(Photo by Drew Angerer | Getty Images)

Wisconsin voters on Tuesday approved a constitutional amendment to enshrine the state’s already existing voter ID law into the state Constitution. 

The amendment was approved by 25 points. The Associated Press called the election less than 40 minutes after the polls closed. 

The Republican-authored referendum does not change the law that was already on the books in the state which requires that voters show an approved ID to register to vote and receive a ballot. Republican legislators said the amendment was necessary to protect the statute from being overturned by the state Supreme Court. In recent years, Republicans in the Legislature have increasingly turned to the constitutional amendment process to shape state law without needing the signature of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. 

Democrats had accused Republicans of including the referendum on the ballot in this election as an effort to boost conservative turnout in the state Supreme Court election. 

Wisconsin’s voter ID law has been on the books for more than a decade. During debate over the law, Republican lawmakers discussed its potential to help the party win elections by suppressing the vote of minority and college-aged people who tend to vote for Democrats. 

Democrats and voting rights groups said the law amounted to a “poll tax.” A 2017 study found that the law kept 17,000 people from the polls in the 2016 election. 

Since its passage, a number of court decisions have adjusted the law, leading the state to ease restrictions and costs for obtaining a photo ID — particularly for people who can’t afford a high cost or don’t have proper documents such as a birth certificate. 

Republicans in Wisconsin and across the country have increasingly focused on photo ID requirements for voting since conspiracy theories about election administration emerged following President Donald Trump’s false claims that he was robbed of victory because of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential campaign.

While the law doesn’t change, the approved language of the amendment gives the Legislature the authority to determine what types of ID qualify as valid for voting purposes. Currently, approved IDs include Wisconsin driver’s licenses and state IDs, U.S. passports, military IDs and certain student IDs.

(Photo by Drew Angerer | Getty Images)

Wisconsin voters will weigh in on a constitutional amendment to enshrine the state’s photo ID requirement to vote in the state Constitution in the April 1 election. 

On ballots this spring, voters will be asked “shall section 1m of article III of the constitution be created to require that voters present valid photographic identification verifying their identity in order to vote in any election, subject to exceptions which may be established by law?”

If approved, the state Constitution would be changed to include the provision that “no qualified elector may cast a ballot in any election unless the elector presents valid photographic identification that verifies the elector’s identity and that is issued by this state, the federal government, a federally recognized American Indian tribe or band in this state, or a college or university in this state.” 

The provision would give the Legislature the authority to determine which types of ID qualify as acceptable. Current law includes state issued driver’s licenses and photo IDs, U.S. Passports, military IDs and unexpired university IDs (expired student IDs are allowed if proof of current enrollment such as a tuition receipt or course schedule is provided). 

In several recent elections, Wisconsin Republicans have put constitutional referenda on the ballot in an effort to make policy changes without needing Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ signature. 

Wisconsin has had a state law requiring voters to have an acceptable photo ID to register to vote and cast a ballot since 2011. During debate over the law, Republican lawmakers discussed its potential to help the party win elections by suppressing the vote of minority and college-aged people who tend to vote for Democrats. 

Democrats and voting rights groups said the law amounted to a “poll tax.” A 2017 study found that the law kept 17,000 people from the polls in the 2016 election. 

Since its passage, a number of court decisions have adjusted the law, leading the state to ease restrictions and costs for obtaining a photo ID — particularly for people who can’t afford a high cost or don’t have proper documents such as a birth certificate. 

Republicans in Wisconsin and across the country have increasingly focused on photo ID requirements for voting since conspiracy theories about election administration emerged following the 2020 presidential campaign. 

The process to amend the state constitution requires that a proposal pass the Legislature in two consecutive sessions and then be approved by the state’s voters in a referendum. 

If passed, the amendment would change little for Wisconsin voters because the existing law has been on the books in its current form for nearly a decade. When the amendment was proposed, Republicans said its goal was to protect the photo ID law from being struck down by the courts. 

“I cannot say for certain how the Wisconsin Supreme Court would rule on voter ID laws, but I’m also not willing to risk the Wisconsin Supreme Court declaring voter ID laws unconstitutional,” Sen. Van Wanggaard said at a public hearing on the proposal. 

But Democrats say it’s unnecessary to amend the constitution to add something that’s already in state law and accuse Republicans of including the referendum on the ballot in this election in an effort to increase Republican turnout in the contested races for state Supreme Court and superintendent of schools. 

“It’s my feeling, and it’s a feeling of most people, that you don’t legislate via changing the constitution,” Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Appleton) said at a March 17 panel on the referendum. “I think that there is pretty wide evidence that this is hitting the ballots for political reasons. I think that the majority party is afraid of what happens if we get into the majority and if we decide that existing law needs to be amended or changed or overturned entirely.”

Snodgrass added that  “we are essentially wasting everybody’s time by adding this to the ballot. And I think we’ve had five of these now already. So it’s a pattern, and it’s politically motivated.”

Gov. Tony Evers signed the 2023-25 budget bill with 51 partial vetoes on July 5, 2023. (Baylor Spears | Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Republicans are proposing a constitutional amendment that would restrict the governor’s partial veto power on appropriation bills. 

The lawmakers — Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha), Sens. Cory Tomczyck (R-Mosinee) and Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) — said in a statement that the partial veto power has been “abused” by governors to “twist legislation passed by elected representatives into something that is unrecognizable.” 

“We need a permanent fix to this problem,” the lawmakers stated. 

Wisconsin has one of the strongest partial veto powers for its executive in the country, but it has been limited several times across history. 

The ability to exercise the “Vanna White” veto — eliminating single letters within words — was barred in 1990 by a constitutional amendment. Another constitutional amendment passed in 2008 eliminated the “Frankenstein veto” —  the ability for governors to create new sentences by combining parts of two or more sentences.

In 2020, a decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled three of Evers’ partial vetoes unconstitutional, limiting the power further. There still is no consensus about the extent of the power.

Currently, the state Constitution says that the veto may “not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill, and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences.” This would be replaced, under the current proposal, to say the governor may “only reject one or more entire bill sections.” 

Allen said during a press conference that the proposal would return the state to the “original intent” of the veto power. He pointed to a Legislative Reference Bureau report that states “there is no evidence that the partial veto power was originally intended to allow the governor to fashion new words or sentences or to embark on new policy directions not intended by the Legislature. The partial veto was intended to be a check on the Legislature, not a means for the governor to rewrite legislation.”

The attempt to limit the power comes after Evers used it last session to extend school funding increases for 400 years — a move that Republicans criticized as overstepping his power.

The Court has taken a case considering the veto. Republican lawmakers pointed to a comment by Justice Jill Karofsky during arguments, in which she said, “It does feel like the sky’s the limit, and perhaps today, we are at that fork in the road, and… we’re trying to think, like, should we today in 2024 start to look at this differently?”

Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback said in a statement about the proposal that “it says a lot about Republicans’ priorities that they are attempting to put yet another Republican-drafted and Republican-backed constitutional amendment on the ballot while they refuse to give the people of Wisconsin that same opportunity.”

Evers has criticized Republican lawmakers for repeatedly legislating by constitutional amendment and has proposed implementing a citizen ballot initiative in Wisconsin to allow voters to amend the law without input from lawmakers. 

“Republicans’ message to the people of Wisconsin is clear: power for me but not for thee,” Cudaback said. “If Republican lawmakers are going to continue ignoring the will of the people and legislating by constitutional amendment, then they should approve Gov. Evers’ plan to give the people of Wisconsin the power to pass policies by a majority vote at the ballot box.”

When it comes to ongoing use of the amendment process, Allen said, “the Constitution gives us the power to amend. It specifically calls on the Legislature to amend the Constitution.” 

When it comes to citizen-led initiatives, Allen noted that he lived in California for four years and said it can be “very intimidating” to receive information about ballot initiatives. He said that he thinks the current process of passing legislation “works quite well.” 

“What we don’t want to do is we don’t want to discourage people from voting, so I think that the process is designed — in a democratic republic like we have — where citizens want to see law changes, they talk to their representatives,” Allen said.

As a constitutional amendment, the lawmakers’ proposal would need to pass the Legislature in two consecutive sessions before going to voters, who would decide whether to ratify it. 

This is the second constitutional amendment  lawmakers have proposed in recent years to curb the governor’s veto power. One passed the Legislature last session that intends to prevent the governor “from creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee” using the partial veto.

Allen said the new proposal encompasses the issue the tax-related proposal was seeking to address, but that lawmakers “may be interested” in putting both measures before voters.

Wisconsin Supreme Court chambers. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The members of Wisconsin’s Republican congressional delegation formally endorsed Brad Schimel in the April Wisconsin Supreme Court election Monday in a virtual news conference that highlighted Schimel’s campaign talking points.

Schimel, a Waukesha County circuit judge and former one-term state attorney general, is running for an open seat on the court against Susan Crawford, a Dane County circuit judge.

Elections for the state Supreme Court are officially nonpartisan, but they’ve become partisan in all but name over the last couple of decades, with both major parties supporting candidates. While Schimel’s announcement Monday touted the backing of congressional Republicans, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and other key Democratic leaders have endorsed Crawford.

The race to replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley will determine whether the Court’s four-member liberal majority remains or falls to a new four-member conservative majority. 

At the Monday morning news conference U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Prairie du Chien) said the Wisconsin voters who helped carry Donald Trump to a second term as U.S. president in November would do the same for Schimel in April.

“They’re sick and tired of the radical left agenda,” Van Orden said. “They want to make sure that someone that is sitting on the court is interpreting the law, not writing the law.”

Among the questions from reporters on the call was one about Schimel’s past statements on the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters trying to overturn Joe Biden’s election as president in 2020.

During a talk radio show broadcast on Jan. 2, Schimel charged that the prosecution of the Jan. 6 defendants in Washington, D.C. — where the Capitol is located and the attack took place — was the result of political “manipulation” by Democrats because the population of the city “is overwhelmingly liberal.”

“They would never take their prosecution in a district where you had a fair shot as a defendant,” Schimel told radio host Vicki McKenna.

During Monday’s news conference, a member of Schimel’s campaign staff relayed a reporter’s question that began with a reference to a former U.S. Capitol Police officer “who is coming to Wisconsin tomorrow to criticize your comments about the defendants in those cases.”

The question didn’t specify Schimel’s comments or their context, but asked what he  thought “of the Trump pardons for Jan. 6 protesters who assaulted law enforcement officers.”

“I have no idea what comments you are talking about,” Schimel replied, adding, “I’ve said that anyone who engaged in violence and Jan. 6, assaulted a police officer, resisted arrest, those people should have been prosecuted. They should be prosecuted and held accountable, and judges should impose sentences that are just under the circumstances.”

But Schimel also criticized the use of a federal law against election obstruction to lodge felony charges against some of those who had broken into the Capitol that day. He said it took the U.S. Supreme Court to “finally recognize that prosecutors in Washington, D.C., overreached.” The Court vacated those convictions.

In addition, he voiced support for a president’s right to pardon offenders. “It’s a power they have,” Schimel said. “I don’t object to them utilizing that power.”

The news conference signaled that Schimel’s campaign is focusing on, among other subjects, Wisconsin’s 2011 law requiring voters to show a picture ID when they go to the polls. 

Republican lawmakers have proposed an amendment that would  enshrine the requirement in the state constitution. That proposal goes before voters on the April ballot — alongside the Supreme Court race. Republicans argue that the state Supreme Court might otherwise overturn the law.  

Schimel also raised the circuit court decision, now under appeal, that would overturn the 2011 law known as Act 10 sharply restricting collective bargaining for public employees.

As an attorney, Crawford represented clients who sought to overturn the state’s Voter ID law as well as Act 10.

“She advocated, she fought against and tried to overturn Wisconsin’s Voter ID law,” Sen. Ron Johnson said. “It’s such a huge difference between conservative judges, people like Brad Schimel, who will apply the law faithfully — again, not what his policy preferences are, but respect not only our state constitution, but the federal constitution in the separation of powers, the checks and balances and being a judge, not a super legislator.”

Schimel noted Crawford’s work as a lawyer opposing Act 10 in a case that the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority at the time, rejected.

“This has been settled law for over a decade, but it’s coming right back,” he said. “If my opponent wins, does anyone believe a case, a law, like Act 10 has any chance of a fair, objective examination?”

Asked what his standard would be for recusing himself from ruling on a case, Schimel said that would include “any case where my family, I or my family, my immediate family, have a personal stake, win or lose, in that case.” He said he would “perhaps … need to recuse” himself on issues with which “I was directly involved in the past” or that “I took strong positions on” — but added that “it’s hard to predict what that might be in a vacuum like this.”

On Monday, however, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin accused Schimel of prejudging the issue of abortion rights. The party highlighted a New York Times report on the race that included references to his opposition to abortion rights and his work as attorney general in helping to “map out a strategy to restrict abortion rights.”

The Times article quoted Schimel telling supporters during a campaign stop this past summer that he supported Wisconsin’s 1849 law that was thought to ban abortion until a December 2023 circuit court decision declared that it did not. That ruling is now under appeal and the case is likely to go before the state Supreme Court, possibly this year.

“There is not a constitutional right to abortion in our State Constitution,” The Times quoted Schimel telling supporters in Chilton. “That will be a sham if they find that.”

Wisconsin has long had a photo ID requirement for voting on its books — one of the strictest in the nation. This year, voters will decide whether to make it harder to weaken that requirement.

The April 1 ballot contains a proposal that would enshrine the photo ID requirement in the state’s constitution. Republican lawmakers backed the proposed constitutional amendment in an effort to prevent the ID policy, passed in 2011, from being gutted in court. 

Approval of the amendment wouldn’t affect the current ID requirement, experts say; rather, it would prevent or at least complicate future efforts to undo it.

The ballot question coming before voters on April 1 will ask whether the Wisconsin Constitution should be amended to “require that voters present valid photographic identification verifying their identity in order to vote in any election, subject to exceptions which may be established by law.”

The amendment would state, in part: “No qualified elector may cast a ballot in any election unless the elector presents valid photographic identification that verifies the elector’s identity.”

Voters can vote “yes” if they want the proposal in the constitution and “no” if they don’t. Whichever way the amendment goes, Wisconsin would continue to have a photo ID requirement for voting because it’s already state law. 

The amendment appears likely to pass. Most constitutional amendment proposals in Wisconsin pass when they come before voters, and 74% of Wisconsin residents polled in 2021 supported the photo ID requirement. The Assembly and the Senate both passed the amendment proposal in January on party line votes, with Republicans in favor and Democrats against.

Making the policy a constitutional requirement, and not just a state law, makes it far less likely that a court could strike it down, said Bree Grossi Wilde, executive director of the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School. It also means a future Legislature can’t remove the requirement by simply repealing the statute, she said, though it would allow lawmakers to modify the requirement to some extent by creating exceptions.

It’s unclear how far those exceptions could go before they would effectively “gut the requirement” in violation of the constitution, Wilde said. Some states, for example, allow people without photo IDs to cast a ballot if they sign a legal statement affirming their identity. 

“Maybe there is still wiggle room on the part of the Legislature to provide relief from the requirement in certain circumstances,” she said. “Whether you could say, ‘If you don’t have an ID, you don’t have to provide it,’ that might be too far. A court might not protect that.”

What’s the history behind photo IDs for voting?

The law that the amendment would enshrine was enacted in 2011 but faced court challenges that limited its implementation for several years. Republican proponents said it would make elections more secure by protecting against voter impersonation, something that research has shown is rare. Opponents of the law filed lawsuits alleging that the policy made it too hard to vote. 

Its first use in a presidential election was in 2016, and the requirement has remained in place ever since. 

The law requires voters to present their photo ID when they vote. If they can’t show ID, they can cast a provisional ballot and would have to present their photo ID afterward to have that ballot count.. Acceptable photo IDs include  driver’s licenses, military IDs, IDs issued by federally recognized Native American tribes, U.S. passports, some university IDs, free voting IDs issued by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and some other types.

Wisconsin is among nine states that have “strict photo ID” laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In these states, voters must have a photo ID when they vote, or have to vote via provisional ballot and then provide photo ID later — either to poll workers on Election Day or to the local election clerk within days of the election — for their ballots to count. Other states either have strict non-photo ID laws, less stringent ID requirements or no ID requirement at all.

Researchers have found that Wisconsin’s law had a disenfranchising effect.

In the 2016 presidential election, an estimated 4,000 to 11,000 eligible people in Dane and Milwaukee counties didn’t vote mainly because they lacked an eligible photo ID, a study concluded, based on survey responses from nearly 300 registered nonvoters. The study, by then-University of Wisconsin-Madison political science professor Ken Mayer, estimated that for 8,000 to 17,000 people in those heavily Democratic counties, lack of photo ID was one of many reasons they didn’t vote.

People who were Black, who earned lower incomes and who had less formal education were less likely to have eligible photo IDs, the study states. 

Republicans widely criticized the study over its sample size and methodology. Republicans have also criticized Democrats for simultaneously arguing that photo IDs are too hard for some people to get while also saying, in their effort to encourage voting, that free voter IDs are easy to get.

The IDs are indeed free, but getting to a Division of Motor Vehicles office to obtain one isn’t, said Lauren Kunis, CEO and executive director of VoteRiders, which helps voters obtain the identification they need to vote.

“Convenience matters when we’re talking about voting,” she said. “Some of us think about voting all day, every day, and we’ll make it a priority to get your ducks in a row and get everything you need well in advance of any deadlines. But that is not the case for the average eligible voter in the United States, and we need to design policies and systems that think about that voter.”

The law’s specifications about which IDs are acceptable make it more complicated, said Jake Spence, VoteRiders’ Wisconsin coordinator. 

For example, standard IDs issued by some big state universities, including UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee, aren’t suitable for voting. The state’s strict criteria for student ID used for voting requires including the date the card was issued, the student’s signature and an expiration date no later than two years after its issuance. The standard student IDs issued at those universities don’t meet those requirements, though students can ask for compliant IDs.

Across Wisconsin, Kunis said, VoteRiders staff and volunteers have encountered not only people who couldn’t vote because they didn’t have an appropriate ID but also people who had appropriate IDs but didn’t vote because they were confused by the law, sometimes unaware that their ID met the requirements.

What should I know about the proposed amendment?

Republican proponents say they want to put the law in the constitution to keep the liberal-majority Wisconsin Supreme Court from striking down the photo ID requirement, especially if liberal candidate Susan Crawford, who argued against the ID rule in court, wins a seat on the high court in April’s election.

“I cannot say for certain how (the) Wisconsin Supreme Court would rule on voter ID laws, but I’m also not willing to risk the Wisconsin Supreme Court, unburdened by precedent and the Wisconsin Constitution, declaring voter ID laws unconstitutional,” Republican Sen. Van Wanggaard said at a hearing on the proposal.

Democratic legislators and Democratic Gov. Tony Evers ardently opposed the proposed amendment, saying it has a disenfranchising effect. 

“This is about voter suppression,” said Rep. Christine Sinicki, a Milwaukee Democrat, adding that there were people in her neighborhood who can’t get a photo ID to vote. 

The measure passed nonetheless in the GOP-majority Legislature. Evers doesn’t have the power to veto constitutional amendment proposals, which must pass two successive legislatures before they can appear on the ballot.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Wisconsin’s voter ID ballot question: Here’s what you need to know 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.

Assembly Republicans speaking about the voter ID constitutional amendment proposal at a press conference Tuesday. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner

The Wisconsin State Assembly passed a proposal Tuesday that could enshrine voter ID requirements in the state constitution if the majority of Wisconsin voters support it. The passage sets it up to go to Wisconsin voters in April — on the same ballot as a consequential election for the state Supreme Court. 

The proposal passed 54 to 45 along party lines, with Republicans voting in favor and Democrats against. It was first introduced last week and quickly received public hearings before being passed by the Senate.

Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) said during a press conference ahead of the session that he authored the proposal to “ensure that the people of Wisconsin have full confidence in the security and integrity of Wisconsin elections.” He noted that voter ID tends to poll well. 

Rep. Scott Krug (R-Nekoosa) said that there are “plenty of reasons” to pass the proposal, including being able to get it to the voters for the next available election in April. Wisconsin doesn’t have fall elections this year, so the next opportunity after that would be in 2026.

According to the proposal, the question will be asked to voters as follows: “Shall section 1m of article III of the constitution be created to require that voters present valid photographic identification verifying their identity in order to vote in any election, subject to exceptions which may be established by law?”

Wisconsin is one of nine states in the U.S. that already have a strict voter ID requirement. However, lawmakers are taking the additional step of attempting to enshrine it in the state constitution for fear  the Wisconsin Supreme Court could overturn the existing law. 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has had a liberal majority since August 2023, and the Court may soon consider overturning other laws including Act 10, which ended collective bargaining rights for most public employees, and a challenge to an 1849 law that has been interpreted as a felony ban on abortion after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. 

Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) said during floor debate that lawmakers “have been getting lawsuited out of relevance” and that they must “resist our laws becoming lawsuits.” 

“We are the lawmaking body in the state of Wisconsin,” Knodl said.  

With Justice Ann Walsh Bradley retiring at the end of her term this year, a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court is up for grabs and puts the ideological balance of the Court in play. Judge Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel, a former attorney general, are running for the seat. 

Democrats accused Republicans of wanting the voter ID measure on the ballot because of the Supreme Court race, and were critical, saying there are other priorities that lawmakers could be acting on. 

“I’m disappointed that the majority has decided to make this the very first piece of policy that the Assembly takes up this session,” Assembly Minority Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said. “It is a transparent effort to preserve power for one party and to give an advantage at the ballot box in April.” 

Neubauer said the amendment was to the “detriment” of voters “who have a more difficult time, obtaining an ID and casting their ballot.” 

“We know that voter ID laws are frequently enforced in a discriminatory manner and that they disproportionately impact people of color, those with disabilities and people living in rural communities,” Neubauer said. 

Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) said the proposal is about using the constitutions to “take away the rights of people” and that there are people in her community who can’t get an ID. 

“This is about voter suppression,” Sinicki said. 

Republicans pushed back on the arguments, saying voter ID laws don’t infringe on people’s ability to cast their ballots and that the proposal was ready to go. 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) pointed out that “zero bills” have been introduced by the Democrats so far this session in response to the accusations that Republicans were taking action on the wrong issue. 

Chair of the Assembly Campaigns and Elections Committee Rep. Dave Maxey said there has been an evolution of identification throughout history and said voter ID was just one step. 

“Who knows? One day, we might have microchips planted in our arms to prove who we are. I’m not advocating for that future this year… In Wisconsin, voter ID requirements are already helping to save our elections, but enshrining these laws into our constitution would further affirm our commitment to election integrity.” He said the amendment will “preserve these protections for generations to come.” 

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) argued that voters don’t face significant obstacles to voting due to the voter ID laws, and pointed to Wisconsin’s voter turnout rates as proof. About 73% of Wisconsin voters cast ballots in the 2024 November elections. 

“This is about making sure that a rogue Court cannot strike down a common sense law that is supported by over 80% of Americans from across the political spectrum, so rather than trying to scare Wisconsinites with outlandish claims of voter suppression, and rather than assuming that Wisconsin voters are not smart enough to obtain an ID, I encourage our colleagues… to actually look at the data.” Nedweski said. 

In response to the Assembly floor session, Gov. Tony Evers repeated his recent pitch to lawmakers to allow the voters themselves to place constitutional amendments on the ballot. 

“Poll after poll has shown Wisconsinites support common sense policies like protecting reproductive freedom, expanding BadgerCare, legalizing marijuana and gun safety reforms, among other critical efforts. Republicans have repeatedly rejected those policies, often with no deliberation, debate, or vote. That’s wrong,” Evers said. “If Republican lawmakers are going to continue ignoring the will of the people and legislating by constitutional amendment, then they should give the people of Wisconsin the power to pass the policies they want to see at the ballot box.”

Republicans who control the Wisconsin Legislature are moving quickly to place a measure on the April ballot to enshrine the state’s already strict voter ID requirement into the state constitution.

The move would make it more difficult for Democrats to soften the 14-year-old law or overturn the requirement in court. Other states have taken similar steps in recent years to put voter ID requirements in the constitution. Voters approved it in Mississippi in 2011 and North Carolina voters in 2018, while Minnesota voters rejected it in 2012.

The voter ID constitutional amendment is the first proposal being considered by the Wisconsin Legislature this year. The session began Monday, there was a public hearing Tuesday, and the Senate was approved it Wednesday. The Assembly was expected to give final approval next week.

Democrats on Tuesday accused Republicans of rushing to enshrine a requirement that they argue makes it more difficult to vote.

“I’m irritated,” Democratic Sen. LaTonya Johnson said at the hearing Tuesday, held less than 24 hours after lawmakers were sworn into office. “There are definitely more important issues than this.”

Johnson noted that the proposal was coming three weeks after a school shooting about 6 miles from the state Capitol but was taking precedence over gun control measures. A student shot and killed a fellow student and teacher before killing herself.

Constitutional amendments must pass the Legislature in two consecutive sessions and then be approved by voters before taking effect. The Legislature passed the voter ID proposal last session and must approve it again by Jan. 21 to get it on the April ballot for voter approval.

Control of the state Supreme Court also hangs in the balance in that April election. The race for an open seat will determine whether liberals maintain control for at least the next three years. The Democratic-backed candidate, Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford, was the lead attorney in a 2011 lawsuit challenging the voter ID law.

Republican Sen. Van Wanggaard, lead sponsor of the measure, said Tuesday that he was “not willing to risk” the law being struck down by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

There are no pending legal challenges to voter ID, even though the state Supreme Court has sided with Democrats in other major cases, including throwing out Republican-drawn legislative maps and overturning a ban on absentee ballot drop boxes.

“We can be sure that a new lawsuit challenging its constitutionality is coming,” Wanggaard said.

Enshrining the requirement in the constitution would make it more difficult for a future Legislature controlled by Democrats to change than a state law.

Democrats who have long opposed voter ID also picked up seats in the Legislature in November under newly enacted maps more friendly to them and are hoping to regain majority control of at least the state Senate in two years.

The possibility of Democrats regaining majority control has led Republicans to enact a number of constitutional amendments to protect laws they have passed.

Republicans put five constitutional amendments before voters last year, the most in a single year since 1982, and four more could be on the ballot in the next two years.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers has proposed giving voters the ability to place constitutional amendments and other proposals on the ballot, going around the Legislature. Republican leaders signaled that would be rejected.

Polls have shown wide public support for a voter ID law, despite opposition from Democrats and advocates who say it makes it harder for people to vote, especially older people and those without an ID.

Even if the amendment is approved, lawmakers could still decide what types of photo IDs are acceptable. Voters without a photo ID could still cast a provisional ballot, as they can now. The ballot is counted if the voter returns later with a photo ID.

Wisconsin enacted its law in 2011, one of the first actions Republicans took after they gained majority control from Democrats after the 2010 election.

Wisconsin is one of nine states where voters must present a photo ID to cast a ballot, the strictest requirement in the country, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A total of 36 states have laws requiring or requesting that voters show some sort of identification at the polls, according to NCSL.

Wisconsin’s voter ID law has been challenged in whole or in part numerous times since it was enacted, but the requirement has survived.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Wisconsin Republicans pushing to make voter ID a constitutional requirement 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.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers’ plan to let voters repeal and create state laws without legislative involvement met opposition on Monday from Republican leaders of the Legislature, who signaled that the idea is likely to be rejected for a second time.

Evers’ plan comes the same day the Legislature kicked off its two-year session. Republicans remain in control, but their majority is at its narrowest since they took over in 2011.

That means the dynamic between the Legislature and Evers, entering his seventh year as governor, will largely remain as it has been. Republicans must approve anything Evers wants to get done.

Still, the Democratic Evers is reviving a plan to weaken the powers of the Legislature that Republicans already previously rejected.

Evers said on Friday that the state budget he plans to unveil next month will include a mandate that legislators take up a constitutional amendment allowing voters to petition for ballot proposals to repeal state statutes and create new ones. Evers made a similar proposal in 2022 for voters to repeal the state’s 1849 abortion ban, but Republicans killed the plan.

Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos rejected the idea.

“It appears that Tony Evers’ single agenda item for the next session to is take power away from the elected members of the Legislature,” Vos told The Associated Press. “If that’s his focus, it’s going to make it awfully hard to find consensus.”

Republican Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said in a statement that Evers should focus on cutting taxes and scaling back the size of government.

Republicans hold a 54-45 advantage in the Assembly and an 18-15 majority in the Senate in the two-year session that started Monday.

There are six new state senators, all Democrats. Nearly a third of the Assembly — 31 lawmakers — are newly elected. Of them, 23 are Democrats. Those new lawmakers make up the majority of the 45-member Democratic caucus.

Lawmakers have said they are hopeful the slimmer GOP majorities will lead to more compromise, but on this issue they don’t appear to be willing to go along with what Evers wants.

Wisconsin is one of 24 states that do not provide a way for people to reject or enact statutes outside of the legislative process, according to Ballotpedia.

Evers said Republicans have been ignoring the will of the people by refusing to legalize marijuana, repeal the abortion ban, implement gun control measures and increase funding for public schools. Instead, he said, the GOP has been enacting policy through constitutional amendments, denying voters a voice.

“Republican lawmakers are going to continue to try to legislate by constitutional amendment,” Evers said. “Then they should give Wisconsinites the same opportunity that 26 other states have.”

Constitutional amendments must pass two consecutive legislative sessions and a statewide referendum to take effect. The governor plays no role in the process.

Republicans have asked voters to approve seven amendments since 2010, according to data from the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative. Voters ratified three in 2024 alone, including two in April to restrict use of private money in election administration and one in November that prohibits foreign nationals from voting. Republicans could put another amendment to voters in April’s elections that would cement voter identification requirements.

Gun control advocates planned to be in the Capitol on Monday shortly before the session kicks off to press lawmakers to take action following a shooting by a 15-year-old student on Dec. 16 at a Madison private school that left a teacher and student dead and two other students severely injured. The shooter killed herself.

Evers called a special session in 2019 in an attempt to pass gun control measures, including requiring universal background checks, but Republicans took no action.

Evers also called a special legislative session in September 2022 to approve a constitutional amendment similar to his latest proposal. He promoted it as a way to repeal the abortion ban and ensure abortion remained legal in Wisconsin after the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

Republicans convened and ending the special session in less than 30 seconds.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers’ plan to let voters repeal and create state laws gets GOP resistance 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.