My Ballot

Under current law, the Governor may partially veto language in a spending bill passed by the Legislature. The veto may result in either more or fewer taxes or fees being imposed and may also result in local government entities being authorized to increase or decrease local taxes or fees.

The proposed amendment would add a new clause to Article V, section 10(1)(c) of the Wisconsin Constitution, providing that the Governor’s veto “may not create or increase or authorize the creation or increase of any tax or fee.” This language would not only prevent a veto from increasing any state taxes or fees, but also prevent a veto from allowing local governments, such as school districts, to increase their own taxes or fees.

Under current law, Article I, section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution, like the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, protects religious rights. In a declared state of emergency, officials may limit public gatherings, including religious gatherings, so long as religious and secular gatherings are treated equivalently.

The proposed amendment would add a new clause to the end of Article I, section 18, prohibiting the state and local governments from ordering the closure or forbidding gatherings “in places of worship” when there is a state of emergency. That language would prevent officials from forbidding gatherings in places of worship even when other types of public gatherings have been closed.

Under current law, both under Article I, section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, states and local governments may not discriminate based on race, ethnicity, color, national origin, or sex except under specific circumstances. For race, color, ethnicity, or national origin, discrimination in favor of or against a group is permissible only if the government has a compelling interest and a narrowly tailored remedy. For sex, discrimination is permissible if it serves an important government interest and is substantially related to that interest. Current law also makes distinctions depending on whether discrimination is overt and intentional, or merely a disparate impact of a neutral policy.

The proposed amendment would create a new provision, Article I, section 27, which would prohibit state and local governmental entities from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration.

This language appears to impose stricter standards against discrimination than the standards under current state and federal law.

The amendment contains three exceptions. It does not apply if it would cause the governmental entity (1) to lose eligibility for a federal program or (2) to violate federal law. And the amendment’s prohibition on treating people differently based on sex does not apply to measures that are “reasonably necessary” to the “normal operation” of public employment, education, contracting, or administration.