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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nedweski said the bill would help restore trust.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capping tuition increases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cellphone ban bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breast cancer screening coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allowing candidates to remove their name from ballots

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

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

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

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

His amendment was voted down by Republicans. 

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

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

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

Other bills advanced by the Senate: 

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

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

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

Senate approves without political violence condemnation

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rejection kickstarted heated debate about Kirk’s legacy. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) agreed. 

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

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

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

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

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

Assembly amends resolution 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haywood said that Republicans were dividing people.

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

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

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE