Wisconsin voters saw 5 statewide referendums in 2024. They might see 4 more in 2025. Here's what they are.

Wisconsin voters saw five statewide referendum questions in 2024, the most in a single year since 1982. Four more could appear on ballots in the next two years.

One would add Wisconsin's voter photo ID law to the state constitution. Republicans will try to pass that measure in time for the April 2025 election, coinciding with a high-profile state Supreme Court race, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos told the Journal Sentinel.

To reach the ballot, the same constitutional amendment must be passed by state lawmakers two sessions in a row.

Because Republicans hold control of the Legislature, they have the power to put these questions before voters and decide which election to schedule them. Unlike about half of other states, Wisconsin doesn't have a process where citizens can initiate statewide referendums.

Last winter, lawmakers passed four constitutional amendments for the first time. To place the questions on ballots, a slimmer Republican majority would need to pass them a second time in 2025.

To get referendums on the April 1 ballot in Wisconsin, lawmakers have a Jan. 21 deadline to pass them in the full Assembly and Senate, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau. That's about two weeks after the session starts Jan. 6.

Vos said he intends to bring up the voter ID referendum "right away." The proposal's authors reintroduced it Dec. 17 and asked lawmakers to sign up to cosponsor it by Jan. 6, indicating the proposal could move quickly.

Republicans could also wait and schedule referendums for elections in 2026. Vos said he assumed lawmakers will pass the three other constitutional amendments a second time, but his caucus hasn't yet discussed when to put them on the ballot.

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer told the Journal Sentinel it's "entirely possible" Republicans will continue using constitutional amendments, which don't require Democratic Gov. Tony Evers' approval.

"We will just need to do what we can to push back against those (referendums) that move our state backwards," Neubauer said in a year-end interview.

Here's a primer on the four referendums that Wisconsin voters could see next and the debates behind them:

Adding Wisconsin's voter photo ID requirement to the constitution

State laws already require voters to show photo identification, but this referendum would enshrine that requirement in the state constitution.

Adding a voter ID requirement to the constitution makes it less likely the state Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional, or that Democrats could repeal the laws if they gain control of the Legislature. Reversing amendments to the constitution is more difficult than undoing state laws.

"I cannot say for certain how the Wisconsin Supreme Court would rule on voter ID laws, but I'm also not willing to risk the Wisconsin Supreme Court declaring voter ID laws unconstitutional," Sen. Van Wanggaard, a Republican from Racine, said at a hearing for the measure last year.

The state's highest court is under liberal control, but the April election will determine if it stays that way. Vos said he's concerned that Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate in the race, was a lead attorney in efforts to overturn voter ID.

"We can hopefully have it on the April (ballot) and have it enacted into law before anybody would be elected or not," Vos said in a year-end interview. "I think that (voter ID) is such a common-sense thing. It worries me about other decisions she would make."

It would "require something extraordinary" for a court to strike down voter ID if it's in the constitution, said University of Wisconsin-Madison political science professor Barry Burden, unless justices decide it conflicts with another part of the constitution.

Other states took the same route in the 2010s with mixed results, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Minnesota voters rejected adding a voter ID requirement to their state constitution, for example, while voters in Mississippi and North Carolina approved it.

If approved by voters in Wisconsin, the amendment would still let lawmakers decide what types of photo ID are acceptable and create exceptions. Voters who don't have a photo ID when they go the polls could still cast a provisional ballot, which is counted after they return to their clerk with their ID.

In a letter to lawmakers, a coalition of liberal-leaning and voting-rights groups said adding voter ID to the constitution is "unnecessary, impractical, and risks disenfranchising countless eligible voters across party lines, all over the state."

"We're hoping that the new Legislature will be more moderate in its tone," Sam Liebert, state director of All Voting is Local, told the Journal Sentinel. "I think it would take only two Republican senators, if all Democrats vote against it, to stop it. We're hoping that cooler heads will prevail."

Prohibiting government from closing places of worship during a state of emergency

Another referendum would add language to the state constitution that says the state and local governments can't close or forbid gatherings in places of worship — like churches, synagogues and mosques — during a state of emergency.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, state and local health officials limited public gatherings, including at places of worship.

"These actions exacerbated the mental health strain that the pandemic inflicted on residents who were unable to access their place of worship and spiritual leaders," Rep. Ty Bodden, a Republican from Hilbert, testified at a hearing for the constitutional amendment.

Court decisions later lifted restrictions on gatherings, including a state Supreme Court ruling that struck down Evers' stay-at-home order. Another ruling said local officials couldn't close schools because the order violated religious private school students' right to free exercise of religion.

Several states added similar policies to their state laws since 2020, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, and voters in Texas and Louisiana added it to their constitutions. Voters in Arkansas narrowly rejected it.

This referendum is "one that people understand and have opinions about," Burden said, compared to complex issues like who controls tax dollars. "My guess is that churches and other groups will be communicating about that."

Prohibiting governors from using a partial veto to create or raise taxes

Wisconsin is the only state that allows its governor to partially veto the state budget. That means they can remove words, numbers or punctuation to create new meanings or change spending amounts. Governors from both parties have creatively used the partial veto.

This proposed constitutional amendment would specifically prevent the governor from using the partial veto to create or increase any tax or fee.

Republicans made clear the amendment is a response to Evers striking a hyphen and a "20" in the last state budget, which effectively locked in school funding increases for the next 400 years.

Attorneys with Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state's largest business lobby, sued over that veto, arguing Evers unilaterally allowed property taxes to increase. The case is before the state Supreme Court.

If this referendum passed, it wouldn't be the first time Wisconsin voters have reined in the governor's partial veto power.

Many proposals that would have broadly rolled back the partial veto didn't make it through the Legislature twice, said Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School's State Democracy Research Initiative.

But more narrow limits on the governor's veto — like the new proposal — "seem to have gained more traction," Godar said.

That happened in 1990, when voters approved a referendum that said the governor can't remove letters to create a new word, known as the "Vanna White" veto. And in 2008, voters said the governor can't create new sentences from parts of two or more sentences, dubbed the "Frankenstein" veto.

Ending discrimination or preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin

The last referendum would prohibit governmental entities from discriminating against, or giving preferential treatment to, any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

"Governmental entities" would include state government, local governments, the University of Wisconsin System, the Wisconsin Technical College System, public school districts and other public agencies.

The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which supports the proposal, testified that "in practice, this amendment would ban government-sponsored affirmative action, racial quotas and preferences, and so-called Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies that use racial discrimination."

Last summer, budget negotiations for the UW System were contentious as Republicans aimed to eliminate DEI positions. In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the consideration of race in college admissions policies.

The amendment wouldn't prohibit actions required to keep getting funding from federal programs. It also wouldn't prohibit "bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation" of public employment, education, contracting or administration.

Eight states have similar laws, and five states have added it to their constitution since 1996, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau.

That includes Michigan, where in 2006 voters approved an amendment that says public institutions can't use affirmative action programs to grant preferential treatment based on race or sex. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Michigan's amendment, saying it didn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

A shared revenue law enacted last year said counties, cities, villages and towns in Wisconsin can't discriminate or provide preferential treatment based on race, color, ancestry, national origin or sexual orientation — similar to language in the proposed constitutional amendment.

At the time, city and county officials told the Journal Sentinel that the practice has already been banned by state and federal law for decades and said it wouldn't change their hiring or contracting processes.

Laura Schulte of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contributed to this story.