Wisconsin voters will decide Nov. 3 whether to amend the state constitution in three ways: limit the governor’s partial veto power, bar state and local governments from restricting gatherings in places of worship during emergencies, and prohibit government discrimination or preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Republican lawmakers advanced all three measures. Supporters say they protect religious liberty, equal treatment and the balance of power in state government. Gov. Tony Evers and other Democrats urge voters to reject them, arguing the changes are unnecessary or could weaken protections and public programs. The measures reached the ballot through a process requiring lawmakers to approve identical language in two consecutive legislative sessions before voters can decide. Republicans have used that route during Evers’ nearly eight years in office, putting 12 amendments before voters; seven have passed. In April 2025, nearly 63% of voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring photo identification to vote. The first proposal would prevent a governor from using the partial veto to create or increase a tax or fee. Republicans pursued the change after Evers used his veto authority in the 2023-25 state budget to increase school revenue limits by $325 per pupil annually for 400 years. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld that veto in 2025. The revenue-limit increase did not itself raise property taxes. Revenue limits cap the combined amount school districts may receive through state aid and property taxes. Local school boards decide how much property tax to levy and are not required to collect the maximum allowed, although most historically have. The Legislature and governor can reduce local property taxes by increasing state aid, but that has rarely happened. Republican Sen. Chris Kapenga of Delafield, who led the measure, says the amendment would reassert the separation of powers. The Wisconsin Education Association Council and League of Women Voters of Wisconsin opposed it. Democratic gubernatorial nominee David Crowley says he would vote against the change and wants to retain the veto authority; Republican nominee Tom Tiffany supports it. A second amendment would prohibit state and local governments from closing places of worship or barring gatherings there in response to a state of emergency, including a public health emergency. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Evers’ Safer at Home order limited religious gatherings to fewer than 10 people. The Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down the order in 2020. State Rep. Ron Tusler, a Republican who led the measure, argues that people need access to faith communities during a crisis. Pro-Life Wisconsin and Wisconsin Family Action supported the proposal during the legislative process. The League of Women Voters opposed it, saying worship can continue individually at home during emergencies. Crowley says leaders may sometimes need to make difficult decisions for the public good; Tiffany supports the amendment. The third proposal would bar government entities from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to people or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education, contracting or administration. Supporters describe it as a way to ensure equal treatment and merit-based decisions. State Rep. Dave Murphy, a Republican who led the measure, says programs for disadvantaged people could continue if they are open to everyone. Opponents warn the language could threaten programs intended to address barriers facing disadvantaged communities. Crowley says it could affect assistance for older adults, veterans and people with disabilities, as well as people of different races, genders and religions. The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and the League of Women Voters opposed the measure. The League said it could undermine civil-rights protections. The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty supported the amendment after successfully challenging a minority-focused undergraduate financial aid program in state court. The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously against that program, while liberal justices also noted that the effects of the country’s history of racial discrimination remain evident in society. Evers has urged voters to reject all three proposals, calling them misguided. Tiffany says he plans to vote yes on each. The questions will give voters decisions not only about individual policies, but also about how much authority to place in the state constitution rather than leave to elected officials and future legislatures.