Wisconsin voters and the state Supreme Court could help determine the future of Act 10, the 2011 law that sharply curtailed collective bargaining for most public employees. The law is a major point of disagreement in the Nov. 3 race for governor and could also be affected by a lawsuit now headed to the state’s highest court. Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who voted for Act 10 as a state lawmaker, has defended it and warned that repeal could raise costs for taxpayers. His Democratic opponent, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, supports repealing the law but says its financial effects would depend on negotiations with public employers and unions. A governor cannot repeal Act 10 on their own. Legislative changes would require action by the Assembly and Senate as well as the governor, making the races for both chambers consequential. Democrats are seeking to win control of the Legislature for the first time since 2010. Senate Democratic Leader Dianne Hesselbein said her caucus supports restoring collective bargaining rights, while it continues to discuss how to address the law’s changes to public workers’ pension and health insurance contributions. “Collective bargaining works,” Hesselbein said. A separate legal challenge could alter the law. In 2024, a Dane County Circuit Court judge struck down parts of Act 10, but a state appeals court reversed that decision in July. The case is headed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The lawsuit argues that the law’s exemption for public safety workers, including police and firefighters, while restricting other public employees violates the state constitution’s equal protection guarantee. Act 10 was enacted after large demonstrations at the state Capitol in 2011, with as many as 100,000 people protesting the measure. The law largely ended collective bargaining for most public employees, limited bargaining mainly to base-wage increases no greater than inflation, required annual union recertification elections and shifted more pension and health insurance costs to workers. Public safety unions were exempt from many of its restrictions. The state Supreme Court upheld the law in 2014. The impact on union membership has been substantial. A report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research found Wisconsin’s public-sector union membership rate fell from 46.6% in 2010 to 18.5% in 2025. The Wisconsin Policy Forum estimated that higher employee pension contributions reduced state and local government costs by nearly $5.2 billion between 2011 and 2017; that estimate did not include changes to health insurance contributions. A Marquette Law School poll conducted after the Aug. 11 primary found 54% of registered voters favored restoring public employees’ collective bargaining rights to pre-Act 10 levels, while 43% wanted to keep the law as it is. Support and opposition tracked closely with party affiliation: 84% of Democrats favored restoration, while 65% of Republicans opposed repeal. Independents were more divided, with 50% supporting the law and 46% favoring repeal. Restoring bargaining rights would not automatically raise wages or reverse changes to benefits. Unions and public employers would need to negotiate new agreements, and some unions that lost certification or disbanded could have to reorganize. University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Michael Childers said workers and human resources staff would also need time to rebuild bargaining experience after nearly 15 years under the law. The fiscal consequences would depend on what lawmakers changed and what employers and unions negotiated. Republican estimates of a $2 billion annual tax increase rely on a study by the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. Crowley has disputed the claim that repeal would immediately increase taxpayer costs, saying that restoring bargaining would not automatically end employee contributions to health care or retirement. Wisconsin Policy Forum researchers have cautioned that school districts and local governments operate under revenue limits, which constrain immediate spending increases. Those limits would remain relevant even if employees and employers regained the ability to negotiate over benefits and other working conditions. The court ruling and election results may therefore determine not only whether Act 10’s restrictions remain, but who would have the authority to revise them. Any changes could take time to reach workers, schools and local governments, and their effects would depend on the details of legislation and subsequent bargaining.