Opinion
Wisconsin Editorial Board Urges ‘No’ on Three November Constitutional Amendments
A Milwaukee editorial board is urging Wisconsin voters to reject three proposed constitutional amendments, arguing they could weaken the governor’s veto power, limit public-health protections and constrain lawmakers’ ability to address discrimination. The board’s case is forceful, but voters should review the amendments’ full text before deciding.
A Milwaukee editorial board is calling on Wisconsin voters to reject all three proposed constitutional amendments on the November ballot, raising concerns about the measures’ potential effects on executive authority, public health and anti-discrimination policy.
In an editorial published Sept. 29, the Shepherd Express Editorial Board argues that the first proposal would change the governor’s constitutional item-veto power, a check on legislation passed by the Legislature. The board says the ballot wording does not adequately convey the proposal’s consequences, but the editorial does not spell out the amendment’s precise language or describe how the veto authority would change.
The board also opposes a proposal it says would let religious organizations disregard public-health requirements. It points to churches’ compliance with closure and masking orders during the COVID-19 pandemic and argues that exemptions could put congregations and the wider community at risk. The editorial further contends that the measure raises concerns about separation of church and state.
The third proposal, which the board says is titled “discrimination prohibited,” draws the editorial’s strongest criticism. The board argues that the amendment could restrict the Legislature’s ability to develop policies and programs addressing discrimination. It characterizes the proposal as exclusionary, but provides no specific examples of programs it believes would be barred.
The editorial presents a clear political recommendation, not a detailed analysis of the ballot language. Because constitutional amendments can have lasting effects and the claims made about them are consequential, voters should examine the official text and independent explanations of each proposal before casting a ballot.