Wisconsin voters will decide if three proposed constitutional amendments should be enacted when they head to the polls this fall — marking 15 times Republican lawmakers have put potential amendments to voters during the two terms of Gov. Tony Evers. 

Voters have approved seven of the previous 12 proposed amendments. Republicans have said they continue to use the amendment process to make policy changes while avoiding Evers’ veto pen. 

“There are lots of things that I would do that Tony Evers would have vetoed. There are very few things that I would bring as a constitutional amendment to try to get around that,” Rep. Dave Murphy (R- Hortonville) told Wisconsin Watch. “I’m glad that I can take this to the people for a signing rather than to Gov. Evers because I think the people will support this, but I think he maybe would have vetoed it.”

But opponents say that these Republican end runs around the governor’s office are a misuse of the amendment process that flout good governance ideas and that the language of the amendments is  intentionally designed to confuse voters. 

“Right, wrong or indifferent, saying to the people that you want their voices in these ‘important’ decisions is — that sells pretty well, but it’s not the job of the Legislature,” Debra Cronmiller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, told the Wisconsin Examiner, who is critical of state legislators for trying  to legislate by constitutional amendment instead of using the regular lawmaking process. 

Voters, unlike state lawmakers, cannot propose amendments to the Wisconsin Constitution and get them onto the ballot, as voters have done in other states. Wisconsin’s process to amend the state constitution requires that voters decide on the proposed amendment after the language is set and the proposal is passed as a resolution in two consecutive sessions of the Legislature. 

“Putting anything in the constitution just makes it more difficult to undo,” Cronmiller said. 

On the ballot this year are proposed amendments to ban state and local governments from enacting diversity, equity and inclusion policies; limit the governor’s use of the partial veto to raise taxes and fees and prohibit the closure of places of worship during public health emergencies. 

Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Crowley has expressed his opposition to all three proposed amendments while Republican candidate Tom Tiffany has said he supports them all. 

Anti-Equity 

The anti-equity program amendment will appear on voter’s ballots asking if “section 27 article 1 of the constitution be created to prohibit governmental entities in the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration?”

Amanda Merkwae, the policy and advocacy director at the ACLU of Wisconsin, said that the question is written in such a way that most voters would say yes, of course they don’t want the government to discriminate against people. 

“I think this question has this misleading language that’s really intended to eliminate opportunity,” Merkwae said. “The text of prohibiting discrimination or preferential treatment, on its face, sounds like of course we’d want to do that, but doesn’t give voters this full picture and understanding that federal and state laws already strictly ban discrimination.” 

Merkwae pointed to several federal and state laws that already protect against discrimination, including the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and added that locking the amendment’s language into the state Constitution could severely limit the ability of future lawmakers to address policy problems. 

“What the amendment is ultimately designed to do is eliminate proactive programs geared towards equity, like minority and women-owned business recruitment, or targeted workforce development, or retention initiatives in higher education that are designed to ensure that everyone gets a fair shot,” she said. “And by embedding this broad language into the state constitution, it just locks in these rigid restrictions that lawmakers in the future and local communities can’t change, even if you know data shows that there is a deep need in the future.”

Republicans are putting the amendment to voters after years of opposing programs aimed at helping minority groups. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) released a report in January highlighting hundreds of thousands of dollars local and county governments have spent to attract diverse pools of employees and provide them with training on equity and inclusion. 

Cronmiller said that in the League of Women Voters’ advocacy against the amendment, the group has been pointing to the Sortwell report to show people which programs in their community are likely to be cut if the amendment passes. The League’s messaging on the amendment states that if passed “60 years of progress for women and people of color” will be lost due to the end of programs meant to address disparities in health outcomes, make accommodations for kids struggling in school, support poor families and victims of domestic violence and provide government contracts to diverse pools of businesses. 

“This amendment is not prohibiting governmental entity discrimination,” Cronmiller said, adding that the consequences of the amendment could reach further than intended. 

“This amendment is eliminating preferential treatment for all sorts of groups that have systemically been disenfranchised, and we’re just trying to even up the score,” she continued. “Women’s health issues, government contracting with minority-owned businesses. So many things could be on the chopping block because they give preferential treatment. I think even government programs like Head Start that targets young people. Well, guess what? Age is a prohibited category. So does Head Start go away? Do programs intended for geriatrics go away? I don’t know.”

Opponents of the bill have also pointed out that the state and federal constitutions already have anti-discrimination provisions. The conservative legal outfit the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, for example, has in recent years successfully sued on several occasions to end government programs meant to provide aid to specific minority groups.  

Murphy, who is not running for reelection, said he wrote the proposal because he wants the government to make decisions about hiring and spending based on merit. 

“I’m just very much of a supporter of the idea that when people put government in charge of something, they want it to be the best it can be,” Murphy said. “One of the ways to do that is not to put a bunch of things that get in the way of picking based on merit.”

Partial veto 

The proposed amendment to strip the governor of the power to partially veto pieces of the state budget asks voters if the constitution should “be amended to prohibit the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto authority, from creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee?”

Republicans proposed the amendment after Evers used his partial veto power to change the 2023-25 biennial budget to allow schools to raise revenue limits by $325 per pupil per year for the next 400 years. 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed  Evers’ authority to make that change, but Republicans have been upset about it ever since. Tiffany, the Republican candidate for governor,  has built his campaign in part around reversing what he calls a “400-year property tax increase.” 

The amendment to limit executive authority is in line with Wisconsin Republicans’ actions during the 2018 lame duck session to strip powers from Evers and then-incoming Attorney General Josh Kaul. 

Wisconsin’s unique partial veto authority has been rolled back a number of times over the state’s history through the courts and the constitutional amendment process. While the Evers 400-year veto is the most recent controversy, former Republican Gov. Scott Walker used the power to extend a one-year moratorium on school referendum requests for energy efficiency projects, transforming it into a 1,000-year moratorium.

With the possibility that the party in control of both the governor’s office and Legislature could change hands this fall, the current amendment is timed for exactly the moment in state politics when it’s unclear which party will benefit from its passage.

Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), the author of the resolution, told Wisconsin Watch the goal of the amendment is to protect the separation of powers. 

“It’s always about separation of powers,” Kapenga said. “This is a mechanism put in place specifically for this reason, so that if we feel that those other two branches breached their authority in that separation, we say we’re going to go directly to the people and let them make that decision.”

But Cronmiller said the partial veto is a valuable tool for a governor who has been stymied by the Legislature, as Evers has been by Republicans during his nearly eight years in office, and that it shows a lack of long-term thinking to assume a Republican governor will never be in the same position. 

“I think that some Republicans right now maybe don’t have the long-term lens on, because this is a moment in time right now where they’re trying to stifle a Democratic governor,” she said. “But if changed and made permanent in the constitution, this is going to impact every governor.”

She added that the Legislature acting to take a power long held by the governor is not good practice, even if people disagree over the specifics of the governor’s veto authority. 

“Does the League have a long-standing position on what the veto powers of a governor should be? No,” Cronmiller said. “But the powers of the governor, as defined, should be upheld. So that kind of good government position that we’ve always taken is what compelled us to say vote no on this.”

Places of worship 

The third proposed amendment asks voters if “section 18 of article I of the constitution, which deals with religious liberty, be amended to prohibit the state or a political subdivision of the state from ordering the closure of, or forbidding gatherings in, places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including a public health emergency?”

Republicans proposed the amendment after the measures instituted to prevent the spread of COVID-19 included the closure of churches, sparking protests from a wide range of conservative groups. 

“Many of us, you know, dedicate our entire lives toward our faith, and in a situation like COVID, there’s a lot of fear, and there’s a lot of uncomfort, and there’s a lot of strangeness, things we’re not used to,” Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) told Wisconsin Watch. “When we’re in a situation like that, people of faith need their faith at that moment more than ever, and to deprive people of it is a particularly heinous sin that our government shouldn’t commit.”

But opponents of the amendment say that the government needs to be able to respond during a public health emergency. 

“In the moment when the governor’s executive order came out, it was like all of us need to do our part to keep those most vulnerable in our communities safe and not prone to catching a disease that could kill them,” Cronmiller said. “So, what is every first directive of public health: prevent disease. You know that’s what public health does, and so I think that conflating disease prevention with the right to worship is completely wrong-minded. No one’s right to worship was compromised during that executive order period. Churches, synagogues, every religious institution figured it out, just like every business did, just like every academic environment did.”

Reading Time: 7 minutes

Wisconsin voters on Nov. 3 will decide whether to approve three Republican-led state constitutional amendments that GOP lawmakers say would limit government overreach and Democrats describe as unnecessary. 

The general election referendums would limit the governor’s use of the partial veto to raise taxes and fees, prevent the government from stopping religious gatherings during future emergencies and ban discrimination by state and local governments and public education institutions. 

To amend the state constitution, lawmakers must sign off on identical language during two consecutive two-year legislative sessions before putting the question to voters. Under Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, Republicans have often turned to constitutional amendments as a way to advance their priorities without confronting the governor’s veto pen. 

State Rep. Dave Murphy, R-Hortonville, who led the ballot question on prohibiting government discrimination, said he sees a distinction between the types of issues addressed through legislation, which could reach the governor’s desk, and “fundamental” questions brought in a constitutional amendment. Murphy, who was first elected to the Assembly in 2012, is not running for reelection this year. 

“There are lots of things that I would do that Tony Evers would have vetoed. There are very few things that I would bring as a constitutional amendment to try to get around that,” Murphy said. “I’m glad that I can take this to the people for a signing rather than to Gov. Evers because I think the people will support this, but I think he maybe would have vetoed it.” 

Including the three this year, GOP lawmakers have put 12 constitutional amendments to voters during Evers’ nearly eight years as governor. Voters have approved seven of them. Nearly 63% of voters approved the most recent referendum in April 2025 on requiring photo identification to vote. 

Evers is encouraging voters to reject the Republican-led referendums. 

“I think they’re all frankly off base, and I’m encouraging people to say no,” Evers told Wisconsin Watch. “I mean, if we want our legislators to look like that and do stupid things like that, then vote yes. But I think most people are fine with what it is.” 

Milwaukee County executive and Democratic gubernatorial nominee David Crowley is also splashing cold water on the amendments. He said he would “absolutely not” vote for the governor’s veto amendment. He said the DEI amendment threatens government efforts to help older adults, veterans, people with disabilities and “individuals of all races, genders and religions.” On the amendment to allow religious gatherings during emergencies, he said “under extreme circumstances, leaders must make difficult decisions for the greater good of our state.”

“But let’s be clear: This is a bad faith argument from far-right extremists to distract from the fact they caused an affordability crisis for Wisconsin families,” Crowley said.

Republican nominee and U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany said he plans to support all three questions. 

“No governor, Republican or Democrat, should have unchecked power to raise taxes or fees with the stroke of a pen, especially for the next 400 years. While David Crowley wants to preserve that power, I support ending it regardless of who holds the governor’s office,” Tiffany said. “I also support constitutional protections for places of worship. Our constitutional rights should never be conditional, and our government should never be allowed to discriminate.” 

Here is what you need to know about the three constitutional amendments. 

The governor’s partial veto

Text on the ballot: “Shall section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the constitution be amended to prohibit the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto authority, from creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee?”

The background: Republicans advanced this question as a constitutional amendment after Evers used his veto pen during the 2023-25 budget to raise school revenue limits by $325 a year for the next 400 years. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority in 2025 sided with Evers in a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the 400-year veto. 

Sen. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield, who led the ballot question through the legislative process, said voter approval will reset the separation of powers between the Legislature, the executive branch and the courts. 

“It’s always about separation of powers,” Kapenga said in an interview. “This is a mechanism put in place specifically for this reason, so that if we feel that those other two branches breached their authority in that separation, we say we’re going to go directly to the people and let them make that decision.”

Republicans running for office this year have claimed incorrectly that the veto raises property taxes for the next 400 years. The veto actually raises annual revenue limits, not a specific tax or fee.

The revenue limit caps how much school districts can receive in revenue from a combination of general state aid and property taxes. Local school boards decide how much property taxes to raise and are not required to levy the maximum allowed amount, though historically most have. Under the revenue limit, the Legislature and governor can reduce local property taxes by significantly increasing general state aid to schools, but that rarely happens.

What groups support it?: Groups including the Wisconsin Property Taxpayers, Americans for Prosperity, the Wisconsin Realtors Association and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce all registered in support of the resolution during the 2023 and 2025 legislative sessions. 

Who is opposed?: State lobbying records show the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state’s largest teachers union, and the League of Women Voters registered in opposition to the question. 

Crowley told reporters in August he would be willing to use the partial veto if elected. 

“They want to eliminate the power of the governor, and so what they’re trying to do is just rig the system,” Crowley said. “This is not about rigging the system. This is about listening directly to constituents and figuring out how we can deliver on their behalf.” 

Gathering in places of worship during emergencies 

Text on the ballot: “Shall section 18 of article I of the constitution, which deals with religious liberty, be amended to prohibit the state or a political subdivision of the state from ordering the closure of, or forbidding gatherings in, places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including a public health emergency?”

The background: When the COVID-19 pandemic hit Wisconsin, the Evers administration’s “Safer at Home” order limited what businesses and activities could remain open in an effort to curb the spread of the virus. 

The order limited religious gatherings to fewer than 10 people. It categorized liquor stores as essential businesses allowed to remain open, which state Rep. Ron Tusler, R-Harrison, said sent a bad message to Wisconsinites.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2020, under a conservative majority at the time, struck down Evers’ “Safer at Home” order. But Tusler, who led the question during the 2025 session, said a constitutional amendment would prevent the government from controlling people’s access to places of faith in the future.

“Many of us, you know, dedicate our entire lives toward our faith, and in a situation like COVID, there’s a lot of fear, and there’s a lot of uncomfort, and there’s a lot of strangeness, things we’re not used to,” Tusler told Wisconsin Watch. “When we’re in a situation like that, people of faith need their faith at that moment more than ever, and to deprive people of it is a particularly heinous sin that our government shouldn’t commit.” 

What groups support it? Pro-Life Wisconsin and Wisconsin Family Action, Inc. registered in support of the ballot language during the 2023 and 2025 legislative sessions. 

Who is opposed?: The League of Women Voters opposed the constitutional amendment, according to state lobbying records.

“Closing places of worship does not prevent any person from worshipping God, as such worship can and is practiced on an individual basis in one’s own home during an emergency,” the organization wrote. 

Prohibiting DEI in government

Text on the ballot: “Shall section 27 of article I of the constitution be created to prohibit governmental entities in the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration?”

The background: Murphy, the Republican state representative from Hortonville, said the idea for the ballot question stemmed from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, which found considering race in admissions to higher education institutions is unconstitutional. Murphy said he saw an opportunity for a broader question that covered discrimination and giving preferential treatment to certain populations across all levels of government and education. 

“I’m just very much of a supporter of the idea that when people put government in charge of something, they want it to be the best it can be,” Murphy said. “One of the ways to do that is not to put a bunch of things that get in the way of picking based on merit.” 

Responding to criticism that the referendum could end programs that help disadvantaged groups in Wisconsin, Murphy said governments and schools can continue those efforts as long as everyone is able to participate.

“People that are disadvantaged are disadvantaged,” Murphy said. “If programs help disadvantaged people, then they will still be helped. It can’t exclude anybody.”

What groups support it? The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty won a case before the state Supreme Court, which found an undergraduate financial aid program for minority students was unconstitutional.

The case was decided unanimously by the liberal-controlled court, though liberal justices broke from conservatives to point out that the country’s history of racial discrimination continues to be entrenched in societal outcomes. The case advanced to the court as lawmakers were considering putting the constitutional amendment before voters.

The conservative law firm registered in support for the constitutional amendment during the legislative process. WILL Managing Vice President and Deputy Counsel Dan Lennington said the referendum will “end discriminatory DEI programs throughout Wisconsin and ensure our government serves all citizens equally.” 

Who is opposed?: Opponents have claimed the amendment would limit opportunities for disadvantaged groups. The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and the League of Women Voters opposed the constitutional amendment during the legislative process, according to lobbying records. 

The League said the amendment intends “to weaken the individual rights and liberties of Americans who have been guaranteed protection by the Civil Rights laws of our country.”

Learn more about the three Wisconsin constitutional amendments on the Nov. 3 ballot is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.