Politics
Wisconsin voters face ballot questions on governor’s veto, worship gatherings and equity programs
Three proposed constitutional amendments will ask Wisconsin voters to limit the governor’s partial veto authority over taxes and fees, restrict emergency orders affecting worship gatherings, and bar government preferences based on protected characteristics. A Marquette University political science professor says the wording—especially on worship restrictions and equity programs—leaves room for legal disputes.
Wisconsin voters will decide three proposed constitutional amendments on Nov. 3, addressing the governor’s partial veto power, government limits on gatherings in places of worship during emergencies, and policies involving race, sex and other protected characteristics.
The questions will appear on ballots for voters who cast ballots early as well as those who vote on Election Day. Philip Rocco, a political science professor at Marquette University, said the wording can be difficult to parse and encouraged voters to consider the arguments made by supporters and opponents.
The first measure would amend the state constitution to prohibit the governor from using the partial veto to create or increase a tax or fee, or authorize its creation or increase. Wisconsin governors can veto portions of legislation rather than reject an entire bill. Rocco described the broader debate over that authority as one shaped by partisan conflict between governors and the Legislature, which have often been controlled by different parties in recent years.
The second question would bar state and local governments from ordering places of worship to close or forbidding gatherings there during a state of emergency, including a public health emergency. The measure’s reach is uncertain, Rocco said. It could apply only to closure orders, or it could also be read to prevent limits such as capacity restrictions.
The third amendment would prohibit government entities from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to individuals or groups based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education, contracting or administration.
Rocco said existing state and federal laws already prohibit discrimination in these areas. He identified the amendment’s language on “preferential treatment” as central to its potential effect, saying it could be applied to affirmative-action policies and other programs intended to address disparities. If approved, the measure could make it easier to challenge such programs in court, he said, though its ambiguous language makes the ultimate scope difficult to predict.
The three proposals were placed on the ballot by the Wisconsin Legislature. Rocco said voters who find the questions challenging to understand are not alone, and that examining arguments from both sides can help clarify the issues at stake.