On The Ballot: Three Constitutional Amendments

Latest Perspectives

Janesville Taxpayers Could Foot the Bill for Destroying Property Rights

October 08, 2026 | Richard Moore

Wisconsin Schools Added Administrators as Enrollment Fell

October 05, 2026 | Rebecca Draeger

More Money, Fewer Students, Worse Results: What's at Stake for Wisconsin Schools

October 02, 2026 | Rebecca Draeger

Property Rights Are Not a Popularity Contest

September 28, 2026 | Richard Moore

Will the State Ban ALPRs? Flock Cancellations Grow

September 25, 2026 | Michael Lucas

BECI 765: Laws Governing Transmission Lines

September 21, 2026 | Michael Lucas

Stay Informed

Get updates in your inbox on the latest news and analysis from the MacIver Institute.

SIGNUP

03October 2024

An Exclusive Evening with Tucker Carlson

SPEAKERS

Tucker Carlson

LEARN MORE

To view a larger version of this image, right click the image and then click "open image in new tab".

On the Ballot This November

On November 3rd there will be three constitutional amendments put to Wisconsin citizens for a vote. The amendments are posed as "questions" and will appear on the very last page of the ballot. Any question that receives a majority of "Yes" votes will be ratified and added to the Wisconsin Constitution. Any question that receives a majority of "No" votes will fail and not be added to the Wisconsin Constitution.

Many voters often find the phrasing of these questions confusing, so for clarity's sake, I will list each proposed amendment below with an explanation of what it would do, why it is being proposed, and how the political Left and Right are likely to vote on each.

If you would like to read these questions yourself and see everything that will be on your specific voter ballot this November, click HERE to visit the What's On My Ballot webpage by myvote.wi.gov. Simply enter your address and then click "Search" to see which offices you will be voting for. The amendment questions are at the very end.

Amendment #1

Title: State of Wisconsin Partial Veto Referendum

Question:

“Shall section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the constitution be amended to prohibit the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto authority, from creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee?”

What Does It Mean?

This amendment would limit the Governor's partial veto power in 3 ways:

1) He may not strike individual letters to create new words;
2) He may not create new sentences by combining multiple sentences;
3) He may not create or increase taxes or fees

The effect: The Governor would only be able to reduce the size of a tax or fee, and would not be able to create new meanings or to increase government spending that is not first approved by the Legislature.

Why It's Being Proposed

When the Legislature passed the 2023-25 Budget, Governor Evers used his partial veto power to increase the amount of funding school districts receive by $325 per student per year, for the next 400 years. He did this by striking individual letters, numbers and characters to make new sentences, thus increasing funding.

In 2005, Governor Doyle did something similar when he used his partial veto to combine the parts of different sentences to appropriate $427 million to public schools.

The main objection to these practices is that if a Governor can write law by changing the intent of legislation, then there is no need for a legislature.

Who Would Likely Vote "YES"?

1) Conservatives
2) Libertarians
3) Republicans
4) The Right

Who Would Likely Vote "NO"?

1) Democrats
2) The Left
3) Liberals
4) Socialists

The Exact Text of the Amendment:

Section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the constitution is amended to read:

[Article V] Section 10 (1) (c) In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill, and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences of the enrolled bill, and may not create or increase or authorize the creation or increase of any tax or fee.

Amendment #2

Title: State of Wisconsin Freedom to Gather in Places of Worship During an Emergency Referendum

Question:

"Shall section 18 of article I of the constitution, which deals with religious liberty, be amended to prohibit the state or a political subdivision of the state from ordering the closure of, or forbidding gatherings in, places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including a public health emergency?"

What Does It Mean?

This amendment would prevent the state and every political subdivision from prohibiting people from gathering in places of worship, even during states of emergency.

Specifically, people would be allowed to gather in places of worship regardless of which government declares the emergency––federal, state, or local.

Also, the amendment explicitly mentions that health emergencies will not enable governments to close places of worship.

Why It's Being Proposed

In response to Covid, governments everywhere shut down businesses, recreational spaces and places of worship. This amendment would prohibit any government from closing places of worship during declared states of emergency.

In some places, certain Christian churches were allowed to remain open while others were not. Certain religions, also, were allowed to worship in the usual way while others were not.

This amendment reinforces article 1 section 18's declared right that "The right of every person to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed" by specifically addressing the Covid lockdowns.

Who Would Likely Vote "YES"?

1) Conservatives
2) Libertarians
3) The Religious
4) Republicans
5) The Right

Who Would Likely Vote "NO"?

1) Democrats
2) The Left
3) Liberals
4) Socialists

The Exact Text of the Amendment:

Section 18 of article I of the constitution is amended to read:

[Article I] Section 18. The right of every person to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries; nor shall the state or a political subdivision of the state order the closure of or forbid gatherings in places of worship in response to a state of emergency at the national, state, or local level, including an emergency related to public health.

Amendment #3

Title: State of Wisconsin Governmental Entity Discrimination Prohibited Referendum

Question:

"Shall section 27 of article I of the constitution be created to prohibit governmental entities in the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration?"

What Does It Mean?

This amendment prohibits all government entities––schools, departments, law enforcement, universities, agencies, etc.––from penalizing or giving special treatment to people on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin when:

1) A person is, or is seeking to become, a public employee
2) A person is, or is seeking to become, a participant in the public education system (students, employees, etc.)
3) A person is, or is seeking to become, the recipient of a public contract (consultants, construction firms, etc.)
4) A person is, or is seeking to become, a participant in the public administration system

Why It's Being Proposed

This amendment is being introduced due to a number of schools, school districts, state universities, municipal governments, and other public entities giving special treatment to individuals on the basis of their skin color, sex, and other characteristics in pursuit of a Diversity, Equity & Inclusion policy.

This amendment does not address DEI as a specific policy. Nor does it address Affirmative Action. Rather, any practice (whether it is an official policy or not) which results in an individual being penalized or elevated on the basis of these characteristics would be prohibited.

Who Would Likely Vote "YES"?

1) Conservatives
2) Libertarians
3) Republicans
4) The Right

Who Would Likely Vote "NO"?

1) Democrats
2) The Left
3) Liberals
4) Socialists

The Exact Text of the Amendment:

Section 27 of article I of the constitution is created to read:

[Article I] Section 27 (1) In this section, “governmental entity” means the state, its political subdivisions including municipalities, the University of Wisconsin System, the Technical College System, any public college or university, any public school district, and any office, department, independent agency, board, commission, authority, institution, association, society, or other body in state or local government created or authorized to be created by the constitution or any law, including the legislature and the courts.
(2) A governmental entity may not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration.
(3) This section does not prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the governmental entity.
(4) Nothing in this section prohibits bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration.
(5) If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with the United States Constitution or federal law, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the United States Constitution and federal law permit. Any provision of this section held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.