The three proposed changes to the Wisconsin Constitution on the Nov. 3 ballot do more than their ballot wording suggests, the executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin told a Northwoods audience Oct. 8.
Debra Cronmiller spoke at an educational program at ArtStart in Rhinelander hosted by the League of Women Voters of the Northwoods. She covered the three amendments in turn: one exempting houses of worship from emergency orders, one limiting the governor’s partial veto, and one barring governmental “preferential treatment” based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.
“It’s important to look beyond the few words printed on the ballot,” said Debra Durchslag, president of the Northwoods league. The chapter covers Oneida, Vilas, Lincoln, Langlade, Florence and Forest counties.
Durchslag said the league is nonpartisan and “never tells voters how to vote.” Cronmiller said the state league registered opposition to the bills behind all three amendments when they moved through the Legislature. In her remarks, she called the third amendment “anti-equity.” Supporters call it an equality amendment.
Why amendments, not laws
A constitutional amendment must pass both houses of the Legislature in two successive sessions in identical form before going to voters. It then needs a simple majority, 50% plus one vote, to be adopted. The governor has no role and cannot veto it.
Cronmiller argued that the Legislature has increasingly used amendments “fast and furious” to get around Gov. Tony Evers’ veto. She said the league does not consider that good government.
She also said ballot questions are usually worded in a way that draws a yes vote. “It’s really hard to vote no,” she said, adding that about 87% of Wisconsin ballot questions have historically passed.
Question 1: Houses of worship
The first amendment would bar the state from closing or restricting places of worship during a declared emergency. Cronmiller said the idea grew out of Evers’ early COVID-19 orders in 2020, which limited public gatherings. She called those orders a public health measure, not an attack on religious freedom, which she noted is already protected by the state and federal constitutions.
She said most clergy her committee spoke with did not want the responsibility the amendment would give them. She also said it could reach beyond pandemics. As an example, she cited a flood in Janesville in which a downtown Lutheran church was declared unsafe under an emergency order.Under the amendment, she said, that congregation could have returned to the building.
Asked whether the amendment defines “religious,” Cronmiller said the language refers to “houses of worship” without further definition.
Question 2: Partial veto
The second amendment would bar the governor from using the partial veto to create or increase a tax or fee. Cronmiller tied the question to Evers’ 2023-25 budget veto. He struck digits to extend a per-pupil school revenue limit increase for about 400 years. She said governors of both parties have long used partial veto power. Limiting it, she said, would restrict all future governors, not just Evers.
She called the veto a response to the Legislature’s failure to raise public school funding.
Question 3: ‘Preferential treatment’
Cronmiller called the third amendment “the biggie.” She read the ballot language aloud: “Governmental entity discrimination prohibited. 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, and public administration?”
She said the opening words, “governmental entity discrimination prohibited,” mislead voters. Discrimination is already illegal, she said, and the amendment’s real effect lies in the “preferential treatment” clause. She called both that phrase and “public administration” undefined in state law and predicted years of litigation over them.
She said the measure is modeled on Michigan’s 2006 amendment, which has been litigated since, including a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case.
Programs she said could be challenged include:
Contracting preferences for minority- and women-owned businesses. She said about 5.7% of roughly $1.6 billion in state contracts goes to such firms.
Scholarships for women and students of color in STEM.
Programs encouraging women in agriculture.
State-directed maternal health programs for Black women.
Programs such as Head Start.
She said proponents have argued that eliminating preferential programs would save taxpayers money.
Answering audience questions, Cronmiller said:
Age and disability are not covered by the amendment. Disability is already heavily protected under federal law.
Federally mandated programs such as Medicaid would be outside the amendment’s reach, but state decisions about how to target federal money could be affected.
A program favoring men for medical school slots would also become illegal.
The league’s alternative view, she said, is that equal treatment does not produce equal opportunity when people start from different places.
Supporters of the amendments, led by the Republican lawmakers who wrote all three measures, say they would limit government overreach. On the partial veto question, they point to Gov. Tony Evers’ use of his veto pen in the 2023-25 budget to raise school revenue limits by $325 a year for the next 400 years, and Sen. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield, argues that voter approval would reset the separation of powers among the Legislature, the executive branch and the courts; the Wisconsin Property Taxpayers, Americans for Prosperity, the Wisconsin Realtors Association and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce registered in support. Backers of the worship amendment cite the COVID-era “Safer at Home” order, which limited religious gatherings to fewer than 10 people while treating liquor stores as essential businesses; Rep. Ron Tusler, R-Harrison, says people of faith need it most in times of fear and uncertainty, and that the government should not be able to cut off access to places of worship in a future emergency, a position backed by Pro-Life Wisconsin and Wisconsin Family Action. Rep. Dave Murphy, R-Hortonville, author of the anti-discrimination amendment, says the idea grew out of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against race-conscious college admissions, and argues that government works best when choices are based on merit, and that programs for disadvantaged people can continue as long as they don’t exclude anyone; the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty says the measure will “end discriminatory DEI programs throughout Wisconsin.” Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom Tiffany supports all three.
The general election is Nov. 3.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here