and churches are aging and shrinking. Volunteer fire departments and other local services report persistent staffing shortages.
There is no sweeping rural exodus. Rural counties are mostly growing, largely because retirees are staying or moving in. Wisconsin’s population is projected to age most rapidly in its rural communities, according to UW-Madison’s Applied Population Lab.
Voter check-in materials sit on a table during a school board election that affected only part of the town of Wausau. Turnout remained slow throughout the day. (Alexander Shur / Votebeat)
Originally from nearby Birnamwood, Hunter moved to the town of Wausau in the 1970s and has worked in public service ever since. For four decades, she wrote federal grants and helped low-income youth map out their futures through the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
Her entry into town government came by accident. Upset over a town decision to pave the ends of some residents’ driveways, but not hers or her neighbors’, she ran for town treasurer. What began as frustration became a career: She spent 10 years as treasurer and two decades as a supervisor.
Her path shifted again after the former town clerk, Cindy Worden, retired after 30 years on the job. Supervisors appointed a replacement, but she left after two weeks because of a terminal cancer diagnosis. The next clerk resigned within months, overwhelmed by balancing the duties with a full-time job and raising a family.
As the town searched for a clerk, Hunter and fellow supervisor Steve Buntin, a retired auto mechanic, filled in. Supervisors listed the job on Facebook and the town website. Potential candidates declined. Some didn’t want the scrutiny of elections, and others resisted the administrative grind.
At one point, county officials offered to step in to run elections and charge about $1,000 per election. That was Hunter’s turning point, though stepping into the role meant giving up her vote on the town board — a sacrifice she did not take lightly.
“After you start, you kind of get hooked,” Hunter said. The residents might be “ornery most of the time,” but helping them navigate difficult choices is public service. “It’s in your blood.”
She can return to being a supervisor if someone else steps up as clerk, but, as Buntin put it, “nobody seems to be knocking down the door.”
Last April, the town asked voters to allow clerks to be appointed rather than elected, which would have permitted hiring someone from outside town limits. The referendum failed narrowly. A new state law has since made it easier for small municipalities to switch to appointments, but the town has yet to make the jump.
“You still have to have somebody come forward who wants to be a clerk,” Meyer said. “Just because the state law changed doesn’t make it all that easy.”
Clerks are hard to recruit, and harder to retain
Wausau sits in Marathon County, home to about 130,000 people. To run elections for that population, the county depends on roughly 60 municipal clerks — one in each city, village and town — layered beneath its elected county clerk. In most similarly sized counties elsewhere, such as St. Joseph County, Indiana, or Frederick County, Maryland, a single county office oversees elections for everyone.
There’s little appetite to abandon Wisconsin’s structure. Local clerks argue decentralization limits errors and keeps elections in familiar hands. But filling dozens of posts — and keeping them filled — is no easy task. Of the 13 new municipal clerks who have taken office in Marathon County since the April 2025 election, including Hunter, four resigned within months, County Clerk Kim Trueblood said. Since then, a fifth clerk — in the city of Wausau — has also stepped down.
Trueblood attributes part of the churn to recruitment practices that understate the job. Town and village chairs often approach potential clerks by describing the work as little more than taking meeting minutes.
“Then they get into a job, and it’s the elections, it’s all of the financial reporting, the liquor licenses, everything that they have to do — it’s just overwhelming,” she said. “And people who work a full-time job and have families, I don’t know how they do it.”
The pay rarely offsets the demands. In the town of Wausau, the clerk makes $27,628 per year plus a $1,000 mileage stipend, with no benefits. The job can require 10 to 20 hours a week — and far more around elections — covering everything from meeting notices and licenses to payroll and ballot administration.
Other municipalities in Marathon County pay far less. Kelley Blume, the clerk in the town of Marathon who’s also a deputy clerk for the county, earned just over $10,000 for her town role in 2025. During election seasons, she said, the hours stretch late into the night.
When she was first approached for the job about 10 years ago, she said town officials told her it would only be a couple of hours per week.
“It’s not a couple hours,” she said. “I feel bad for all of these new clerks that think it’s going to be easy.”
She is considering stepping down. The added responsibilities have grown heavier each year, she said, and she wants to spend more time with her children and grandchildren.
Waiting for the next name on the ballot
Hunter says she stepped in to preserve something she believes is worth protecting: the idea that elections should be run by people who know the roads and the names on the ballot, who know which farm sits beyond the bend and which houses were built last year. To her, local government isn’t an abstraction. It’s a neighbor answering the phone.
“I do feel local government is critical, and I would hate to see that be taken away from the residents,” Hunter said. “It’s important they have a voice, and it starts at their local government.”
She knows the structure is imperfect, but pride in local control runs deep here, even as the pool of residents willing to shoulder the work grows thinner. Ultimately, she said, the town may have to bend. Communities could share clerks or other services, even if that means loosening borders that have long felt fixed.
She’ll decide later this year whether to run again. If she doesn’t, she said, the town may take another vote on hiring clerks outside of town limits. In the meantime, she has no regrets about stepping up — even if nobody in town seems ready to follow her lead.
“It’s my civic duty,” she said.
Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.
The final days of the Wisconsin Legislature’s 2025-26 legislative session are near.
The Assembly gaveled out for what could be the chamber’s final session day Friday preceded by a dramatic 24 hours that included longtime Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, announcing his retirement and a concession from Vos to allow votes on bills to extend Medicaid funding for low-income mothers and require insurance companies to cover screenings for women at increased risk of breast cancer. The bills have stalled in the chamber for months.
Lawmakers could still return for a special session on tax cuts as negotiations continue with Republican leaders and Gov. Tony Evers. Democratic lawmakers and Evers have called on Republicans to continue work at the Capitol in Madison instead of turning to the campaign trail ahead of elections later this year. Evers this week also said he plans to call a special session in the coming months for lawmakers to act on a constitutional amendment to ban partisan gerrymandering.
The Senate will continue to meet in March.
Here’s a rundown of what is still being debated, what is heading to the governor and some of the key items to get signed into law this session.
What is still being discussed?
Tax cuts
The context: State leaders learned in January that Wisconsin has a projected $2.4 billion surplus. Evers at the start of the year called for bipartisan action on property tax cuts for Wisconsinites. Republicans have agreed with the idea that those funds should be returned to taxpayers. But both sides have yet to officially agree on how.
Republican arguments: In a letter to Evers on Feb. 16, Vos and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, said they would agree to Evers’ request for $200 million to boost the special education reimbursement rate and provide an additional $500 million to schools through the school levy tax credit. In return, Republican leaders wanted to see an income tax rebate in the form of $500 for individuals and $1,000 for married couples who filed their taxes in 2024, reducing state revenues by $1.5 billion. “We are trying to be bipartisan,” Vos told reporters after Evers said the proposal doesn’t balance what he wants to see for schools. “We accepted his number and actually went higher than he requested.”
Democratic arguments: Evers told WISN-12 that he would not sign the Republican plan Vos and LeMahieu sent him. He wants to see more money for schools, specifically general equalization aid, which are dollars that schools can use without as many constraints. The 2025-27 budget Evers signed last summer kept that aid flat from the previous year, which coupled with fixed revenue limit increases under Evers’ previous 400-year veto gives school districts more latitude to raise property taxes.
Latest action: Assembly Majority Leader Rep. Tyler August, R-Walworth, said Republicans are still intent that Evers should take the deal that was offered. “It checks a lot of boxes, if not all the boxes on the things he had previously asked for,” he said.
Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, takes questions from the press after Gov. Tony Evers’ State of the State address at the Wisconsin State Capitol on Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2026, in Madison, Wis. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
Knowles-Nelson Stewardship
The context: In 2024, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the Legislature’s top financial committee could not block the Department of Natural Resources spending for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund that was created in 1989 for land preservation. Republicans did not reauthorize funds to keep the program going in the 2025-27 budget, which puts the fund on track to expire this summer. Bills led by Rep. Tony Kurtz, R-Wonewoc, and Sen. Patrick Testin, R-Stevens Point, would extend the program until 2028, but also pause the majority of land conservation projects for two years and require the DNR to study and inventory government-owned land for nature activities.
Republican arguments: Republicans blame the court’s decision for limiting legislative authority over how the dollars are spent. During a public hearing earlier this month, Testin said he understood the bills were imperfect but action was necessary. “If we do nothing, Knowles-Nelson Stewardship is dead,” Testin said.
Democratic arguments: Senate Democrats on Wednesday said stopping money for land conservation projects would essentially kill the program. Democrats had been participating in negotiations on the future of the fund, but the Republican proposal had only gotten “significantly worse.” “We cannot and will not support a bill this bad,” said Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein, D-Middleton. In September, Democrats introduced a proposal to reauthorize the program until 2032.
Latest action: The Senate was scheduled to vote on the bills during a floor session on Feb. 18, but removed the bills from its calendar. The bills already passed the Assembly in January. After Senate Democrats said they would not support the current proposal, Testin told WisPolitics he would have to drum up support from Senate Republicans to determine the fate of the fund.
Toxic forever chemicals (aka PFAS)
The context: Republican lawmakers and Evers in January announced they were optimistic about a deal on legislation about the cleanup of toxic forever chemicals referred to as PFAS. The 2023-25 state budget included $125 million for addressing PFAS contamination, but the Legislature’s finance committee has yet to release those funds to the Department of Natural Resources. In January, Evers and Republicans said bipartisan agreements so far included the release of the prior funds, protections for property owners who are not responsible for PFAS contamination and a grant program to help local governments with remediation projects.
Republican arguments: Republican Sen. Eric Wimberger, R-Gillett, has sought protections from the state’s spills law and financial penalties for “innocent landowners” who did not cause PFAS contaminations and seek help from the Department of Natural Resources.
Democratic arguments: The Environmental Protection Agency has previously issued health advisories on PFAS in drinking water. Evers in January argued that the state has a responsibility to provide safe and clean drinking water across Wisconsin.
Latest action: The Assembly passed the legislation, Assembly Bills 130 and 131, on 93-0 votes Friday evening. The Senate has yet to consider the bills, but Wimberger in a statement Thursday night said amendments in the Assembly “will help us get this vital legislation across the finish line in the Senate and signed into law by the Governor.”
Lawmakers listen as Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers delivers his final State of the State address at the Wisconsin State Capitol on Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2026, in Madison, Wis. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
Online gambling
The context: Legal gambling in Wisconsin can only occur in-person on tribal properties, which means individuals who place online bets on mobile devices are technically violating the law. A proposal from August and Sen. Howard Marklein, R-Spring Green, would legalize online gambling if the server or device that a wager is placed on is located on tribal lands.
Supportive arguments: The bills from August and Marklein have bipartisan support. Lawmakers argue it provides clarity on what is legal in Wisconsin and protects consumers from unregulated websites.
Opposing arguments: The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty in a November memo argued that the bills would violate the Wisconsin Constitution and the federal Indian Gaming Act and provide a “race-based monopoly to Tribal gaming operations.”
Latest action: The Assembly passed the bill Thursday on a voice vote, meaning lawmakers didn’t record individual votes. It now heads to the Senate.
Funding for a public affairs network
The context: WisconsinEye, the nonprofit public affairs network that has filmed legislative proceedings since 2007, went dark in mid-December due to not raising the funds to operate this year. The Legislature previously approved a $10 million endowment that could only be accessed if WisconsinEye raised matching dollars equal to its request of state lawmakers. Legislative leaders approved $50,000 to bring WisconsinEye back in February, but the Assembly and Senate had opposing views of how to provide transparent viewing of legislative processes going forward.
Senate arguments: Senate Republicans specifically have been wary of providing funds to WisconsinEye and expressed frustrations at how the nonprofit spends its dollars. Senate Republicans proposed a bill that would seek bids for a potential public affairs network, which could go to WisconsinEye or another organization. “Maybe we are getting the best value currently with WisconsinEye, but we greatly don’t know,” LeMahieu told reporters this month.
Assembly arguments: Assembly Democrats and Republicans proposed a bill that would place the previously allocated matching dollars in a trust and direct earned interest to WisconsinEye. That could generate half a million dollars or more each year for an organization with a $900,000 annual budget. Assembly leaders said they wanted to ensure continued transparency at the Capitol.
Latest action: The Assembly earlier this month passed its bill 96-0 that would provide long-term funding support to WisconsinEye, but the Senate has yet to consider the bill. The Senate passed its bill on requesting bids for a public affairs network on Wednesday. The Assembly did not take up the Senate proposal before gaveling out for the year.
What is heading to Evers?
Postpartum Medicaid
Lead authors: Sen. Jesse James, R-Thorp/Rep. Patrick Snyder, R-Weston
What it does: The bill extends postpartum Medicaid coverage in Wisconsin for new moms from current law at 60 days to a full 12 months after childbirth.
The context: Wisconsin is just one of two states that have yet to extend postpartum Medicaid for new mothers for up to one year. The proposal has been brought up in the Legislature for years, but Vos has long been the roadblock for getting the bill across the finish line, often objecting to the idea as “expanding welfare.” “Anybody who’s in poverty in Wisconsin today already gets basically free health care through BadgerCare. If you are slightly above poverty level, you get basically free health care from the federal government through Obamacare,” Vos told reporters earlier this month. “So the idea of saying that we’re going to put more people onto the funding that the state pays for, as opposed to allowing them to stay on the funding that the federal government pays for, it doesn’t make any sense to me.”
How they voted: The Senate passed the bill on a 32-1 vote in April, with Sen. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield, voting against. The Assembly voted 95-1 Thursday to send the bill to Evers’ desk, with Rep. Shae Sortwell, R-Two Rivers, as the lone vote against. Vos voted to pass the bill.
Dense breast cancer screenings
Lead authors: Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara, R-Fox Crossing/Rep. Cindi Duchow, R-town of Delafield
What it does: The bill requires health insurance policies to cover supplemental screenings for women who have dense breast tissue and are at an increased risk of breast cancer, eliminating out-of-pocket costs for things like MRIs and ultrasounds. The proposal has been referred to as “Gail’s Law,” after Gail Zeamer, a Wisconsin woman who regularly sought annual mammograms but was diagnosed with stage three breast cancer at age 47.
The context: The proposal has been stuck in the Assembly for months after near-unanimous passage in the Senate last year. Some Republicans had concerns about the bill being an insurance mandate. Vos told Isthmus in January that federal regulations might not make the bill necessary in Wisconsin, but ultimately allowed a vote on the Assembly floor.
How they voted: The Senate passed the bill in October on a 32-1 vote. The Assembly passed the bill Thursday on a 96-0 vote.
Key bills signed into law (outside the state budget)
Wisconsin Act 42 – Cellphone bans during school instructional time
Lead authors: Rep. Joel Kitchens, R-Sturgeon Bay/Cabral-Guevara
What it does: The law requires Wisconsin school boards to adopt policies that prohibit cellphone use during instructional time by July 1. By October districts must submit their policies to the Department of Public Instruction.
How they voted: The bill passed the Assembly along party lines in February 2025 and passed the Senate on a 29-4 vote in October.
When Evers signed the bill: October 2025.
Wisconsin Acts 11, 12 – Nuclear power summit and siting study
Lead authors: Sen. Julian Bradley, R-New Berlin/Rep. David Steffen, R-Howard
What it does: The laws created a board tasked with organizing a nuclear power summit in Madison and directed the Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities, to study new and existing locations for nuclear power and fusion generation in the state. In January, the Public Service Commission signed an agreement with UW-Madison’s Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics to complete the siting study.
How they voted: The Senate passed and the Assembly passed the bill in June 2025 on a voice vote.
When Evers signed the bills: July 2025
Wisconsin Act 43 – Candidacy withdrawals for elections
Lead authors: Steffen/Sen. Van Wanggaard, R-Racine
What it does: The law gives Wisconsin candidates a path other than death to withdraw their name from election ballots. The bill was proposed in the wake of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s effort to withdraw his name from the ballot in Wisconsin after he exited the presidential race in 2024 and endorsed President Donald Trump.
How they voted: The Assembly passed the bill in June. The Senate approved the bill on a 19-14 vote in October.
When Evers signed the bill: October 2025
Wisconsin Act 48 – Making sextortion a crime
Lead authors: Snyder/James
What it does: The law makes sexual extortion a crime that bans threatening to injure another person’s property or reputation or threatening violence against someone to get them to participate in sexual conduct or share an intimate image of themselves. Lawmakers named the bill “Bradyn’s Law” after a 15-year-old in the D.C. Everest School District who became a victim of sextortion and died by suicide.
How they voted: The Senate passed and the Assembly passed the bill on a voice vote.
When Evers signed the bill: December 2025
Wisconsin Act 22 – Informed consent for pelvic exams for unconscious patients
Lead authors: Sen. Andre Jacque, R-New Franken/Rep. Joy Goeben, R-Hobart
What it does: The bill requires that written consent is obtained from a patient before medical professionals at a hospital perform a pelvic exam while that person is unconscious or under general anesthesia.
How they voted: The Senate and the Assembly passed the bill on a voice vote.
When Evers signed the bill: August 2025
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
As Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers gave his final State of the State address at the Capitol on Tuesday, I was struck by how many of the people I’ve met or covered over the past nearly six months were all in the same room.
Evers, who is not seeking reelection this year, entered the Assembly chambers shortly after 7 p.m. and spoke of his accomplishments over the past seven years with longtime Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and Senate President Mary Felzkowski, R-Tomahawk, seated right behind him. All seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, who have frequently been deciding factors in conflicts between Evers and Republican lawmakers, were in the audience. Statewide elected officials, including Attorney General Josh Kaul and Superintendent of Public Instruction Jill Underly, were there. Both Democratic and Republican representatives and senators sat underneath the glass skylight to listen to Evers.
In his hour-long speech, Evers called on the Republican Legislature to take bipartisan action on issues such as tax cuts, special education school funding and corrections reform before lawmakers leave Madison and turn to the campaign trail for elections later this year. He also announced plans to call a special session for lawmakers to address a constitutional amendment to ban partisan gerrymandering. Republicans criticized Evers’ remarks as a partisan speech.
The governor’s address Tuesday night came as Wisconsin stands on the precipice of significant change. A new governor will be elected later this year. New legislative maps and Democratic gains in 2024 set up real competition for control of the Legislature.
It’s been almost six months since I began my role as the state government and politics reporter at Wisconsin Watch. I returned to Wisconsin, where I was born and raised, in September after starting my journalism career reporting in Florida and Indiana.
These initial months at Wisconsin Watch have been an exciting whirlwind as I’ve immersed myself into the debates and issues facing our state. Eight years away left me with much to catch up on.
I’ve had a lot of coffee — maybe too much — as I’ve met people inside and outside of the Capitol who can help me understand the deeper issues beyond press releases and social media posts. I’ve attended many committee meetings, hearings and press conferences. I’ve made phone calls and sent text messages when I needed explanations about the recent state budget or legislative procedures. I’ve stopped by a host of Assembly and Senate offices to introduce myself, ask questions and learn what lawmakers are working on.
And if you read all the way through Forward, Wisconsin Watch’s free weekly politics newsletter, you will know I love diving into our state’s history and seeing what it can teach us about what is happening in Wisconsin today.
Wisconsin Watch statehouse reporter Brittany Carloni takes notes as Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers delivers his final State of the State address at the Wisconsin State Capitol on Feb. 17, 2026, in Madison, Wis. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
My curiosity and my past reporting experiences in other states have driven my work so far. In November, I looked into why Republican lawmakers sent bills to the governor’s desk that Evers would never sign. When WisconsinEye, the public affairs network, went dark for weeks between December and January, I looked beyond our borders to understand how neighboring states film legislative proceedings. As voters face another Wisconsin Supreme Court election, I asked the candidates about their past rulings and how they reflect how each candidate would serve on the court.
I’ve largely found people willing to share their perspectives and point me in the direction of others who can provide the information to explain complicated topics. I’ve particularly enjoyed the times I’ve heard “Welcome home,” as I’ve shared what brought me back to Wisconsin.
Evers’ address and the last year in the governor’s office signal an end to one chapter of Wisconsin’s history. I feel like I am just getting started. If you have tips, ideas, questions or feedback, email me at bcarloni@wisconsinwatch.org.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Login
