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

Sen. Jesse James is the coauthor on the postpartum Medicaid expansion bill. Screenshot via WisEye.

Members of the Wisconsin Senate Health Committee expressed support on Wednesday for a bill that would extend Medicaid coverage for postpartum mothers to a year after the birth of a child.

Typically, people in Wisconsin are only eligible for Medicaid coverage if they make up to 100% of the federal poverty level, but pregnant women can receive Medicaid coverage in Wisconsin if they have an annual income of up to 306% of the federal poverty level. While a newborn whose mother is a Medicaid recipient receives a year of coverage, mothers risk losing their coverage after 60 days if they don’t otherwise qualify for Medicaid.

The bill — SB 23 — seeks to change this by extending Medicaid coverage for postpartum mothers from 60 days to a full year after childbirth. 

“This bill does not change that income threshold so no new women would qualify for Medicaid,”  bill coauthor Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) said at the hearing. “It would just allow for those women, who are already being covered, to be covered for longer to help address potential health issues that arise during the postpartum period.”

“My goal as a legislator… is to make sure we keep moving Wisconsin forward and fight for the future of our youth. We, as a state, are unfortunately behind on this issue,” James said. “We have a chance to do better for our moms, our kiddos and our families as a whole.”

The federal government gave states the permanent option to extend coverage to a year postpartum in 2022 in the American Rescue Plan Act.

Gov. Tony Evers has been proposing covering mothers for a year in each of his budget proposals since 2019, but the Republican-led Legislature has rejected it each time. A Republican bill passed the Senate last session with only one opposing vote and also gained the support of a majority of Assembly lawmakers, but it never came to a vote. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) has been a staunch opponent of the policy, saying that he doesn’t support expanding “welfare,” and has so far blocked its passage. 

There are currently 23 Senate cosponsors and 67 Assembly cosponsors on the bill. 

DHS Legislative Director Arielle Exner told lawmakers that from 2020 to 2022, there were 63 pregnancy-related deaths in the state of Wisconsin with one-third of pregnancy-related deaths occurring after that 60-day postpartum period; 76% of those who died had Medicaid at the time of their delivery. In 2023, Medicaid covered 35% of births in Wisconsin and 41% of births nationwide.

“Wisconsin moms are losing health care coverage when they need it the most,” Exner said. 

Exner said the agency projects that an additional 5,020 women would have coverage per month under the bill, and that according to a fiscal estimate by the Department of Health Services, the policy would cost $18.5 million in all funds with $7.3 million in general purpose revenue.

If Wisconsin accepted full Medicaid expansion, which would expand Medicaid coverage to nearly all adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level, the cost for the postpartum coverage would be reduced to $15.1 million in all funds with $5.2 million in general purpose revenue — a total lower cost to Wisconsin.

DHS chief medical officer Jasmine Zapata, who is also co-chair of the Wisconsin Maternal Mortality Review Team and a newborn nursery hospitalist, called attention to the fact that the numbers and statistics are representative of people’s lives. She noted that the team reviews medical records, police records, hospital records, family interviews and more when looking at the deaths. 

“The way they were found deceased in their homes after a suicide or overdose… striking stories and heartbreaking stories… their children were there when they were found, brain matter splattered on the floor after a gunshot wound to the head, these are serious situations that are happening,” Zapata said. “For every statistic that we see, we have to remember that there are real lives and real stories behind them.” 

Zapata said that providing access to health care is one of the biggest recommendations that the review committee has. 

Arkansas is the only other state besides Wisconsin that has  not implemented the extension, a fact that was brought up repeatedly during the hearing. That state has also recently been working on maternal health legislation, though a recent bill still excludes the 12-month Medicaid coverage.

“Are they going to beat us and we [will] become the last in the union that does not have this coverage?” bill coauthor Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) asked. “It is my sincere hope that Wisconsin does not become the last… If we can’t get something like this done, then I don’t know what I’m doing in the Legislature.” 

“Can you believe it?” Snyder commented after a question. “Arkansas.” 

Jackie Powell, an OB-GYN who is completing her training in maternal fetal medicine, represented the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists at the hearing. She said she often cares for the highest risk patients, who may have chronic medical conditions. 

“During pregnancy, we have the opportunity to gain control of these conditions, but for these people who lose their insurance and lose their health care postpartum, we are essentially erasing all progress that we have made throughout their pregnancy,” Powell said.

Powell said that through her work she sometimes diagnoses a major medical condition, including heart failure, cancer and kidney failure, during pregnancy that “alters someone’s life course.”  

“Many of these patients need life-saving surgery and intervention postpartum to save their lives. Oftentimes, we need to deliver patients very preterm so that they can receive this care that they need,” Powell said. 

“Imagine being told that you need to have major surgery for a life-threatening medical condition within the first few weeks after delivering your baby, and possibly preterm baby, and then losing your insurance. Imagine the complications that you could still experience without the appropriate follow-up care when in the last year, you underwent all of this. Imagine walking into the neonatal intensive care unit to see your baby that you delivered prematurely in a hospital where you can no longer be treated,” Powell said. “This is a failure of our medical system.” 

Former Rep. Donna Rozar, who was the lead author on the bill last session and is a nurse, also testified on the bill.

“I could not get, even, a public hearing in the state Assembly, which made me really mad, and so I’m hoping that this year, some things will be different,” Rozar told lawmakers. 

Rozar said that she has heard objections to the bill that people could seek coverage through the Affordable Care Act rather than Medicaid once the coverage is lost after 60 days. 

“If you have a two-month-old, the last thing you want to do is change insurance programs. At 60 [days], you’re caring for a two-month-old and shouldn’t have to worry about health care coverage,” Rozar said.

There are 37 groups — including American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Inc, Medical College of Wisconsin, American Heart Association, Pro-Life Wisconsin — registered in support of the bill, according to the Wisconsin Lobbying website. No one is registered in opposition. 

“I think we’re all on board with this bill,” Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) commented to the room at one point.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rep. Joel Kitchens (R-Sturgeon Bay) speaks about the cell phone ban bill. Screenshot via WisEye.

Republican lawmakers made the case Tuesday for a state law that would require school districts to implement a policy banning cell phones and other devices from classrooms as a way to improve students’ focus and performance. 

The bill — AB 2 — would require school districts to adopt a policy that “generally prohibits pupils from using wireless communication devices during instructional time.” The policies would need to include certain exceptions in emergencies, cases involving   student’s health care, individualized education program (IEP) or 504 plan and for educational purposes. Under the bill, the policies would need to be adopted by July 2026.

Wireless communication devices are defined as a “portable wireless device that is capable of providing voice, messaging or other data communication between two or more parties” and explicitly includes cell phones, tablet computers, laptop computers and gaming devices. 

Rep. Joel Kitchens (R-Sturgeon Bay) and Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) said the policy would be beneficial to students and though many schools already have some, the statewide policy is needed to put enforcement power behind school districts.

“Phones can be a distraction for all of us, but it’s even worse for students,” Kitchens said during a Tuesday hearing in the Assembly Science, Technology, and AI committee. “The interruptions and the pressures of social media are detrimental to children’s mental health as well as to their education.”

According to DPI’s 2024-25 State Digital Learning survey approximately 90% of districts already have some sort of restrictive cell phone policy in place. About 320 out of the 421 public districts in Wisconsin participated in the survey. 

“The problem is enforcement without a strong unified approach to the problem. Most teachers eventually throw up their hands… By applying the power of state law behind these restrictions, we’re giving support to our schools,” Kitchens said. “This is not something we are doing to the school districts, [it’s] something we’re doing with them.”

Kitchens said that the law will not “usurp” local control as each district will be able to determine its own policy. He said an amendment to the bill was drafted to clarify that schools can also ban devices throughout the entire day, including lunch. 

“We deliberately drafted the bill to be as open as possible,” Kitchens said. 

Kitchens noted that much resistance to the policies comes from concerns parents have about being able to reach their children during the day. 

“If they’re only banned during class time, they can still reach them between classes. Schools will write their own policy on how they can be reached in case of emergency,” Kitchens said.

According to the Education Commission of the States, several states across the country, including Ohio, California, Florida, have similar statewide policies.

“The results of cell phone bans in schools have been universally positive in the U.S and across the world,” Kitchens said. “In Orlando, schools report that students are more engaged with less bullying and early reports show a dramatic improvement in test scores.” 

Democrats on the committee were skeptical about the need for a state law addressing the issue, given that many school districts already have policies in place restricting cell phone use for students. 

Rep. Ben DeSmidt (D-Kenosha) said the bill could create confusion and complication for school districts that already have policies in place. 

“If we’re just going to muddy the waters with this, and the problem is already being dealt with by school boards… Why don’t we trust those local electeds? Why are we challenging their authority?” DeSmidt asked the bill authors. 

Kitchens said that the intention isn’t to create confusion, but to provide enforcement mechanisms and provide cover to school districts when dealing with parents.

DPI Assistant State Superintendent Josh Robinson and Policy Initiatives Advisor Sara Knueve testified at the hearing and made some recommendations for how to make it more effective. 

Robinson said the bill gets to the “heart of” the idea of engagement. He said technology “is here to stay” and educators are responsible for ensuring students have the “digital learning skills necessary to compete and thrive in society.” On the other hand, he said DPI understands that there is a need to “mitigate the negative impact” devices can have on students’ mental health and learning.

Knueve noted that cell phone policies in schools vary greatly. 

“In general, middle and high schools tend to have some form of restriction, while elementary schools usually enforce a ‘no phones during the day’ policy. To manage devices, some schools use strategies like “phone hotels” or caddies for storage,” Knueve said. 

Robinson called the goal of limiting technology disruptions during classroom time “wise,” but had a few recommendations for how to change the proposed legislation. Instead of starting with an outright ban of all devices, the agency suggested setting a statewide policy goal of restricting non-district-issued electronic devices and leaving the local implementation of the policy up to each district. 

One of the specific suggestions was to require each school board to develop and adopt a policy that limits or prohibits pupils’ use of electronic communication devices during instructional time and also articulates specific times that the district cannot prohibit use of devices.

DPI also recommends that the bill update or repeal a current state statute, so there is no conflict. Wisconsin Statute 118.258 already states that each school board may, but isn’t required to, adopt policies prohibiting students from using electronic communication devices on premises owned, rented or under the control of a public school.

Finally, DPI said the bill should be changed to make a clear distinction between non-district-issued wireless communication devices and district-issued wireless communication devices.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE