A yard sign urging voters to vote 'Yes' on a referendum request for Ashwaubenon School District in 2024 when a record number of schools went to referendum. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

As Wisconsin school districts seek permission this week from voters to spend more than $1.6 billion for operational and building costs, state lawmakers are looking for ways to address the issue of schools’ growing reliance on referendum requests.

Voters across the state are deciding this spring on a total of 94 referendum requests including some in February and many in the upcoming April 1 elections. According to the Wisconsin Policy Forum, it’s the most ever between January and April in a non-presidential or midterm election year and it’s the continuation of an ongoing trend.

Republicans have introduced three proposals for new limitations on the referendum process in reaction to Milwaukee Public Schools’ successful request last year, with lawmakers saying the proposals would increase fairness and transparency for voters and taxpayers. However, one Democratic lawmaker and other stakeholders said the proposals would limit local control and don’t address the structural financial issues that drive school districts to go to referendum.

Eliminating ‘recurring’ referendum requests

A bill coauthored by Rep. Cindi Duchow (R-Town of Delafield) and Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield)  would eliminate referendum questions that allow permanent operational funding increases and would limit other referendum requests to cover no more than a four-year period.

Duchow said in an interview with the Wisconsin Examiner that she doesn’t think there is a problem with school districts going to referendum and called them the “perfect tool” to allow local residents to make funding decisions. But she doesn’t think funding increases sought through a referendum should be permanent — or, in legislative terminology, “recurring” year after year. 

The referendum option was created for schools in 1993 as a part of legislation that put limits on schools’ ability to raise revenue by increasing property taxes. 

Anne Chapman, research director for the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials Association (WASBO), said in an interview that the idea behind the legislation was that property taxpayers would be protected and the state would take care of school districts financially in return. From 1993 to 2010, revenue caps — the limit on how much districts could raise without voters’ permission — were tied to inflation. The inflationary increases were eliminated in 2009 and state funding has not filled the gap to give schools an inflationary increase. 

According to WASBO, general school district revenues have lagged the rate of inflation for a decade and a half. If funding had kept up with inflation, districts would be getting $3,380 more per pupil in 2025.

Wisconsin schools also only receive funding for about a third of their special education costs and many are drawing from their general funds to keep up with providing expensive federally and state mandated services to students with disabilities. Districts are also dealing with declining enrollment, which results in lower funding for a district as there are fewer students even if fixed costs such as maintaining facilities may not fall.

School officials and advocates have pointed out that many districts are relying heavily on referendum requests to meet costs (even to keep schools open), saying the trend is untenable. Mauston School District is one example as school leaders were considering dissolving the district after two failed referendum requests until voters finally approved a request in February.

Chapman noted that when a referendum fails it can result in a school deferring maintenance, increasing class sizes and cutting staff, AP programs, language, support staff for special education, nurses, librarians, athletics and “all the things that kids need to kind of stay engaged in school.” 

Dale Knapp, director of Wisconsin-based research organization Forward Analytics, said in 2023 that he didn’t “think the lawmakers who created this law envisioned referenda being relied on this much.”

“Maybe the answer after 30 years of the limits is an in-depth review of the law to see how it can be improved to continue protecting taxpayers and ensure adequate funding of our schools,” Knapp said.

Duchow, however, said that the state is providing “plenty of money” to schools.

“If they want a new gym, that’s on them. I’m not here to build you a new gym. The people who live in that community should make that decision,” Duchow said. She also said there are some schools that probably need to consolidate and others that need to close.

While school districts do go to voters to fund building costs, many are also going to referendum for “operational” (and often recurring) costs and as a way to keep up with staff pay, afford educational offerings and pay utility bills.

Duchow said recurring referendum questions are unfair. She said lawmakers in the caucus have been discussing changing the policy for a while. A similar proposal was introduced in 2017.

“We are looking at declining enrollment around this state, and how do we know what we really need 10 years from now?” Duchow said. “The Milwaukee referendum never goes away, so 10 years from now, we have less students in Milwaukee and we need the same amount of money?  We have more technology coming in, which means we probably need less teachers.” 

Duchow said Milwaukee’s $252 million operating referendum, which was the second largest school operating request in state history, was the “catalyst” for her bill.

Republican lawmakers and other state leaders have been highly critical of the request, which the district said was needed to fund staff pay and educational programming and voters narrowly approved. The criticism grew louder after the district’s financial crisis that resulted in the resignation of the superintendent and audits launched by Gov. Tony Evers.

“Enough is enough. MPS is a disaster. We have the worst reading scores in the nation, and all they do is scream they need more money,” Duchow said. “Money is obviously not the answer.”

Even with declining enrollment, the Milwaukee Public School District is the largest district in the state with 65,000 students enrolled, according to the 2024-25 enrollment data from DPI. This is over 2.5 times as many students as the next largest district in Wisconsin, Madison Metropolitan School District.

MPS students are also more likely to face significant challenges. More than 20% of students in the district have a disability, more than 80% are economically disadvantaged and 17.5% are English language learners. Statewide about 40% of students are economically disadvantaged, 15.7% are students with disabilities and 6.92% are English language learners.

Chapman said students with higher needs often incur higher costs for districts. 

Duchow said that putting a four-year limit on referendum requests for recurring funds gives communities the ability to react to changing circumstances and that school districts should justify to voters why they need the funds. She said she would be open to discussing a different limit when it comes to nonrecurring referendum requests.

“It’s also not fair that everybody could vote for that referendum and then decide, hey, this is really too expensive. I can’t afford these property taxes and then they move out, and I’m still there paying the referendum,” Duchow said. 

Duchow said she hadn’t yet spoken with any school district leaders when she was interviewed by the Examiner in early March, but planned to reach out before a public hearing on the bill.

“I’m sure I can already tell you how the schools are going to feel. The schools are going to feel they want their recurring referendum, just like we want your boss to give you a 20% raise every year without you justifying why you should get it,” Duchow said. “That’s what the schools want, too. I don’t blame them. I would, too, but we can’t do that to our taxpayers.”

According to the Wisconsin Eye on Lobbying website, the Wisconsin Education Association Council has registered against the bill, while the Wisconsin REALTORS Association has registered in favor.

Lawmakers have added new restrictions to school referendum requests before. The 2017-19 state budget limited scheduling of a referendum requests to only two per year and only allowed them to be held on regularly scheduled election days.

“It used to be that referendums could be called by a school district at any time, but the Legislature said… we don’t want you to have the option to run so many referendums,” Chapman said. 

Chapman noted in an interview that recurring referendum requests pass at lower rates than other types because it is harder to convince taxpayers. She said voters “know how to handle this” and lawmakers shouldn’t further reach in to restrict district’s options.

“Some districts and some communities want a recurring referendum,” Chapman said. “School districts have the option of asking for recurring and sometimes they do and voters sometimes approve them because they’re asking to fill structural budget holes that are never going to go away. They’re asking for basic operating dollars that they’re going to need in four years.” 

A recent Marquette Law School poll found that Wisconsinites are becoming increasingly concerned with holding down property taxes since 2018 and less favorably inclined toward increasing funding for K-12 public schools. 

Chapman noted that districts also often make nonrecurring referendum requests for recurring costs because they are an easier ask, though this places districts in another difficult position.

“As soon as you go to nonrecurring referendum in this environment with grossly inadequate state funding and state policies to support schools financially, you are now going to be in your own personal fiscal cliff,” Chapman said. “You’re going to have to go again, and probably for more, because your costs have gone up and funding does not keep up with inflation.” 

Bills meant to provide ‘fairness,’ ‘transparency’

Lawmakers, concerned about the MPS referendum, requested a Legislative Fiscal Bureau memo last year that found some school districts in Wisconsin could see a decrease in state aid after the MPS referendum due to the way that equalization aid is calculated.

Equalization aid acts as a form of property tax relief, according to the Wisconsin School Business Officials Association. The amount of aid a district receives from the finite pot of money distributed by the state is determined by a formula that depends on a district’s property wealth, spending and enrollment.

Spending triggered by referendum requests is one factor in determining districts’ equalization aid, and Milwaukee — like other districts with low property wealth per pupil compared to the rest of the state — will receive more state aid per pupil than other districts with higher property wealth per pupil as a result of its increased spending from the referendum.

Chapman noted, however, that all 148 referendum requests for operating expenses in 2024 affect the share of equalization aid districts receive. She also emphasized that it’s not the only factor affecting the amount of aid districts get.

“Some districts have increasing enrollment, which means they’re going to pull more money away from Milwaukee.” Chapman said. “There’s all of these factors that affect every single district, and they intertwine with each other.”

Republicans viewed Milwaukee’s referendum as taking too much from other districts. 

“Is it fair to the students, parents and taxpayers in Waukesha, Madison, Wautoma and others suffer without having the right to cast a vote?” the bill authors Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha) and Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) asked in a memo. “Local school referendums should not have a significant negative impact on other districts. Simple fairness demands this type of thinking.”

The lawmakers’ bill would exclude any district referendum request worth more than $50 million from being considered when determining equalization aid. The effect of the bill would be that districts that pass a large referendum would have their aid eligibility reduced, leaving local taxpayers to pay more of the cost. The bill would only apply to districts below a certain property wealth value.

Chapman said the bill would penalize districts for being larger and having lower property wealth and is an example of lawmakers trying to micromanage local entities.

A final bill introduced by Allen and Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) would require that tax impact information be added to ballots. Currently, referendum ballot questions are required to include the dollar amount of the increase in the levy limit.

Under the bill, referendum questions would also need to include the estimated interest rate and amount of the interest accruing on the bonds, any fees that will be incurred if the bonds are defeased and a “good faith estimate of the dollar amount difference in property taxes on a median-valued, single-family residence located in the local governmental unit that would result from passage of the referendum.” 

Proposal criticisms

Freshman Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) said he wasn’t inclined to support a ban on recurring referendum requests given the inconsistency in state funding. 

“We go through this sort of toxic [state] budget cycle every two years and districts have to levy, and they don’t even know what to plan for, so recurring referendums are obviously a response to that,” Phelps said.

Phelps said the question of fairness is relevant when talking about the referendum process, but the framing of the Republican proposals is misguided, given the state’s over $4 billion budget surplus.

“It is not fair to taxpayers that, depending on what school district you live in, you might have an astronomical property tax bill just to keep that district running. That’s not fair,” Phelps said. He said the state of Wisconsin is “underfunding public schools and not using the taxes people already paid.”

Derek Gottlieb, an associate professor at the University of Northern Colorado and senior research director for School Perceptions, an education research firm, said Republicans appear to be “operating on behalf of the taxpayers across the state who have voted no on school referendums and yet lost and so had their taxes raised anyway.”

“Suddenly, because so many [referendum requests] are passing, homeowners, taxpayers who don’t want to have their taxes raised are saying that this is unfair or we shouldn’t have to have our taxes raised just because everybody in our community wants to raise our taxes and Republicans are coming to the defense of those folks,” Gottlieb said. 

According to the Wisconsin Policy Forum, while the number of requests continues to rise, approval rates have started to decline with the 66.2% approval rate in 2024 being the lowest in a midterm or presidential election year since 2012.

Gottlieb said some of the concerns raised by lawmakers are valid. For example, he said the current terms used to describe referendum questions are “obscure” and unclear.

“Why not just say a permanent referendum and a temporary referendum?” he asked. “You could do a lot to increase the transparency of what people are voting on if you made that little language change.” 

Gottlieb also said that he does have “sympathy” for those who don’t think there should be permanent funding requests, but acknowledged that this would have consequences for districts because it removes predictability in planning.

However, he said he doesn’t agree that the potential for people to move out of a community or into a community in the future should be the deciding factor in funding decisions. 

“That’s a basic feature of any community anywhere,” he said. 

The argument that “it is not a legitimate exercise of public governmental power to make a decision for a community, given the fact that the community will change in the future…is ridiculous,” Gottlieb said. “If that were the case, it would make all public decisions fundamentally illegitimate.”

The increasing number of referendum requests, Gottlieb said, is a sign that revenue limits are set too low, at an amount that is unacceptable to community members. He noted that when operational referendum requests fail, the schools typically cut theater arts, advanced placement coursework, second language instruction, foreign language instruction and other programs that aren’t required by the state.

Chapman called the proposals a “BandAid” on the issues districts are facing that “isn’t even really fixing the problem.” 

“[If] legislators really wanted to protect taxpayers and make sure schools have what they need, they would do something like keep revenue limits inflationary [and] significantly improve the funding for special education, which would help every single kid,” Chapman said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rep. Robin Vos and Sen. Julian Bradley testified on a bill to verify the immigration status of people being held for a felony charge. Screenshot via WisEye.

Republican lawmakers argued Wednesday that the state needs to require local law enforcement to report people with felony charges to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if they can’t verify citizenship as a way to support public safety.

Proposed legislation would require local sheriffs to verify the citizenship status of people in custody for a felony offense and notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if citizenship cannot be verified. It would also require sheriffs to comply with detainers and administrative warrants received from the federal Department of Homeland Security for people held in the county jail for a criminal offense. It comes as President Donald Trump and his administration have started to ramp up deportation of migrants in the U.S. without legal authorization and taken other steps to restrict U.S. immigration. 

Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) emphasized during Assembly Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee hearing that their bill, AB 24, would only apply in cases of felony offenses.

“This seems to get dragged into a lot of other immigration policy, but I want to repeat individuals who are here illegally who commit felonies,” Bradley said. 

“Let’s be clear again. This proposal will make it easier to remove dangerous criminals from our communities,” Bradley said. “It’s shocking to think that a handful in law enforcement and our government would rather protect felons than work with our federal partners to stop the flow of crime and drugs into our neighborhoods.”  He added that he hoped to see bipartisan support for the bill. 

The lawmakers said  counties that don’t comply with ICE are putting other counties at risk.

Vos brought up a 2024 arrest by Prairie du Chien police of a Venezuelan immigrant who they said was affiliated with a gang and was charged with assaulting a mother and daughter. Republicans have repeatedly used the case to make political points about immigration.

“Prior to his arrest in Wisconsin, he was arrested in Minneapolis on suspicion of vehicle theft, he was booked into the Hennepin County Jail and soon released. Hennepin County, unfortunately, is listed as a non-cooperative facility,” Vos said. “Prompt ICE notification could have prevented this terrible crime from occurring right here in Wisconsin.”

A 2024 ICE report lists Dane and Milwaukee counties as “noncooperative institutions” in Wisconsin. Seven counties in the state currently have formal agreements with ICE to hold in jail immigrants without legal status. There were eight at one point, but Lafayette County ended its participation in ICE’s 287(g) program.

Under the bill, the county of a sheriff who does not comply would lose 15% of its shared revenue payments from the state in the next year. Compliance would need to be certified each year with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha) questioned why an additional mandate on local law enforcement was necessary and pointed out the potential financial impact the bill could have on local officials. The financial impact to counties was pointed out as a concern in written testimony provided by Badger State Sheriffs’ Association. 

“Law enforcement already has the opportunity to allocate their resources as they need,” McGuire said. “That’s why we elect sheriffs. We want to put them in a position so they can make those determinations for their local community, and instead we’re mandating that they comply with the federal government in this case, and we don’t really know what the local circumstances are.”

County governments are “already struggling with challenges and staffing and their financial circumstances, and then we threaten to harm them financially if they don’t [comply],” he added. “What are we gaining?”

Public safety, Bradley answered,  adding that as long as sheriffs don’t “do what Milwaukee and Dane County are doing” then they “don’t have to worry about the claw back.” 

Vos justified the penalty with a reference to the long delay by Milwaukee Public Schools in placing 25 police officers in schools required by the 2023 state shared revenue law. He said not including a penalty in that legislation was a “mistake.” 

“If you want to enforce it, then there has to be a penalty,” Vos said. 

The bill lists fifteen documents that could be used to verify the status of a person arrested, including a U.S. passport, a birth record issued by a state in the US that bears an official seal or other mark of authentication, a certificate of naturalization and U.S. citizenship or a permanent resident card.

Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) asked how quickly someone would have to produce the necessary records. 

“It’s people who are accused of a crime and not convicted,” Emerson said. “Because not everybody carries every single piece of paperwork and certainly not a notarized copy of a birth certificate around with them.”

Bradley said the bill would leave it up to the discretion of law enforcement but added he would be open to debating changes.

Emerson also asked if any consideration had been given to cases where a felony charge is potentially downgraded to a lesser charge. 

The authors said that the bill doesn’t consider that. 

“The people have already committed a crime by coming into the country illegally,” Vos said — although being in the U.S. without authorization is not a criminal offense in all cases.

 “The second crime that they would be committing would be potentially a violent felony,” Vos said. “All we’re saying is you have to notify ICE and then at that point ICE will give them all the opportunity to prove they are here legally. There is no problem with that, but that’s not really the responsibility of the citizens of Wisconsin.”

Under federal law, entering the U.S. without the approval of an immigration officer is a misdemeanor offense that carries fines and no more than six months in prison. However, in a significant number of cases, such as when someone enters the country legally and overstays a visa, it is just a civil violation.

Racine County District Attorney Patricia Hanson told lawmakers the bill is necessary to address political and policy barriers between Wisconsin’s 72 counties and to enable federal, state and local enforcement agencies to enhance safety. 

“This change in no way affects hard-working, undocumented people who may come to our jail for driving without a license. It will not even affect undocumented people who commit petty theft, who lie to the police about their identity, abuse their spouse with minor injuries, or drive drunk or impaired up to the third offense. None of those are felonies in Wisconsin,” Hanson said. “One could even argue under some of these circumstances this bill is not far enough, but it is a good start.”

Witnesses testifying against the bill said it could create fear in communities and discourage people from reporting crimes. 

Alondra Garcia, who said she is a visa holder, former DACA recipient and current Milwaukee Public Schools educator, said recent anti-immigrant rhetoric since Trump took office has been “disheartening” and “dehumanizing.”

The bill, she said, “would allow racial profiling to be acceptable in our community.”

“Immigrants, including those with legal status, will fear interaction with law enforcement, making them less likely to report crimes or seek help when needed. It will separate families and destabilize communities,” Garcia said. “Families will live in fear that a routine traffic stop or minor interaction with law enforcement could lead to detention and deportation.” 

Two groups — the Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association and Badger State Sheriffs’ Association — are registered in favor of the bill, according to the state’s lobbying website. Several groups are registered against the bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Inc, Kids Forward, Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Wisconsin Council of Churches, Wisconsin Counties Association and the Wisconsin Education Association Council.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) says that legislation requiring sheriffs to cooperate with ICE is meant to “keep communities safe” and that the message to sheriffs is “do not put your personal politics above the safety of the citizens who elected you.” (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Republican state lawmakers said Tuesday they would introduce a bill to force local law enforcement to verify the citizenship status of people in custody for a felony offense and to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if citizenship cannot be verified. Counties that do not comply would be at risk of losing state money. 

Lawmakers said that Wisconsin needs to assist President Donald Trump and the federal government with its work deporting “illegal immigrants” from the United States. Since inauguration day, federal agents have arrested more than 8,000 people, including some people who had no criminal history. 

State Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) said at a press conference that the legislation is meant to “keep communities safe” and that the message to sheriffs is “do not put your personal politics above the safety of the citizens who elected you.”

Under the bill, noncompliance by a sheriff would result in a 15% reduction in the county’s shared revenue payments from the state in the next year. Counties across Wisconsin rely on those payments to fund public safety, emergency medical services, transportation and other services. Sheriffs would have to certify compliance each year with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

The bill would also require sheriffs to comply with detainers and administrative warrants received from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for individuals held in the county jail for a criminal offense. Sheriffs would also need to seek reimbursement from the federal government for any costs incurred while holding people. 

“We don’t want Wisconsin on the hook for this,” Bradley said. 

The bill would also require sheriffs to keep a record of people who were verified as unlawfully residing in the U.S. and submit the information to the Legislature in a biannual report.

Lawmakers said that sheriffs would continue to have discretion over whether to report people who aren’t detained for a felony offense.

Bradley said that only “far left extremists in this country believe that someone here illegally that commits a felony should be allowed to stay.” He noted that the Laken Riley Act, which expands the mandatory detention requirements of immigrants charged and arrested on petty and other crimes, passed Congress with the help of 46 House and 12 Senate Democrats. He said the issue should be one with bipartisan support and called on his Democratic colleagues to sign on.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel first reported the legislation after obtaining a copy of the draft bill.

Similar legislation was enacted in North Carolina last year.

Democratic opposition

Gov. Tony Evers has already committed to vetoing the legislation should it make it to his desk.

In a statement released to the Journal Sentinel, Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback called the bill an “unserious proposal” that is “trying to micromanage local law enforcement decisions by threatening to gut state aid by 15% for our local communities — that’s a non-starter.”  

“We shouldn’t be threatening law enforcement with deep budget cuts, we should be working together with local law enforcement to improve public safety, reduce crime, and keep dangerous drugs and violent criminals off of our streets,” Cudaback said. 

Assembly Majority Leaders Tyler August (R-Walworth) said it’s “unbelievable” Evers would threaten a veto of the legislation. 

“It’s unbelievably unfortunate, but not unexpected that the governor would threaten to veto a bill that he hasn’t even seen yet,” August said. “[It] seems to be his M.O. that he governs by veto.”

Currently, seven Wisconsin counties have agreements with ICE to hold in jail immigrants without legal status to reside in the U.S. At one point, that number was eight, but Lafayette County ended its participation in ICE’s 287(g) program.

August said lawmakers talked with county officials, including those in Waukesha, while drafting the bill.

“A lot of the sheriffs already do this by practice because they know that it’s what’s right for their communities,” August said. 

Dane, Milwaukee counties considered noncooperative

In a cosponsorship memo, lawmakers point to a June 2024 ICE report that lists Dane and Milwaukee counties as “noncooperative institutions.”

Dane County until recently participated in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), in which it provided the names of immigrants lacking legal status to the federal government and in return were reimbursed for the costs of their incarceration.

Dane County Sheriff Kalvin Barrett recently ended the county’s participation in the program. He told Channel 3000 that it’s a “different time” and that the “the previous administration is completely different than our current administration, and we have to be able to continue to represent the values of our community.” 

Milwaukee County Supervisors Caroline Gómez-Tom, Juan Miguel Martínez, Anne O’Connor, Steven Shea, Sky Z. Capriolo and Justin Bielinski denounced the legislation in a statement, calling it a “dangerous” proposal that would make sheriffs “a tool of the Trump administration’s bigoted obsession with scapegoating immigrants.”

The supervisors said that mandating that sheriffs honor ‘administrative warrants’ not approved by a judge would “bog down law enforcement with false alarms — preventing them from focusing on real public safety concerns like reckless driving, drug overdoses, and rising crime.” 

They also warned that the bill could force Wisconsin residents to carry documents at all times to prove they have “the right to live in their homes, go to work and pick their children up from school,” and that “anyone detained by a Wisconsin sheriff who cannot immediately prove their legal status would be at risk of being handed over to federal authorities.”

A 2024 survey conducted by the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland in conjunction with the Brennan Center for Justice found that more than 9% of American citizens of voting age don’t have documents — including a passport, birth certificate, or naturalization papers — to serve as proof of citizenship readily available. The survey found that the lack of documentation could be for various reasons including documents being in the home of another family member or in a safety deposit box or that the documents have been lost, destroyed or stolen. 

“The only thing this proposal accomplishes is to bankrupt Wisconsin law enforcement both morally and fiscally,” the supervisors said, adding that they encourage the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s office to “remain focused on actual public safety instead of enabling the worst policies of Trump extremists.”

ACLU of Wisconsin condemned the legislation, saying it “sends the wrong message.” The group noted that it could mean that any one who invokes their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent would have to be reported to ICE along with anyone who cooperates but fails to have access to the specific documents listed in the bill.

“It sends the message that local law enforcement should take on the additional tasks and risks of immigration status investigations,” Executive Director Melinda Brennan said in a statement. “It will encourage xenophobic sheriffs to investigate the status of not just persons accused of serious crimes but of anyone who enters their custody.”

Republican lawmakers accused Democrats of being extremist. Democratic lawmakers announced a proposal last week that would block state and local government officials from cooperating with federal deportation efforts without a judicial warrant. It would apply to detentions in a public building or facility, school, place of worship, place where child care services are provided, or place where medical or other health care services are provided.

August said Democrats’ proposal “basically would turn the entire state into a sanctuary state.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE