Wisconsin voters will decide this fall whether to add three amendments to the state constitution, weighing proposals that would restrict diversity, equity and inclusion policies, narrow the governor’s partial-veto power and bar government from closing places of worship during emergencies. The measures mark the 15th time Republican lawmakers have sent proposed amendments to voters during Gov. Tony Evers’ two terms. Voters have approved seven of the previous 12 proposals. Republicans have said the amendment process lets them pursue policy changes that could otherwise face an Evers veto; critics argue it is an improper substitute for ordinary lawmaking and can make voter questions difficult to understand. Wisconsin’s amendment process requires a proposal to pass the Legislature in two consecutive sessions before voters can decide on it. Voters cannot directly place constitutional amendments on the ballot. Once adopted, constitutional provisions are also more difficult to change than state laws. The three proposals would prohibit government entities from discriminating or granting preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin; bar a governor from using a partial veto to create or increase a tax or fee; and prevent state or local governments from ordering places of worship closed or banning gatherings there during a state of emergency, including a public-health emergency. Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Crowley opposes all three proposals, while Republican candidate Tom Tiffany supports them, according to the candidates’ stated positions. **DEI proposal raises questions about existing programs** The first amendment asks voters to prohibit government from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to people based on specified characteristics in public employment, education, contracting and administration. Supporters say government decisions should be based on merit. Republican Rep. Dave Murphy of Hortonville, who wrote the proposal and is not seeking reelection, said he wants public hiring and spending to produce the best results without other considerations getting in the way. Opponents say the language could reach beyond discriminatory practices and undermine programs intended to address unequal access and outcomes. Amanda Merkwae, policy and advocacy director for the ACLU of Wisconsin, said existing state and federal laws, including the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, already prohibit discrimination. She warned that placing broad restrictions in the constitution could limit future efforts to respond to disparities, including initiatives involving minority- and women-owned businesses or workforce development. Debra Cronmiller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, said the ballot wording may lead voters to support the measure without fully considering its possible effects. The League has argued that programs designed to support women and people of color, as well as other targeted services, could be affected. Murphy has said his aim is to ensure government decisions are based on merit. **Partial-veto measure follows dispute over school funding** The second amendment would prevent a governor from using the partial veto to create or increase a tax or fee. Republicans proposed it after Evers used the power in the 2023-25 budget to allow school districts to raise revenue limits by $325 per pupil annually for 400 years. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld his authority to make that change. Tiffany has described the provision as a 400-year property-tax increase and made reversing it part of his campaign. The partial veto has been limited several times in Wisconsin’s history, through court rulings and constitutional amendments. Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker also used it to extend a one-year restriction on school energy-efficiency referendums into a 1,000-year moratorium. Republican Sen. Chris Kapenga of Delafield, who authored the amendment resolution, said it is intended to protect the separation of powers. Cronmiller said restricting a power held by the governor could affect future administrations regardless of which party holds the office, and argued that the Legislature should not permanently alter that balance in response to a dispute with the current governor. **Worship amendment stems from COVID-era restrictions** The third proposal would prohibit state and local governments from ordering places of worship closed or forbidding gatherings there during an emergency. Republican lawmakers introduced it after COVID-19 restrictions included limits on church gatherings. Republican Rep. Ron Tusler of Harrison said people often rely on faith during difficult periods and argued that government should not deprive them of that support. Cronmiller countered that public-health measures were intended to protect vulnerable people during the pandemic, and said religious institutions adapted to restrictions as businesses and schools did. Together, the proposals would place lasting limits in the state constitution on government policy, emergency response and the governor’s authority. That permanence is central to opponents’ concerns, while supporters say voters should have the final say on changes lawmakers believe are necessary.