A Wauwatosa police squad on the scene of a non-fatal officer-involved shooting. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

The State Assembly’s Committee on Judiciary held a public hearing Wednesday to discuss a bill which, if passed, would restrict the use of John Doe hearings in cases where prosecutors decline to charge police officers after deadly force incidents. Republicans and law enforcement supporters of the bill (AB-34) said officers need to be protected from repeated investigations, and that anti-police groups have abused Wisconsin’s John Doe law to harass innocent officers who’ve been involved in civilian deaths. A long line of attorneys, legislators, social workers and others spoke in opposition to  the bill, arguing that it adds to an array of legal privileges and protections police already enjoy.

Wisconsin’s John Doe law allows for a judge to be petitioned to review a case where prosecutors have already decided not to file charges. Once a John Doe hearing has been called, the judge may hear arguments from the petitioner as to why probable cause should be found that a crime was committed. If the judge agrees that probable cause does indeed exist, then special prosecutors may be appointed by the judge to review the case. Those prosecutors, however, ultimately decide whether charges will be pursued, regardless of whether a judge finds probable cause of a crime. 

Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie), an author of the bill, said the law had been used to “unfairly target” two officers who’ve been involved in deadly incidents. Former Wauwatosa officer Joseph Mensah killed Jay Anderson Jr. in 2016, claiming that Anderson lunged for a gun on the passenger seat of his vehicle. Anderson was the second person Mensah had killed in a year. He was involved in a total of three fatal shootings over his five year career at Wauwatosa PD. Mensah left Wauwatosa PD in late 2020 and was hired by the Waukesha County Sheriffs Department, where he is a detective. 

In 2021, a John Doe hearing was called to review Anderson’s shooting, after which Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Glenn Yamahiro found probable cause existed to charge Mensah with homicide by negligent use of a dangerous weapon. The second John Doe hearing, started in 2023, focused on Madison police officer Matthew Kenney for the 2019 killing of 19-year-old Toney Robinson. A judge declined to allow the hearing to go forward. 

“After the investigations, the court confirmed that he had acted in self-defense,” Moses said of the John Doe hearing in Anderson’s case. Mensah’s John Doe hearing “mirrored” reviews done by the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, U.S. Attorney’s Office, FBI, and Wauwatosa PD, he said. “It’s concerning that such investigations, which echo previous exhaustions, can be perpetuated, consuming significant time and resources,” said Moses. 

While speaking Wednesday, Moses incorrectly referenced Mensah’s 2015 shooting as being the reason for the John Doe hearing in 2021. “Officer Mensah used self-defense to protect himself while on the job in a situation in 2015,” Moses testified on Wednesday. In 2015, Mensah killed 29-year-old Antonio Gonzales while still in his probationary period at Wauwatosa PD. Neither Gonzales, nor Mensah’s third fatal shooting of Alvin Cole in 2020, were the subjects of John Doe hearings.

Last year, when the bill was first introduced, Moses joined Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) in claiming that families of people killed by police were seeking vengeance against officers. Moses confused details of Mensah’s shootings during those hearings as well. When asked about the mix up, Moses admitted to Wisconsin Examiner that he had not closely followed the Mensah cases. 

As Moses testified on Wednesday, Hutton joined him in the committee room. Hutton, who has brought forward Senate versions of the bill, has said that although he’s taken extensive feedback from law enforcement about the bill, he has not reached out to the families of people killed by police. During a hearing in February, Mensah testified in favor of the bill.

Mark Sette, vice president of the Wisconsin Fraternal Order of Police, said the bill is “crucial” and that law enforcement “have both the duty and right” to use deadly force to protect themselves or others. Sette said that police must make split second decisions in high-stress circumstances, and that deadly use of force incidents “are rare”. Sette praised Wisconsin’s process of conducting reviews of deadly force incidents led by an outside agency, saying that the investigations are thorough. Sette said that repeated investigations prevent officers from moving on with their lives, and trap them in a cycle of psychological trauma and financial stress. 

West Allis Police Chief Patrick Mitchell, a former president and current legislative chair of the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, also praised the investigative process. Mitchell pointed to the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team (MAIT) as an example of how thorough reviews of deadly force incidents by police can be. 

Not everyone was sold on the bill, however. Rep. Andrew Hysell questioned Sette and Mitchell about whether or not it’s possible for a district attorney to make a mistake in clearing an officer of wrongdoing. Sette said although it’s possible, that it’s “incredibly unlikely” because of the thoroughness of deadly force investigations. Hysell said that district attorneys aren’t infallible, and that the bill — if passed — would set in stone a prosecutor’s decision, and deny one legal avenue for families of people killed by police.

After Moses, Sette, and Mitchell came numerous people from a variety of backgrounds voicing opposition to the bill. Gregory Jones, vice president of the Wisconsin NAACP and president of the organization’s Dane County branch, urged lawmakers to dig deep, ask tough questions, and consider all aspects of how the bill could negatively impact civil rights and the pursuit of  justice. 

Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin, stressed that the bill takes away judicial discretion and elevates law enforcement as a privileged class above all other citizens. Merkwae noted that prosecutors and law enforcement have close working relationships, and that district attorneys often rely on the very officers whose actions they’d need to review when citizens are killed. 

The advocacy director also cited investigations by MAIT, citing an investigation by Wisconsin Examiner in partnership with Type Investigations, which reviewed 17 MAIT investigations from 2019-2022, all of which resulted in no charges against officers. Merkwae listed the article’s findings including that officers who kill citizens are interviewed as witnesses or victims only, can refuse to have their interviews recorded, and may amend their statements after viewing video evidence. In several MAIT investigations, officers were not separated from one another to prevent statement contamination despite this being a required policy. 

Mensah and other officers provided contradictory statements and were not separated from one another after his third shooting. These facts were raised during a federal civil trial into Alvin Cole’s death earlier this year. The trial ended in a hung jury, with jurors unable to unanimously agree on whether Mensah’s killing of Cole was excessive. 

Merkwae said that last year, Wisconsin had 24 fatal police encounters, up from 14 incidents the prior year. “So by creating a separate standard for police officers, this bill sends the message that they are above the law,” said Merkwae. “Which, I think, is a dangerous precedent that erodes trust and makes community engagement with law enforcement more fraught and less effective.” 

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) also spoke in opposition. Clancy said that he hadn’t planned to speak on the bill, but decided to when he heard Mensah’s name being used. “The idea that an officer who killed three people in three different incidents is a poster boy for why this is good legislation rather than bad is mindblowing to me,” said Clancy. “Joseph Mensah serves as an example of how our current system is failing the people that it is designed to protect. Had Joseph Mensah been held accountable after the first time he shot and killed somebody, he wouldn’t have shot and killed a second and a third person, in three different incidents. And it is sickening to me that he was brought up as an example of how this is necessary because he feels that some folks are mean to him in trying to find some measure of accountability.”

More people rose to speak against the bill after Clancy. Some were social workers and medical staff, who recounted being spat on, punched, kicked, scratched, and hurt yet never once considering criminally charging the person who hurt them. It’s a privilege that police officers have which they do not, the speakers argued. At one point, a Wisconsinite who wished to be identified only as G. Lee attempted to testify while wearing a hat that used an obscenity to criticize President Donald Trump. Committee Chair Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) called the hat offensive and got into an argument with Lee, after which he called for the assistance of the  Capitol Police and called the committee into recess. 

When the hearing re-started, G. Lee was allowed to testify on AB-34 while wearing the hat, though he was warned any breaches of decorum would result in him being removed. Lee apologized that the hat “threatened or offended” Tusler, and stated that Tusler reacted from a position of power. Comparing that to the powers police have, Lee said “what scares me about the decorum set in this room, and the measure tied to this bill, is about power.” 

Lee, speaking directly to Tusler, said that when the hearing was stopped because of Tusler’s feelings, “One of my concerns here is that we are privileging the feelings of law enforcement over the feelings of families who’ve actually lost loved ones to bullets. That’s an important thing to consider here. The whole system is set up to protect a particular part of the state power, and you’ve used your state power to make a message.”

This article has been edited to correct a misspelling of Menomonie, represented by Rep. Clint Moses.

GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN - MARCH 30: Billionaire businessman Elon Musk arrives for a town hall meeting wearing a cheesehead hat at the KI Convention Center on March 30, 2025 in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The town hall is being held in front of the state’s high-profile Supreme Court election between Circuit Court Judge Brad Schimel, who has been financially backed by Musk and endorsed by President Donald Trump, and Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

On April 1 Wisconsin voters decisively voted against unprecedented, massive outside interference in our state Supreme Court election by the nearly $30 million from the richest and second (to Donald Trump) most egotistical person in the world – Elon Musk.  In handing Musk’s endorsed candidate, Brad Schimel, a more than 10 percentage point, 269,000-vote drubbing, Wisconsinites rendered the nation a great service by humiliating Musk here and thereby driving him from the corridors of power and influence in Washington D.C. where he has been  savaging vital U.S. government services and programs that helped the poorest people in our nation and in the world.

Wisconsin also opted to preserve recent democracy reforms in our state by maintaining the current 4-3 progressive majority on the Court.  Fairer and more representative state legislative voting maps and the restoration of the use of secure ballot drop boxes for voters will be preserved and the possibility of new and enhanced political reform is possible in the years immediately ahead either through upholding reforms passed legislatively, through court action, or both.

But what can be done about the obscene amount of political money raised and spent to elect a new Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice in 2025 – as much if not more than $105 million – by far the most amount ever spent in a judicial election in the history of the United States?  Wisconsin faces new state supreme court elections every April for the next four years and a continuation of such frenzied and out of control spending for the foreseeable future seems both unbearable and unsustainable.

Voluntary spending limits for Supreme Court candidates with the incentive of providing them with full public financing if they agree to statutory spending limits is a possibility.  Wisconsin actually had such a law in place for exactly one Supreme Court election in 2011.  The Impartial Justice Act was made possible by passage with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the Wisconsin Legislature and enactment into law in 2009.  In 2011, both candidates for a seat on the high court agreed to the voluntary spending limits of $400,000 each and received full public financing. That campaign was robust, competitive and the result was close, which is what you would expect in Wisconsin.  And it cost just a tiny fraction of the more than $100 million that was spent in 2025.

Unfortunately, later in 2011, then-Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-controlled Wisconsin Legislature defunded the Impartial Justice Act and all other public financing for elections, Four years later, Walker and the GOP completely eviscerated and deformed Wisconsin’s campaign finance laws. They did away with limits on what political parties and outside groups can raise and spend in elections, increased individual campaign contribution limits and, most alarmingly, legalized previously illegal campaign coordination between so-called issue ad spending groups and candidates, which greatly increased opportunities for corruption and undue influence through campaign spending. Disclosure requirements were weakened and, in some instances, dismantled altogether.

In just four short years, Wisconsin was transformed from one of the most transparent, low spending and highly regarded election states in the nation to one of the worst, least regulated special interest-controlled political backwaters in the nation, akin to Texas, Louisiana or Florida.

This current corrupt status quo will remain in place for the upcoming state Supreme Court elections in 2026, 2027, 2028 and 2029 unless the governor, Legislature and the Wisconsin Supreme Court take action and do the following:

• Re-establish an “impartial justice” law for the public financing of state Supreme Court elections modeled after the 2009 law which was in place for only one election before it was repealed. Update and revise it to better fit current times and circumstances including more realistic spending limits and higher public financing grants.
• Establish clear recusal rules for judges at all levels in Wisconsin that clearly decree that if a certain campaign contribution is reached or surpassed beyond a certain threshold amount, then the beneficiary of that contribution (or of the expenditure against her/his opponent) must recuse from any case in which the contributor is a party before the court.
• Restore sensible limitations on the transfer of and acceptance of campaign funds and make illegal again campaign coordination between outside special interest groups engaged in issue advocacy with all candidates for public office — particularly judges.
• Petition the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the disastrous 2010 Citizens United vs F.E.C. decision which ended over 100 years of sensible regulation of unlimited corporate, union and other outside special interest money in federal and by extension state elections, unleashing the torrential flood of campaign cash drowning democracy today.

These are common-sense, achievable reforms that, if enacted into law, would go a long way toward restoring desperately needed public confidence in the fairness, impartiality and trust in Wisconsin’s courts and in particular, our Wisconsin Supreme Court which was regarded as the model for the nation and the best anywhere a quarter century ago. But it will take determined action by all three branches of Wisconsin’s state government working together with the voters to uphold election integrity and curb corruption in a way all of us can embrace.

Ultimately, of course, it’s up to us, the voters, to hold our governmental institutions accountable and ensure that they work for us instead of for their own narrow interests  and those of the donor class. In this critical season of resistance and defiance against tyranny — speak up, make noise and ensure that your voice is heard.  Demand real reform and an end to the corruption of our representative government.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

Wisconsin’s constitution gives the Legislature two methods for removing judges from office.

Impeachment starts with a majority Assembly vote based on “corrupt conduct in office” or commission of a crime. A two-thirds Senate vote following a Senate trial would result in removal.

“Removal by address” occurs through a two-thirds vote of each chamber, based on misconduct. The judge would have an opportunity to make a defense. 

Wisconsin judges run in nonpartisan elections. Both chambers of the Legislature have a simple Republican majority. 

Republicans called for the Legislature to remove Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan after the FBI arrested her April 24. She is charged with two crimes for allegedly obstructing Immigration and Customs Enforcement from arresting a criminal defendant in her courtroom.

Democrats criticized the arrest.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court temporarily suspended Dugan. The Supreme Court can also remove judges for misconduct, based on a state Judicial Commission investigation.

Judges can also be removed by recall election.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• State of Wisconsin: Wisconsin Constitution (Article VII)
• Wisconsin Legislative Council: Removal of Elected Officials: Recall, Impeachment, Expulsion, and Removal
• Wisconsin Legislature: Wisconsin State Senate
• Wisconsin Legislature: Wisconsin State Assembly
• X: Scott Walker post
• Wisconsin Watch: Arrest of Milwaukee judge echoes Massachusetts case — with one key difference
• WisPolitics: Dems condemn Milwaukee judge's arrest; Republicans call for her removal
• Wisconsin Supreme Court: In re the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Hannah C. Dugan, Judge
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin Republicans want to remove Judge Hannah Dugan. Here's how that may work
• Wisconsin Watch: Impeach Justice Janet Protasiewicz? Here’s what’s missing from debate
• State Bar of Wisconsin: Legal Research 101: Understanding Judicial Misconduct and Disability in Wisconsin
• WPR: Wisconsin Republicans now have impeachment power. Here’s how the process works

Could the Wisconsin Legislature remove Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan from office over her ICE case? 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.

It was a big win for Wisconsin’s small towns.

Soon after the Legislature overhauled local government funding in 2023, reports surfaced of huge increases in state aid for tiny places. 

Shared revenue, the state’s primary local aid program, jumped thousands of percentage points for towns and villages with less than 100 residents, while percentage increases were far more modest for the largest cities.

On Wisconsin’s political map, the biggest cities are also the bluest, and those Democratic strongholds are frequently the targets of scorn from the Legislature’s Republican majority. By contrast, small towns are growing ever more red, particularly in rural areas.

An analysis for Wisconsin Watch finds a statistically significant correlation between how a community votes and how much its shared revenue increased under the legislation known as Act 12. 

On average, each percentage point of GOP vote share corresponds to a 2.1% increase in shared revenue, according to calculations by Phil Rocco, associate professor of political science at Marquette University.

To swing aid payments toward those small red towns, Republicans broke with the first century of shared revenue history and adopted a complex formula that divides Wisconsin communities into five tiers by their 2022 populations. Rocco found that formula resulted in average increases of 202% for communities of less than 5,000 people, but just 25% for cities with 50,000 to 110,000 residents and 35% for cities larger than 110,000.

Dale Knapp, research director for the Wisconsin Counties Association, drafted the formula using parameters set by lawmakers. Knapp said the initial goal was to give “a bigger bump” to communities that were getting less aid per capita under the old shared revenue formula, but as Republicans saw how specific communities would be affected by different versions of the new formula, they asked for more tweaks based on population size.

Only once before had the state used such an approach. In 2012, when the GOP controlled all of state government, Gov. Scott Walker’s budget also split communities into population tiers, slashing shared revenue more deeply for most big cities than for the smallest towns.    

In a state where Republicans notoriously gerrymandered legislative districts by tweaking the lines to lock in their majority, was shared revenue gerrymandered too?

Senate President Mary Felzkowski, R-Tomahawk, responded with a terse “no” when asked if she and her Act 12 co-author, Rep. Tony Kurtz, R-Wonewoc, had any partisan motive. They said they were correcting an imbalance that had shortchanged small communities.

“The new formula is trying to close these gaps between the communities who had done really well under the old formula and those who did poorly,” Kurtz testified at a committee hearing on the legislation. “The old shared revenue formula directed money at larger municipalities, so the new formula aims more funding at smaller municipalities to try to distribute aid a little better.”

But Democratic lawmakers have no doubt the formula was politically biased, said Sen. Kelda Roys, D-Madison.

“Clearly the way it was developed advantages Republican areas of the state and disadvantages larger urban areas like Milwaukee and Madison,” Roys said. “This Legislature has a history of punishing the biggest cities in the state.”

Democrats introduced several amendments that would have changed the formula to distribute shared revenue increases more evenly among communities of different sizes. All were defeated. That part of the debate received little public attention, overshadowed by clashes over other Act 12 provisions that granted new sales tax power to Milwaukee and Milwaukee County while sharply limiting how they and other local governments could spend taxpayer dollars. 

Yet the debate over state aid to local governments didn’t end with Act 12’s passage. Although the legislation was hailed as a historic turning point in public funding, many municipalities are still struggling with tight budgets more than a year later. Dozens appealed to voters to approve property tax increases over the past year.  

Instead of revisiting the shared revenue formula or the property tax levy limits that force communities to call those referendums, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers is recommending a different approach in his 2025-27 state budget: For any county or municipality that freezes or cuts property taxes, Evers proposes a new state aid payment equaling a 3% levy increase.

How we got here

All that is a long way from how shared revenue started in 1911. Right after adopting the nation’s first state income tax, the Legislature decided to distribute most of its proceeds to local governments, based on how much income tax their residents paid.

Starting in 1972, lawmakers switched to the first of a series of formulas that used factors such as population, equalized value and local property tax levies. The goal of those formulas was to ensure that all local governments could afford “minimum levels of public services, regardless of their ability to finance those services through their property tax base,” according to a Legislative Fiscal Bureau paper. Because the formulas directed more money to larger cities and to communities with lower property values, the Legislature added an extra boost for municipalities with populations under 5,000, starting in 1994. Similar formulas were used to cut shared revenue in 2004 and 2010, with payments frozen in between.

Back then, the size of a community’s population wasn’t strongly related to its partisan preferences, according to data compiled by John D. Johnson, research fellow at the Marquette Law School’s Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education. Democrats like President Barack Obama, Gov. Jim Doyle and Sens. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold regularly carried many smaller communities.

But in the “red wave” election of 2010, an overwhelming majority of communities with populations under 50,000 swung Republican to elect Walker as governor. That pattern has held for every gubernatorial election since then, and for most presidential and senatorial elections as well, Johnson’s data show.

Walker’s first budget, for the 2011-13 biennium, again cut shared revenue, but used population tiers that favored the smaller places that had fueled his victory. At the time, he linked the move to his controversial Act 10, which all but eliminated the power of most public employee unions to bargain for wages and benefits. Walker and his aides argued that Act 10 gave larger cities the “tools” to absorb the cuts through such tactics as shifting more health care costs to employees, while smaller communities with fewer workers couldn’t save as much that way. 

However, the formula for the 2012 cut still retained some of the old formula’s factors. That allowed Milwaukee to escape with only a 4% trim to its shared revenue. By contrast, Madison’s shared revenue was chopped 25%, and reductions averaged 10% for the next 10 largest cities.

After that, shared revenue was frozen at 2012 levels. Without adjustments for changes in population and property values since 2003, disparities grew, while inflation ate away at the buying power of the stagnant allocations, said Knapp and Jerry Deschane, executive director of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities. 

Walker’s 2011-13 budget also tightened the state’s limits on property taxes, blocking local governing bodies from approving tax hikes in most communities without new construction. That forced local officials to seek voter approval for any increases beyond the state limits.

Caught between limited taxing authority, frozen shared revenue and rising costs, Milwaukee and Milwaukee County found themselves careening toward a “fiscal cliff” that would force deep cuts in services. At the same time, Felzkowski said, town officials in her district were warning her that they and their counterparts across Wisconsin were having trouble paying for emergency medical service for rural residents.

Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson and Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley forged a coalition with other local governments to seek changes to the funding system. Evers responded by proposing a $576 million increase to the $753 million shared revenue program in his 2023-25 budget. Republicans shot down that plan, but started work on the legislation that became Act 12.

In discussions with local government leaders, GOP lawmakers made it clear they didn’t want to change the existing shared revenue formula, Deschane and Knapp said. Felzkowski said other Republican legislators with experience in local government told her the existing formula was “broken,” and they didn’t want to create the kind of “tweaked mess” that resulted from years of incremental changes to the state’s school aid formula.

Instead, Act 12 created a new formula to distribute increases, called “supplemental aid,” in addition to the shared revenue base payments that had been frozen since 2012. 

A thumb on the scale?

To analyze the legislation, Rocco developed a database of how much revenue each community would receive, compared with the Evers plan. Separately, Marquette’s Johnson had compiled a database of how every community in Wisconsin has voted in major statewide elections since 2000.

Wisconsin Watch asked the two scholars to merge their databases to determine whether Act 12 was politically neutral in distributing shared revenue increases of $206.9 million to municipalities and $68 million to counties.

Using Johnson’s data for gubernatorial races from 2010 through 2022, Rocco found a consistent and statistically significant bias toward Republican-voting communities in the percentage increases authorized by Act 12. The formula for counties — which didn’t include population tiers — showed no such bias, he said.

The largest proportional boost in municipal shared revenue was 5,748% for Rusk County’s town of Cedar Rapids, which at 36 residents is Wisconsin’s smallest community. The state’s second-smallest community, the town of Popple River in Forest County, scored a 5,070% increase for its 43 inhabitants.

By contrast, the smallest percentage increase, 10%, went to Milwaukee, although the legislation also authorized Wisconsin’s largest city to levy a new 2% sales tax. Shared revenue rose 56% for Madison, with no new sales tax power. Those two cities are the state’s biggest sources of Democratic votes.

Shared revenue increased around 20% for 10 predominantly blue cities with 2022 populations between 50,000 and 110,000, but a 67% boost went to Waukesha, the only red city of that size. Sen. Mark Spreitzer, D-Beloit, said he didn’t think the formula was engineered to favor Waukesha, although he expressed frustration that similarly sized cities like Janesville didn’t get more.

Drafting notes show the original version of the legislation would have given even lower increases to most cities between 50,000 and 110,000, before negotiations with the governor’s office and others. However, the increases of 22% for Janesville and 67% for Waukesha remained the same in the original and final versions.

Spreitzer said Assembly Republicans, led by Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, “drew that line” between cities above and below 50,000 in population, directing the smallest increases to the bluest cities. A Vos spokesperson did not respond to emails requesting an interview.

Deschane, Knapp, Felzkowski and Spreitzer said percentage increases could be misleading because many smaller towns and villages were receiving such tiny sums to begin with that a gigantic percentage increase still would result in relatively modest dollar amounts. They said per capita figures and total allocations could be more telling.

However, Rocco’s findings for pro-Republican bias in Act 12 are almost identical when looking at the shared revenue increase per capita instead of the percentage increase. 

A separate analysis by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum highlighted striking variations in per capita allocations among communities of different sizes, based on 2023 populations.

Before Act 12, per capita payments averaged $87 both for communities with less than 1,000 residents and for those with more than 20,000, except for Milwaukee, the Policy Forum found. But with the Act 12 increases, the smallest communities shot up to an average of $157, compared with $114 for the largest, again excluding Milwaukee, the Policy Forum calculated.

While Milwaukee’s per capita payment was $416, Madison’s $28 was the state’s third-lowest, compared with $34 for Waukesha, $76 for Janesville and more than $100 for each of Wisconsin’s seven other largest cities, the Policy Forum said. By contrast, the state’s smallest incorporated municipality, the village of Big Falls in Waupaca County, ended up with the largest total per capita aid: $1,040 for each of its 58 residents.

Rocco’s analysis cites research by other scholars who found that federal aid formulas “offer lawmakers a means of concealing bias” by using “ostensibly neutral” factors to “move aid toward communities they represent,” benefiting similar communities as well.

While Felzkowski denied trying to help red areas, she said her goal was to send more money to rural areas that can’t generate much property tax revenue, yet still must provide services to more remote locations than cities do.

“I’m a rural legislator,” Felzkowski said. “My largest community at the time was 9,000 people, and I represented my district.”

Overall, Act 12 boosted total shared revenue dollars for communities under 5,000 by 64%, compared with a 14% increase for cities of more than 50,000. Shared revenue payments to Wisconsin’s 13 largest cities dropped from 53% of the municipal total to 45%, while the slice for communities under 5,000 rose from 21% to 27%. One-third of the state’s population lives in those small communities, compared with 28% in the largest cities.

Rocco also found evidence of bias toward Democratic-voting cities in the per capita increases in shared revenue that Evers proposed in his 2023-25 budget. Unlike Act 12, the same bias wasn’t consistently statistically significant in percentage increases.

The Evers plan didn’t use population tiers. Instead, it revised the original shared revenue formula, with its per capita and equalized valuation factors, and added a boost based on local public safety spending. That would have benefited larger cities with bigger police and fire departments — the same kinds of cities that typically vote Democratic. 

“The partisan affiliation of Wisconsinites impacted or benefited is not a factor the governor or our office consider in making policy decisions,” Evers’ spokesperson said in an email. “The governor proposed more funds be distributed to local communities and consistently pushed for a fairer distribution to mid-major communities while continuing to invest in all towns, cities, and counties across the state.”

Unfinished business

Cities large and small applauded the financial lift they received from Act 12. Milwaukee pulled back from its fiscal cliff, keeping its services and workforce intact. Monona was able to cover inflationary cost increases and hand out 3% raises to its employees, said the Madison suburb’s former Mayor Mary O’Connor.

But it didn’t take long before those cities and others were again facing tough choices. Milwaukee officials said the city had to raise property taxes, fees, fines and borrowing for 2025 to avoid service cuts and layoffs while meeting the public safety spending requirements of Act 12. Monona found itself short of what it needed to keep up with inflation and to pay employees enough to keep other cities from luring them away, O’Connor said. 

And even though the Act 12 increases were earmarked for public safety and transportation, multiple communities still needed more to pay for emergency medical, fire and police services. Yet their leaders lacked authority to raise property taxes enough to cover those costs.

“Wisconsin has the strictest property tax limits in the country, and that is an ongoing challenge,” Deschane said.

Because property tax increases are tied to new construction, Monona officials estimate the city would need to attract a $20 million project every year to justify levy hikes sufficient to keep up with its costs, O’Connor said. That’s not realistic for a community with less than 9,000 residents and no vacant land, she added. The city along Lake Monona is hemmed in on all sides by Madison.

Monona, Madison and 40 other municipalities decided to ask permission for higher tax increases. Wisconsin voters last year approved 21 municipal tax referendums, including those in Madison and Monona, and rejected 15. That includes two communities that went to a second referendum after losing on their first try. Another nine such questions were on the April ballot, including a second bid for one community that lost on its first attempt in 2024. Voters approved four and rejected five.

“Were it not for (Act 12), the number of municipal and county referenda in 2024 might have been even greater — and it is notable that even with Act 12, these referenda still reached near-record levels,” the Policy Forum observed.

Act 12 provides for shared revenue to grow as state sales tax collections grow, Deschane noted. Evers is seeking some additional sweeteners in his 2025-27 budget, including a 90% increase in a fund that compensates local governments for providing municipal services to tax-exempt state buildings.

But the governor didn’t propose changing the Act 12 formula to address the inequities that larger cities cited. And the Legislature rejected his 2023-25 budget recommendation to ease the levy limits as many local officials are pleading. Instead, his latest budget calls for $339.8 million over two years in new incentive payments for frozen or reduced levies. Still, many local referendums are seeking larger increases than the 3% boosts that communities could receive from that incentive program.

Evers’ office called Act 12 “a bipartisan compromise” that “delivered a generational increase for shared revenue,” but acknowledged “more is needed to continue to support the sustainability and strength of our communities across the state.” The budget plan represents an attempt to address local concerns about levy limits “while holding the line on property taxes,” the statement said.

Felzkowski and Deschane said they don’t know if the Legislature would support revisiting these issues in the next budget. Both see Act 12 as a major accomplishment, but they agree local government finance reform will continue to be an issue in the future.

“It’s not done,” Felzkowski said. “It’s never going to be done.”

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

How Wisconsin Republican lawmakers tweaked the state aid formula to benefit GOP communities 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.

As local governments across Wisconsin continue to wrestle with tight budgets, $300 million in state aid remains unspent.

That money could have provided a major boost to the $275 million in shared revenue increases that the Legislature approved in a historic overhaul of local government funding.

Instead, lawmakers deposited the $300 million in an “innovation fund” to reward cities, villages, towns and counties that cut expenses by consolidating or privatizing services.

It’s an approach championed by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, who at one point wanted to reserve $1 billion for the incentive payments, legislative records show. Senate President Mary Felzkowski, R-Tomahawk, says she expects the state’s smallest communities will benefit most from the plan.

But Democrats say the money could have been better used as part of the main shared revenue distribution than in what Sen. Kelda Roys, D-Madison, calls “a set-aside slush fund.”

Act 12, the landmark 2023 local government legislation, increased shared revenue allocations to counties and municipalities throughout the state. Yet even though that cash infusion helped many communities, dozens are still calling referendums to seek voter approval to raise property taxes beyond state levy limits.

Under Act 12, the innovation fund will pay financial incentives to cities, villages, towns, counties and Native American tribes that successfully present proposals to contract with each other to share services or to hand them off to a business or nonprofit organization. Each agreement needs to cut costs by at least 10%, and the state Department of Revenue will give top priority to plans that save money on law enforcement, firefighting and emergency medical response, without jeopardizing service.

The Revenue Department expects applications for those grants will be available in July.

A related $3 million program provides planning grants to communities of less than 5,000 residents to prepare their proposals for the main innovation grants. To date, $1.7 million has been distributed in three rounds to 58 local governments, many of which received more than one of the 98 grants. With nearly half the allocation unspent, the application deadline was extended to April 30, adding two more rounds.

Proposals to combine fire departments and emergency medical services dominate the planning grants awarded so far. Others focus on sharing police, public works and administrative services. 

A Vos spokesperson didn’t respond to requests for an interview. But legislative drafting notes indicate he championed the innovation fund — and even wanted it to be more than triple its final size.

“I just talked to the Speaker. He wants to put the whole billion in the first year” of the state’s fiscal biennium, says an email from an aide to Rep. Tony Kurtz, R-Wonewoc, who co-authored Act 12, to legislative staff working on the bill.

During the discussions that led to Act 12 — and for years beforehand — Vos repeatedly questioned whether the city of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County were spending taxpayer money wisely. He urged them to do more to share and privatize services.

Mayor Cavalier Johnson and County Executive David Crowley responded with lengthy lists of how much their governments already had done to cut expenses and share services. The city’s list included establishing a joint recycling center with Waukesha County; reaching mutual aid agreements with suburban fire departments; contracting to take over fire and emergency medical protection for West Milwaukee; and privatizing snow removal at bus stops.

But none of that qualifies for an innovation grant. Act 12 specifies the grants are only for deals taking effect after Nov. 13, 2024, not for any previous moves by local governments.

Felzkowski said she thought the innovation fund would help small rural towns and villages consolidate services. In addition to merging fire departments, she suggested they might find efficiencies by sharing human resources and information technology staff. Sen. Mark Spreitzer, D-Beloit, said larger communities might benefit as well.

But Spreitzer questioned the fund’s emphasis on reducing overall costs instead of improving services. For example, if two or more communities wanted to share a fire chief and use the money saved to hire more firefighters, the state should encourage them to do that, he said.

Gov. Tony Evers’ office did not respond directly when asked what the governor thought of the fund.

While Roys said she is a “big believer in efficiency,” she also believes local governments should consolidate services only if it’s the right thing to do, not because they’re coerced into doing it.

The innovation fund is “kind of holding them over a barrel and forcing them to compete,” Roys said.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

The $300 million competition for making local Wisconsin government more efficient starts soon 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.

Four of the Wisconsin 14 – from (l to r) Jeff Davis, Kai Gardner Mishlove, Pat McFarland and Thomas Lang – urged state lawmakers to extend postpartum Medicaid on March 18, 2025. (Courtesy of Builders)

Thomas Lang and Jeff Davis — conservative Catholics from Wisconsin — did the unexpected on a recent Tuesday: They asked some of their conservative legislators to extend a social safety net for pregnant women.

Both men support local crisis pregnancy centers and groups opposed to abortion, and they typically oppose expanding public services. Davis said he’s always been a conservative spender, having grown up with a Depression-era father.

But after participating in a civic engagement program about abortion a year ago, both said their empathy for pregnant women is better informed.

“My wife was a great sounding board for me being more empathetic towards women, because she was a very empathetic woman, and I kind of lost a little bit of that when she passed away,” Davis said, noting it’s been two years. “I didn’t have her level of compassion, and this helped me, seriously, to be more compassionate, and not just to women who are having an abortion, but just people in general.”

One year ago, 14 people around Wisconsin, dubbed the Wisconsin 14, were recruited by the civic engagement nonprofit Builders (formerly known as Starts With Us) to try to find common ground on reproductive health policy despite their deep divisions on abortion. For most of the participants, as the emotionally grueling Citizen Solutions sessions would reveal, their beliefs are rooted in personal trauma.

A year later, several of the participants who had severe disagreements have come back together to fight for their first consensus solution: extending postpartum Medicaid.

While the Wisconsin 14 ultimately could not agree on a single abortion-related policy, they were united on five policy proposals to make it easier and safer to give birth. Several of the participants returned to the Capitol in Madison last month to lobby their state legislators to pass Assembly Bill 97/Senate Bill 23, which like one of their proposals, would extend Medicaid coverage for women from 60 days to 12 months after giving birth if they do not already qualify for the state’s Medicaid program. Under current law, pregnant individuals in Wisconsin are eligible for Medicaid at a higher income threshold than those who are not pregnant: 306% instead of 100% of the federal poverty level. But they can lose that coverage 60 days after giving birth if their income increases beyond the non-pregnant eligibility threshold.

Reproductive health experts have identified postpartum Medicaid extension as the first step to maternal health equity, as States Newsroom has reported. According to a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, more than 80% of pregnancy-related deaths nationwide are preventable, and almost one-third of pregnancy-related deaths occurred after delivery.

Wisconsin and Arkansas are currently the only states cutting off postpartum Medicaid after 60 days, despite these being largely popular policies.

“Last spring, 20,000 Wisconsinites from 70 counties across the state weighed in on the proposals during a public feedback period,” said Builders communications director Tori Larned in an email. “Nearly three-quarters (73%) of people favored extending Medicaid postpartum.”

This is the second year the proposal has been introduced in the legislature, and like last year it has received bipartisan support but severe opposition from House Speaker Robin Vos. The Republican has described the bill as an expansion of “welfare,” including last week, when the bill passed the Senate 32-1.

“My position has been fairly clear from the very beginning: I’ve never supported an expansion of welfare. I can’t imagine that I would ever support one,” Vos said at a press conference after the April 22 vote, according to the Wisconsin Examiner. “But we have to talk about it as a caucus.”

Vos’ office did not reply to a request for comment for this story.

In the past month, several among the Wisconsin 14 have lobbied their legislators in person, talked about the bill in public, and a few have or are currently writing op-eds. Larned told States Newsroom nearly every participant has called Vos’ office urging him to extend postpartum Medicaid to a full year. 

“[S]tagnation on this issue does not reflect the public will,” wrote Kateri Klingele Pinell and Kai Gardner Mishlove, two of the Wisconsin 14, who fundamentally disagreed on when abortion should be legal and accessible, in a recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel op-ed. “Extended Medicaid coverage is crucial for the physical, emotional, and mental well-being of mothers and their children. Sixty days is insufficient to address the vast array of medical needs that arise during the postpartum period.”

They cited a 2024 Wisconsin Maternal Mortality Review Team report showing that between 2019 and 2020 the majority of pregnancy-related deaths were caused by cardiovascular conditions or hypertensive disorders or due to mental health conditions, including drug overdoses. They also noted that Black women and women from low-income households suffer worse maternal health outcomes. They cited an American Hospital Association report to argue that prolonging postpartum coverage would generate cost savings.

They ended the op-ed addressing Vos directly.

“We have faith that Speaker Vos and his colleagues in the Assembly will answer our call,” they wrote. “Vos has already expressed his desire to, ‘protect life while ensuring women receive necessary medical care.’ The passage of this bill offers him the opportunity to properly represent his constituents.”

Klingele Pinell is a clinical mental health professional who opposes abortion, but believes in expanding public health services, especially as someone who says she has relied on them as a young single mom. Gardner Mishlove is a grief doula and the executive directive of Jewish Social Services in Madison, which she said provides short- and long-term case-management and advocacy to vulnerable populations.

“We need to reassure moms and families that they will not lose coverage during this crucial time,” Gardner Mishlove told States Newsroom. “Can you imagine deciding to maintain a pregnancy and then realizing that you’re going to lose your health insurance 60 days after? Being a new mom, there’s a lot to deal with, a lot to juggle, and if that’s one less thing for you to juggle so that you can make sure that you maintain connection to your healthcare provider, to your behavioral health provider, for the health and wellness not only of yourself but your family, then that’s a huge burden that’s lifted from that mother, from the family, from the health care system.”

Bridging the divide 

In mid-March, four of the Wisconsin 14 joined a lobbying event co-sponsored by Main Street Alliance, where they urged state lawmakers to pass the postpartum Medicaid extension, focusing on more reluctant Assembly and Senate Republicans.

Davis, the 77-year-old widower, said it felt out of his comfort zone just to drive from his farm to the Capitol and navigate traffic and parking, but he felt it was important to do.

“I just kind of thought that maybe my input, because of being pro-life and being for the bill, would carry some weight,” Davis told States Newsroom.

Davis and Lang said they didn’t initially appreciate how difficult it would be to move the needle with some of the Republican legislators, especially after learning how much extending postpartum Medicaid is likely to cost the state.

The state has projected that an additional 5,020 women would have coverage per month under the bill, costing an estimated $18.5 million, including $7.3 million in state general purpose revenue with the rest coming from the federal government. As the Wisconsin Examiner has reported, if Wisconsin joined other states that have accepted the full federal Medicaid expansion, the cost for the postpartum coverage would be reduced to $15.1 million in all funds including $5.2 million in general purpose revenue. However, under the Trump administration, the federal Medicaid program as a whole is under threat. 

“We’re talking a drop in the bucket,” Lang said. “We’re talking about a small annual average number of pregnant women in Wisconsin, so the fiscal hawks really don’t have much to worry about, and more importantly we’re talking about getting women out of a corner. … Everybody agrees that no woman gets pregnant to have an abortion. It’s always something of a compulsion. So let’s get her out of the corner if we want her to have choice, right?”

Gardner Mishlove and Patricia McFarland — whose politics and abortion views veer widely left from Davis’ and Lang’s — said they tried to find common ground with more conservative legislators. 

“[We’re] trying to end the divide, to find ways to talk to each other about basic human issues, so that you are not just pro-birth, but if you’re pro life, you really want the family to thrive,” said McFarland, who had a traumatic illegal abortion before Roe v. Wade enshrined federal abortion rights in 1973 and is now an abortion-rights activist. “You want that baby to be born and to have all the care they deserve.”

The fate of the bill remains uncertain, but the Wisconsin 14 have not given up on it.

Jacob VandenPlas, a dad, farmer, agricultural educator and veteran from Door County, has some of the most nuanced politics and abortion views among the 14.

VandenPlas ran for Congress as a Libertarian in 2022 and is considering a future run for governor as an independent or for Wisconsin state Senate as a Republican. He said he believes abortion should be broadly legal through the first trimester and then restricted with exceptions for health and rape. VandenPlas said he’s been calling different legislators about the postpartum Medicaid bill; lobbying his representative, Republican Rep. Joel Kitchens, at the gym; and is currently working on an op-ed. He pitches it from a Libertarian angle.

“This is our future generation, and the constriction on the pocketbooks of the American people and how much the government has robbed from us makes it very difficult to start families,” VandenPlas said. “We’re talking the cost of housing and everything else. It’s very, very important to be able to help the future mothers and future families of our state.”

“Most importantly,” he continued. “This is one of the single best ways that we can address abortion. If you want to start limiting those numbers, we have to start addressing the reasons why women are choosing abortion, and this is one of them. We can save babies’ lives by extending postpartum care, and we can save the lives of mothers.”

Builders head of programs Ashley Phillips said the organization has not given up on trying to pursue abortion consensus solutions in other states, as abortion restrictions continue to broadly impact reproductive health care, including for those who want to have babies but have a shortage of health care options. She said Builders is conducting listening sessions in Texas, the next likely state for their third Citizens Solutions initiative. But this time participants will determine the policy area, she said.

“One thing I have learned is that this work is messy, it’s complicated, it’s hard, and in the moment, it often doesn’t feel great,” Phillips said. “And then I saw a subset of those people this weekend in Wisconsin, and the joy was back, and the belief that they could do something despite having a lot of discomfort around that issue of abortion.”

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers unveiled his 2025-27 biennial state budget proposal. The nearly year-long process is now picking up speed, but the next two-year budget is still far from being finalized. 

Over the next few months, the Legislature’s powerful Joint Finance Committee, controlled by Republicans, will make significant changes to Evers’ proposals before approving a final budget bill. During this time, the politically divided executive and legislative branches will wrestle over funding for public schools, child care, higher education, Medicaid expansion and much more. 

Another budget surplus expected

Wisconsin ended its 2024 fiscal year with a more-than-expected $4.6 billion budget surplus and is on pace to end the current fiscal year with a $4.2 billion surplus. Republicans want to reduce the surplus by passing income tax cuts before the budget debate begins, while Democrats are urging more funding for things like K-12 education.

The Legislature must pass a budget signed by the governor every two years in order to use up state revenues for government operations. A budget period begins on July 1 of each odd-numbered year and concludes on June 30 of the next odd-numbered year. The last two-year budget totaled nearly $100 billion. 

Here’s what this hectic process will look like: 

The process involves three main entities that work to both create and pass the budget: the governor, the Legislature and state agencies. 

State agencies like the Department of Public Instruction and the Department of Natural Resources calculate their financial needs for the upcoming cycle and submit formal funding requests, which were due to the State Budget Office back in September. The Department of Administration then analyzes and compiles the requests for the governor. 

The governor then spends months crafting an executive budget proposal based on these requests, and community listening sessions are held across the state in December. On Tuesday he will give his budget address, which he is legally required to deliver to the new Legislature. Proposed funding for state agencies will be made available. 

Soon after that — likely in March — Evers will reveal his capital budget proposal, which includes spending plans for long-term projects like new UW System buildings. 

Then, the Joint Finance Committee will review and revise Evers’ budget. Under a divided government since 2019, the committee has scrapped the governor’s proposals and written its own. In 2023, GOP lawmakers began this process by stripping nearly 550 of his proposals.

Lawmakers on the Joint Finance Committee typically hold their own community listening sessions in April.  The committee typically completes its revisions by the end of May.

Then, lawmakers in both houses of the Legislature — the Republican-controlled Senate and Assembly — have until the end of the fiscal year on June 30 to pass the budget before it heads to Evers’ desk for signing. Here, he can use his controversial partial veto power to remove specific appropriations from the budget bill, also allowing him to delete large sections of language and manipulate words or numbers.

In 2023, Evers made national headlines after he manipulated punctuation in the Legislature’s budget to extend school funding for 402 years. A case challenging the partial veto is pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In the meantime, Republican lawmakers have introduced a constitutional amendment that would strip away the governor’s partial veto power.

If the budget is not signed into law by July 1, the state will continue to operate under the previous budget passed in 2023 until the new one is signed.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Here’s how Wisconsin’s state budget process works 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.

Forcing county sheriffs to cooperate with federal immigration officials or risk losing state funding. A tax cut for service industry worker cash tips. Banning “foreign adversaries” from owning Wisconsin farmland. The GOAT committee. 

The first few weeks of the Legislature’s new session have been dominated by ideas inspired, at least in part, by President Donald Trump, as Wisconsin Republicans bring ideas pushed in Washington to Madison.

The localization of Trump’s agenda — which helped the president secure a slim but significant victory in November — comes as Republican lawmakers continue to set the legislative agenda in Wisconsin.

But Democratic legislative leaders are pushing back on that agenda, unlike many of their counterparts at the national level.

“These are not serious proposals,” said Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer, D-Racine. “They are political; they are for the right-wing base. But they are simply not addressing the problems that the people of Wisconsin are facing.”

Immigration crackdown

Last week, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and Sen. Julian Bradley, R-New Berlin, unveiled legislation to mandate cooperation between Wisconsin law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.

The bill would require “sheriffs to request proof of legal presence status from individuals held in a county jail for an offense punishable as a felony,” according to analysis from the Legislative Reference Bureau. It also compels sheriffs to “comply with detainers and administrative warrants received from the federal department of homeland security regarding individuals held in the county jail for a criminal offense.”

If a sheriff shrugs the law, the sheriff’s county would face a 15% cut in state aid in the following year, according to a draft of the bill. But the bill isn’t about targeting places like Dane and Milwaukee counties — where leaders have pledged not to cooperate with federal authorities — said Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August, R-Lake Geneva. “It’s about just ensuring that every county is operating the same and that there isn’t a refuge for these violent criminals.”

While introducing the bill, flanked by two dozen of his GOP colleagues, Bradley said the legislation should garner bipartisan support, pointing to the Laken Riley Act — a similar crackdown on theft and violent crime committed by unauthorized immigrants — that received some Democratic support in Congress. It was the first bill signed into law under the new Trump administration.

“Only far-left extremists in this country believe that someone here illegally that commits a felony should be allowed to stay,” Bradley said.

No tax on tips 

State Sen. Andre Jacque, R-De Pere, is one of four Republican lawmakers circulating a bill that would eliminate taxes on cash tips earned by service workers — a proposal Trump heavily touted on the campaign trail. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, later announced support for the policy as well. 

Jacque and a group of bipartisan lawmakers last introduced the bill in 2019, but it never became law. He said it’s heavily favored by those in the hospitality industry.

Trump’s push to enact a similar policy at the federal level made this the ideal time to reintroduce the bill in Wisconsin, Jacque said.

“Having a federal administration that is putting some political capital towards making that part of the equation happen certainly adds a lot of fire to being ready to be aligned at the state level,” Jacque said.

In 2019, the bill, which only would have exempted cash tips from taxation, was estimated to reduce the state’s revenue by nearly $4.7 million annually. A fiscal estimate of the current bill has not yet been released. It would not exempt the majority of tips, which are left on a credit card. 

Banning ‘foreign adversaries’ from owning land

Another state bill introduced by Republicans last month would prevent “foreign adversaries” from “countries of concern” from acquiring forestry and agricultural land in the state. 

The legislation mimics Trump’s campaign promises in January 2023 to ban Chinese nationals from buying farmland and owning other “vital infrastructure,” citing national security concerns. Jacque, an author of the bill, said he wasn’t aware of Trump’s previous support for a similar proposal. 

Jacque introduced similar legislation in 2023 that never became law. He pointed to bipartisan congressional support for similar “foreign adversary” bills introduced at the federal level. It’s a “common-sense concern” that “resonates with the public,” Jacque said. 

GOAT Committee

The Government Operations, Accountability and Transparency Committee is new to the Assembly this legislative session. Like DOGE, the federal Department of Government Efficiency led by Elon Musk, it’s named after a pop culture meme (GOAT is shorthand for greatest of all time; DOGE is named after a meme turned cryptocurrency).

The committee’s chair, Rep. Amanda Nedweski, R-Pleasant Prairie, said the committee will work “to identify opportunities to increase state government efficiency and to decrease spending.” 

“The people of Wisconsin want to see their hard-earned tax dollars being spent on services that directly affect them, not on the expansion of programs that benefit only select groups of people,” she said in a written response to questions from Wisconsin Watch. “GOAT will investigate ways in which the state can reallocate revenues away from excessive wants and funnel them more into critical needs without increasing spending.”

One motivating factor for her 2022 Assembly run was “to bring my professional experience in process improvement to the public sector because so many glaring inefficiencies in state agencies were exposed during the pandemic,” Nedweski said, noting she wanted to improve “fiscal accountability” for the state long before DOGE was a concept.

The committee was created in response “to an outpouring of demand from the people,” Nedweski said, adding that “DOGE is making fiscal conservatism cool and accessible to more people.”

“The performance of state agencies under the current administration has often been subpar under this administration relative to the tax dollars invested,” she said. “If the (state) agencies are not going to take honest looks in the mirror as to how they can better serve Wisconsinites, GOAT will. Whether or not the Governor chooses to work with us is up to him.”

GOAT serves a different role than the Legislative Audit Bureau, Nedweski said, noting that a “top objective of GOAT is to be responsive to real people facing everyday challenges with state government.” 

While the committee may work with LAB and the Joint Audit Committee, “the function of GOAT will be less technical than Audit and more directly responsive to a wide range of stakeholder concerns,” she said.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Trump policies come to Wisconsin in first weeks of new session 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 Democratic Gov. Tony Evers used his seventh State of the State speech Wednesday to urge the GOP-controlled Legislature to enact a wide range of proposals Republicans have rejected in the past, including numerous gun control measures just a month after there was a school shooting not far from the state Capitol.

Republicans were quick to dismiss his proposals, much as they have the past six years.

Here’s what to know about the speech from Evers, a Democrat who may run for a third term next year in the battleground state:

Bipartisan approach to immigration and health care

Evers, without mentioning President Donald Trump by name, said “there is a lot of angst about what may happen in the days, months and years ahead.”

“I have always been willing to work with anyone who is willing to do the right thing for the people of Wisconsin,” Evers said. “And that has not changed. But I will not compromise on our Wisconsin values of treating people with kindness, dignity, empathy, and respect.”

Evers called for bipartisan efforts to address immigration.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said Republicans would next week introduce a bill that requires cooperation with federal law enforcement officials who are working to deport people who have committed a crime and are in the country illegally.

“He didn’t pay attention to what happened in this state in the election in November,” Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August said of Evers. “President Trump won Wisconsin, and one of the cornerstones of his campaign was about illegal immigration. … He’s clearly pushing back against the president.”

Wisconsin is one of 22 states suing the federal government over Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship.

Wisconsin is one of the “blue wall” states that Trump won in 2016 but lost in 2020. Trump carried Wisconsin in 2024 on his way back to the White House.

Gun control is renewed priority despite Republican opposition

Evers called for a series of gun control measures five weeks after a school shooting just 6 miles from the Capitol left a teacher and a 14-year-old student dead. The 15-year-old shooter shot and killed herself.

Evers called for universal background checks for gun purchases and restoring a 48-hour waiting period for gun purchases, a law that Republicans repealed in 2015.

He also called for banning the purchase of “ghost guns” and closing a loophole that allows for domestic abusers to own firearms.

Evers also called for incentives and new requirements to safely secure firearms and a “red flag” law that would allow judges to take guns away from people determined to be a risk to themselves or others.

Republican legislative leaders said that all of the gun control measures would be rejected.

The governor last week created a state office for violence prevention, which Republicans vowed not to fund after federal funding runs out in two years.

Evers, a former teacher and state superintendent of schools, also called for spending $300 million to provide comprehensive mental health services in schools statewide. That would be 10 times the amount the Legislature approved for school mental health services in the last budget.

Republicans vow to reject proposals, push for cutting taxes instead

Republican leaders immediately rejected the bulk of what Evers called for, saying they instead would be pushing for a tax cut of nearly $1,000 for every taxpayer in the state.

Evers’ speech “was chock full of liberal wishes, empty promises and a whole lot of things that are not going to happen in Wisconsin,” Vos said.

Declaring 2025 as “The Year of the Kid,” Evers called on Republicans to approve $500 million to lower the cost of child care. The bulk of that would go toward funding the Child Care Counts program for the next two years. Without more funding, the program — which was created during the COVID-19 pandemic — is slated to end in June.

Republicans said they would not support that additional funding.

Evers also called for creating new programs designed to set price ceilings for prescription drugs and improve oversight of drug companies, removing the state sales tax on over-the-counter medications and capping the copay on insulin at $35.

In an emotional moment, Evers welcomed the widow and parents of former state Rep. Jonathan Brostoff, who died by suicide in November. Evers, his voice cracking with emotion, talked about Brostoff’s death when introducing a new program that would allow people to temporarily and voluntarily register to prevent themselves from purchasing a firearm.

Vos said that invoking Brostoff was a “cheap political stunt” and “kind of sad.”

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.

State of the State: Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers urges gun control measures, bipartisan approach to immigration 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.

The fate of postpartum Medicaid expansion, a bipartisan effort in the state Legislature, yet again falls in the hands of Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, who said Tuesday that it’s “unlikely” his chamber will get to vote on it.

Congress previously gave states a permanent option to accept federal funds for 12-month extensions of postpartum Medicaid coverage. Wisconsin and Arkansas are now the only two states that have turned down the federal extension. Wisconsin’s coverage currently lasts 60 days after birth, far shorter than what health experts recommend. 

Extending the coverage has emerged as a way for states to fight maternal mortality rates. Though pregnancy-related deaths are rare,  a third of them in Wisconsin occur beyond the 60-day coverage window, according to the Department of Health Services. 

Rep. Patrick Snyder, R-Weston, on Tuesday reintroduced a bill that would expand coverage to 12 months. The legislation mirrors the extensions that have been introduced in previous sessions, yet have failed to pass the Legislature. That same day, Vos, R-Rochester, said a vote on the 12-month extension would be “unlikely.” 

“Our caucus has taken a position that expanding welfare is not a wise idea for anyone involved,” Vos told reporters. 

Republican lawmakers previously agreed to a three-month coverage period. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ 2021-23 state budget proposal asked for a 12-month extension, but Republican lawmakers on the powerful Joint Finance Committee amended it to instead require DHS to request federal approval to extend postpartum Medicaid eligibility to 90 days instead of the 60 mandated by federal law. 

Vos accused the Evers administration of not applying for the 90-day extension the Legislature already granted, which isn’t true — something Vos acknowledged in response to a follow-up question to his office. DHS submitted the application for the extension, but the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services last year said it would not approve a waiver request for coverage shorter than one year. 

“I’m glad that I was wrong and it has been submitted,” Vos responded. “The waiver request should be resubmitted to the Trump administration.”

“Going from the 60 to 90 days is pretty negligible,” said Rep. Clint Moses, R-Menomonie, chair of the Assembly Committee on Health, Aging and Long-Term Care.  

During the last legislative session, the Republican-controlled Senate passed a bipartisan bill in a 32-1 vote that would have extended postpartum coverage to 12 months. The lone opponent was Duey Stroebel, who lost his re-election bid in November. In total, 73 lawmakers cosponsored the bill — over half of the state Legislature. The bill authored by Snyder this session is currently circulating for cosponsors. 

Interest groups from both sides of the aisle came out in support of the previous legislation, including Pro-Life Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Kids Forward.

“It made sense to me because if I am pro-life and I don’t want people to abort their babies, why would I not do everything I could to support those mothers to have the babies,” former Republican Rep. Donna Rozar, who authored the bill last session, told Wisconsin Watch. 

But despite bipartisan support, the Assembly never scheduled it for a hearing before adjourning for the rest of the session in February last year. 

Rozar said she and other lawmakers couldn’t get Vos on board. “He dug his heel in, there was no doubt about it,” she said.

Moses put the bill on the agenda for a hearing. But in addition to Vos blocking it, the committee was jammed near the end of the session and didn’t have time to schedule it, he said. 

“There’s 132 people in this building. I don’t think we should legislate by one,” Sen. Mary Felzkowski, R-Tomahawk, said of Vos. “It’s up to his caucus to elect a different speaker or change his mind. So his members have to put enough pressure on him to get it done.” 

Without Vos’ approval, Moses said it’s not likely that lawmakers will secure a 12-month extension, but he’s hopeful that an extension of at least six or nine months can be agreed to in this year’s state budget, despite the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ indication that anything less than 12 months would not be approved. Moses is willing to schedule a hearing for the upcoming bill, but if Vos remains opposed, it may not get referred to him, he said. 

“When it comes to the budget, if there’s something that we want that would be attractive to negotiate this out with, I think that’s a possibility,” Moses said. 

A fiscal estimate last session estimated the bill expansion would cost $21.4 million per year, including $8.4 million in state taxpayer funds with the rest coming from federal taxpayers. It would increase monthly Medicaid enrollment by 5,290 members. Felzkowski, who sponsored the Senate version, said it’s an extension for those who are already covered rather than an expansion that puts more people on Medicaid. She also said it’s good for taxpayers. 

“The reason states have done this — blue states, red states, purple states — is it’s a return on investment for the taxpayers and it makes sense to do it,” Felzkowski told Wisconsin Watch. “We see the number of complications that happen in that first year, and those complications, by not being covered, cost money — cost a lot of money.” 

Wisconsin’s 306% Medicaid income eligibility limit for the 60 days of postpartum coverage is one of the highest in the country — something Vos has pointed to. 

“When you make a choice to have a child, which I’m glad that people do, it’s not the taxpayers’ responsibility to pay for the delivery of that child,” Vos said in 2023. “We do it for people who are in poverty. We’ve made the decision to go to 300%, that’s the law. But to now say beyond 60 days, we’re going to give you free coverage, no copayment, no deductible, until a year out, absolutely not.”

A 2021 version of the bill failed to get a floor vote in both the Senate and the Assembly, yet had only one lobbying group registered against it.

That group was Opportunity Solutions Project, the lobbying arm of the Florida-based Foundation for Government Accountability. The conservative advocacy group did not respond to Wisconsin Watch’s requests for comment. FGA has a track record of lobbying against Medicaid expansion and other bills in Wisconsin. 

“I think it’s a little premature to have any discussions about the Medicaid budget right now. We have a brand new administration coming into D.C.,” Rep. Tyler August, R-Walworth, said in a Tuesday press conference with Vos. “I think the Trump administration is actually going to put some common sense into some of these programs federally.”

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Republicans and Democrats agree on postpartum Medicaid expansion — Robin Vos says it’s unlikely 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’s photo ID requirement for voting would be elevated from a state law to a constitutional amendment under a proposal approved Tuesday in the Republican-controlled Assembly with no support from Democrats.

The proposed constitutional amendment will appear on the April 1 ballot for voter consideration. It would need to be approved by voters before the constitution would be amended. Even if voters reject it, the voter ID requirement that has been in state law since 2011 will remain in place.

Republicans, citing Wisconsin polls that showed broad support for voter ID requirements, hailed the measure as a way to bolster election security and protect the law from being overturned in court.

But Democrats said photo ID requirements are often enforced unfairly, making it more difficult for people of color, people with disabilities and poor people to vote. Democrats argued that lawmakers should focus instead on other issues such as gun control, clean water, affordable housing, and expanding access to child care.

If voters agree to place the photo ID requirement in the constitution, it would make it more difficult for a future Legislature controlled by Democrats to change a law they’ve long opposed. Any constitutional amendment must be approved in two consecutive legislative sessions and by a statewide vote of the people.

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

Other states have taken similar steps in recent years to put voter ID requirements in their constitutions, with mixed success. Voters approved it in Mississippi in 2011 and North Carolina voters in 2018, while Minnesota voters rejected it in 2012.

The Republican-controlled Wisconsin Legislature first passed the state’s voter ID law in 2011. It took effect briefly in 2012, but courts that year put it on hold until 2016 after state and federal courts allowed it to take effect.

The Legislature last session approved the voter ID constitutional amendment for the first time. The measure was the first proposal considered by the Legislature this year. The state Senate passed it last week along a party line vote, with all Republicans in support and Democrats against.

The Assembly on Tuesday gave it the final approval needed, also on a party line vote, sending it to the ballot for voter consideration.

It will be the sixth ballot measure the Legislature has placed on the ballot over the past year. Amending the constitution puts questions before voters and avoids potential vetoes by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

Evers this month proposed giving citizens the ability to put measures on the ballot through a referendum process. Evers on Tuesday renewed that call, which Republicans oppose.

“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,” Evers said in a statement.

Lawmakers moved quickly because of a Jan. 21 deadline to get the issue on the April 1 ballot.

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.

There are no pending legal challenges to voter 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 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 Legislature puts photo ID requirement on ballot for voter approval 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.

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.

While 2024 may have stolen the show as a pivotal election year, the excitement doesn’t end in 2025. That’s right, it’s a state budget year!

Major funding decisions for health care, public schools and universities, the environment, roads and more will be made in the 2025-27 biennial budget. Not only that — a politically divided Legislature and governor must reach an agreement on spending, which totaled nearly $100 billion in the last two-year budget.

Wisconsin Watch will break it down here in our new series: Budget Bites.

This series will regularly appear in Forward, our Monday morning newsletter. We are excited to provide updates on what’s happening with the state budget as it makes its way through the Legislature. Our reporters will also cover key budget items like public education, child care and housing, and we will be looking to hear from those most affected by these issues. 

State agencies have already submitted their funding requests, and Democratic Gov. Tony Evers has finished hosting budget listening sessions across the state. His executive budget proposal will make its debut on Feb. 18. The Republican-controlled Legislature will then review it and make significant changes before Evers signs a final budget bill into law, typically within a few days of the start of the new fiscal year on July 1.

Wisconsin ended its 2024 fiscal year with a more-than-expected $4.6 billion budget surplus. Republicans want to reduce the surplus by passing income tax cuts before the budget debate begins, while Democrats are urging more funding for things like K-12 education. 

We will be watching the battle over public education funding, which constitutes a third of the state’s general fund budget. Wisconsin held a record number of school referendums this year. Districts, public officials, local taxpayers and public school advocates are speaking out, calling for increases in state aid after approving $4.4 billion in property tax hikes so their local schools can continue to cover operating costs, as well as large projects. 

Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have told Wisconsin Watch that voters aren’t happy about having to increase their own property taxes. But Republican lawmakers have stood their ground in support of private school vouchers and have criticized state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jill Underly’s $4 billion ask for public school funding in the upcoming budget. The state Supreme Court will decide whether an Evers veto in the previous budget that guaranteed $325 per pupil annual revenue limit increases for 400 years will stand, which could influence the debate. 

Another topic we’re monitoring is child care. A Wisconsin Department of Children and Families child care survey found last year that almost 60% of providers in Wisconsin have unused classroom capacity due to staff shortages. Providers report that if they were able to operate at full capacity, they could accept up to 33,000 more children. The state is losing hundreds of child care providers every year, according to DCF. 

In 2023, the powerful Joint Finance Committee, which will review and likely rewrite most of Evers’ budget proposal, voted to end funding for the Child Care Counts program — a pandemic-era subsidy program. 

Homelessness is also a growing problem all across Wisconsin, especially in rural areas. It can be largely attributed to rising housing costs following the pandemic and a lack of affordable housing units. Annual homeless counts conducted in January show that the state’s homeless population has increased every year since 2021.

Evers’ previous attempts to fund emergency shelter and housing grants, case management services and workforce housing grants in the state budget have been nixed by Republican lawmakers.

There are likely more battles coming over higher education funding after last year’s restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion hiring. Wisconsin remains an outlier on Medicaid expansion, particularly postpartum coverage. Transportation funding continues to be a challenge as more fuel-efficient vehicles use a system built around the gas tax. Republicans have signaled opposition to the land stewardship program after the Supreme Court limited the finance committee’s power to block purchases. And the state prison system has been plagued by understaffing, inmate deaths, alleged corruption and a problematic juvenile facility.

That’s just a small taste of what’s coming in the budget this year.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Here’s what we’re watching for in this year’s Wisconsin budget debate 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.

The future may not have been written yet, but as it unfolds in 2025, Wisconsin Watch’s statehouse team will be on the lookout for stories that expose societal problems, explore solutions, explain the decisions that affect your daily life and hold the powerful to account.

Here are four storylines we predict we’ll be following in the new year:

1. The Wisconsin Supreme Court will expand abortion rights.

There are two abortion-related cases at the Wisconsin Supreme Court right now. One questions whether or not an 1849 law has been “impliedly repealed” by subsequent abortion laws and whether it even applies to consensual abortions. The other asks the justices to declare that access to abortion is a right protected by the state constitution. I’m guessing they will.

In another recent but unrelated case, Justice Rebecca Dallet suggested the court should broadly interpret the Wisconsin Constitution. “There are several compelling reasons why we should read Article I, Section 1 (of the state constitution) as providing broader protections for individual liberties than the Fourteenth Amendment (of the U.S. constitution),” she wrote. Article I, Section 1 of the state constitution states, in part, that all “people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

That’s the exact provision Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin relies on in arguing abortion access is protected by the constitution. Seems noteworthy.

— Jack Kelly

2. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and the Republican-controlled Legislature will again strike a deal to increase funding for public education and private voucher schools, similar to the compromise they made in 2023. 

Wisconsin held a record number of public school referendums this year. School districts, public officials, local taxpayers and public education advocates are speaking out, calling for increases in state aid after approving $4.4 billion in property tax hikes so their local schools can continue to cover operating costs, as well as large projects. After speaking with both Republican and Democratic lawmakers about this issue during the 2024 election cycle, many of them agreed that voters aren’t happy when they have to increase their own property taxes. Assuming Republicans are feeling the pressure to increase funding for public schools, K-12 spending could be on track to become one of the most significant budget items in 2025. 

But Republican lawmakers have also stood their ground in support of school choice and have criticized state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jill Underly’s $4 billion ask for public school funding in the upcoming budget. If Republicans do agree to per-pupil funding increases, it likely won’t match the amount Evers asks for. In turn, Republicans will likely demand an increase for the voucher system as well.

— Hallie Claflin

3. The state Supreme Court election will set another spending record.

The last time Donald Trump won the presidency, Democrats were so shell-shocked they didn’t field a candidate to challenge conservative Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler’s re-election bid. Then in January 2018 Democrat Patty Schachtner won a special state Senate election in rural northwestern Wisconsin, signaling a Democratic wave was building. Rebecca Dallet’s Supreme Court win in April of that year affirmed the wave. It also heralded a leftward swing of the state Supreme Court culminating with Janet Protasiewicz’s win in April 2023, an election that shattered national spending records for a state Supreme Court election.

Whether Dane County Judge Susan Crawford can continue the liberal winning streak or former Attorney General Brad Schimel can channel Trump’s winning vibes is far from certain. But April’s high court contest is a must-win for Republicans, so expect the $51 million record from 2023 to fall. A Crawford win would guarantee liberal control through 2028. A Schimel win would set up another pivotal election in 2026.

— Matthew DeFour

4. Ben Wikler will be the next chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Democrats have been doing a lot of soul searching since their setbacks in November. While they haven’t reached a consensus on how to move their party forward — and they likely won’t anytime soon — they will need an effective communicator as their leader while they regroup. Wikler, who is a powerhouse fundraiser, is about as media-savvy as it comes. Whether it’s catering to a national audience on cable news, firing up the base on liberal podcasts like “Pod Save America” or speaking about local issues with local reporters like me, Wikler always stays on message. In a time when Democrats need to convince voters that they are looking out for their best interests, staying on message would be a valuable quality in a leader. That, combined with a track record of building strong party infrastructure at the state level and, most importantly, winning, makes him a standout among the declared candidates. We’ll find out his fate Feb. 1.

— Jack Kelly

Forward is a look ahead at the week in Wisconsin government and politics from the Wisconsin Watch statehouse team.

State budget, Supreme Court race top next year’s political calendar 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.

When the Wisconsin Legislature returns to work in January, Republicans will still be in charge but will have the narrowest majorities since taking control in 2011. That’s giving Democrats, including Gov. Tony Evers, optimism that both sides will be able to work together better than they have since Evers took office six years ago.

Both sides are eyeing the state’s massive budget surplus, which sits at more than $4 billion. What to do with that money will drive debate over the next two-year budget, which will be written in 2025, while questions hang in the air about whether Evers plans to run for a third term in 2026 and how the state will interact with President-elect Donald Trump’s administration.

Here is a look at some of the biggest pending issues:

New dynamic in the Legislature

Democrats gained seats in the November election because of redrawn maps ordered by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Republican majority now sits at 54-45 in the Assembly and 18-15 in the Senate. Democrats have 10 more seats in the Assembly than last session and four more in the Senate and are hopeful about gaining the majority after the 2026 election.

“We have already seen a shift in the Capitol due to the new maps,” Assembly Democratic Minority Leader Greta Neubauer told The Associated Press.

She and other Democrats predict it will lead to more pressure from rank-and-file Republicans in competitive districts to move to the middle and compromise with Democrats.

“Everybody understands, at least at this point, that we need to work together, pull together,” Republican Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu told the AP. “And it’s important to get some things done.”

Pushing back against Trump

Democrats say they have been talking with Evers and Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul about how Wisconsin can push back against the incoming Trump administration’s plans for mass deportations. But Democrats say they are also looking at other ways the state can fight Trump’s policies on issues like abortion and LGBTQ+ rights.

“We’re worried about a lot of the things that former and future President Trump might do, especially when it comes to deportation and immigration,” Senate Democratic Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein said.

Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said he would support Trump’s efforts to deport people who are in the country illegally and commit crimes.

Republicans prioritize cutting taxes. Democrats are open

Republicans passed a $3.5 billion tax cut that Evers gutted to just $175 million with his veto in the last budget. With another large surplus, Republicans say they want to try again.

“People struggling to pay their bills,” LeMahieu said. “We heard that in our local races. And so we want to help help help families out there. We have the money to do it. And that’s going to be our number one priority.”

Both he and Vos said they would like a tax cut of around $2 billion.

Democrats say that they aren’t opposed to cutting taxes, but that they want it to be targeted to helping the middle and lower classes and families.

“We are not interested in tax cuts that primarily benefit rich Wisconsinites or corporations,” Neubauer said. “But we are certainly open to tax cuts that help those who are struggling to make ends meet.”

K-12 education funding

The state superintendent of schools, Jill Underly, proposed spending more than $4 billion on K-12 schools in her budget proposal, which is subject to legislative approval. That’s almost certainly not going to happen, both Republicans and Democrats said.

“We’re not going to spend $4 billion on education, I can guarantee you that right now,” LeMahieu said.

While Democrats say they are prioritizing education funding, “I don’t think we’re going to be able to match that,” Hesselbein said of the $4 billion request.

Universities of Wisconsin

Leaders of the cash-strapped Universities of Wisconsin have asked for $855 million in additional funding in the next budget, nearly an 11% increase. System President Jay Rothman says schools need the money to stave off tuition increases, cover raises, subsidize tuition, and keep two-year branch campuses open in the face of declining enrollment and flat state aid.

Evers has promised to include the request in his budget, but Republican leaders said they would not approve that much, and Democrats also said it was a goal that was unlikely to be met.

LeMahieu and Vos both said UW would not get what it wants.

“We’re going to need to see some substantial change in how they’re doing their programing,” LeMahieu said. “We can’t just keep spending more and more on a system that’s educating less and less people.”

Marijuana, health care and other priorities

Vos said he intends to create a state-level task force to improve government efficiency, similar to what Trump created at the national level dubbed DOGE. He also supports passing a bill that would allow for the processing of absentee ballots the day before Election Day, a measure that’s had bipartisan support in the past but failed to pass.

Democrats say they will continue to push for ways to expand and reduce costs for child care, health care for new mothers and prescription drugs. Both Republicans and Democrats say they want to do more to create affordable housing. The future of the state’s land stewardship program also hangs in in the balance after the state Supreme Court said Republicans were illegally blocking funding of projects.

Democrats also say they hope to revive efforts to legalize medical marijuana, an effort that was backed by some Republicans but that failed to pass last session.

LeMahieu predicted the slimmer Republican majorities will make it more difficult for any marijuana bill to pass because some lawmakers “are dead set against it.”

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 Legislature’s tight Republican majority sparks hope for bipartisan cooperation 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 politics were shaken up this year with the signing of new legislative maps that ended over a decade of extreme and effective Republican gerrymandering.

It was the first time in Wisconsin history a Legislature and a governor of different parties agreed on legislative redistricting, the Legislative Reference Bureau told Wisconsin Watch.

In a good Republican year across the country, Wisconsin Democrats flipped 14 seats in the Legislature — largely because of those new maps. It wasn’t enough to win a majority in the Assembly or the Senate, but the resulting 54-45 and 18-15 splits better reflect Wisconsin’s swing-state status.

Wisconsin’s congressional maps were not redrawn. Republicans kept six of the state’s eight congressional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The state’s current congressional maps were drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and approved by the then-conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2022. The last time a governor of one party and a Legislature of another agreed on congressional maps was in 1991.

Evers’ maps were slightly more favorable to Democrats than the previous decade’s maps, but they didn’t change that much because the court established a “least change” rule when deciding which maps it would approve. That meant they would largely conform to the Republican maps that had been in place since 2011.

In March, the now-liberal high court denied a request to reconsider the state’s congressional maps before this year’s elections without stating a reason. Evers had asked for changes to the congressional maps soon after he signed the new legislative maps into law in February. Those maps were approved by the GOP-controlled Legislature.

Elias Law Group filed a motion in January asking the court to revise the congressional boundaries ahead of the 2024 election. The Democratic law firm argued that new maps were justified after the court abandoned the “least change” approach when deciding on the legislative map challenge last year. In that case, the state Supreme Court said it would no longer favor maps that present minimal changes to existing boundaries.

Democrats argued that Evers’ congressional boundaries drawn in 2022 were decided under the “least change” restrictions later thrown out by the court in the legislative redistricting case.

Republicans pushed back, arguing that newly elected liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz prejudged the case during her 2023 campaign. They requested she recuse herself from the case. But Protasiewicz said she decided not to vote on the motion to reconsider the congressional maps because she wasn’t on the court when the underlying case was decided.

Republican Party of Wisconsin chair Brian Schimming in a statement called the court’s decision “the demise of Governor Evers’ latest attempt to throw out his own hand-drawn congressional maps.”

Republicans have retained control of six of Wisconsin’s eight House seats, with Democratic Reps. Mark Pocan and Gwen Moore safely controlling the two districts that cover Madison and Milwaukee. In comparison, Democrats held five of the eight seats in 2010 — the year before Republicans redrew the maps.

The 1st and 3rd districts are currently the only competitive congressional districts in Wisconsin, represented by Republican Reps. Bryan Steil and Derrick Van Orden respectively. Steil won his race this month with 54% of the vote, and Van Orden won with 51.4% of the vote.

Conservative Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Rebecca Bradley in their concurrence wrote the new majority’s “reckless abandonment of settled legal precedent” in the legislative redistricting case “incentivizes litigants to bring politically divisive cases to this court regardless of their legal merit.”

Representatives of Elias Law Group did not respond to Wisconsin Watch when asked if they anticipate another legal challenge to the congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

“I remain very interested between now and 2030 in trying to find a way to get the court to … tell us whether partisan gerrymandering violates the Wisconsin Constitution. I believe it does,” Jeff Mandell, founder of the liberal legal group Law Forward, told Wisconsin Watch. “I believe the court will say it does when we present the right case.”

But Mandell said nothing has been drafted, and his group won’t bring a case to the Supreme Court unless it has “got the goods.”

Wisconsin Watch readers have submitted questions to our statehouse team, and we’ll answer them in our series, Ask Wisconsin Watch. Have a question about state government? Ask it here.

Why were state legislative districts redrawn for 2024, but congressional districts remain unchanged? 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.