09/02/2026
A guide to the 3 statewide referendums in Wisconsin's Nov. 3 election
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Sept. 1, 2026, 5:03 a.m. CT
Wisconsin voters will see three questions on the Nov. 3 ballot that ask whether the state constitution should be changed to further restrict the governor's partial veto powers, prevent church closures during future pandemics and prohibit race-based eligibility in government programs.
Voters have frequently seen constitutional amendments on recent ballots – including one that enshrined the state's voter ID law last April – and approved them with mixed results. Wisconsin voters often express confusion at the polls about the legally dense questions.
The three proposed amendments are the most of any Wisconsin statewide ballot since April 1995, according to the Wisconsin Blue Book. Unlike 24 other states, Wisconsin citizens can't petition for a ballot question.
More: What to know about referendums in Wisconsin, and why citizens can't petition for them
Republicans who control the state Legislature have the votes to place referendums on the ballot by passing them two sessions in a row in both the Assembly and the Senate. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers doesn't have the ability to block the proposals, and Republicans have used the process to put their priorities directly in front of voters.
"The fact that this is unfolding alongside a governor's race could impact how much attention these amendments receive, depending in part on whether the gubernatorial candidates focus on them," said Bryna Godar, a state constitutions expert at the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Sometimes, there's "very little mobilization and public education around them, and voters might not know what they're going to be voting on until they get to the voting booth," Godar said.
Like in previous years, conservative groups and Republicans typically advocate for a "yes" vote on the three referendums. Liberal groups and Democrats generally support voting "no" – in part because they believe lawmakers should hash out the policies and enact them via state law, rather than a permanent, constitutional change.
Here's a guide and context behind the questions that will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot:
Limiting governor's partial veto from raising taxes, creating fees
The first question reads: "Partial veto. Shall section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the constitution be amended to prohibit the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto authority, from creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee?”
This question ties back to the "400-year veto," the colloquial name for Evers' maneuver in the 2023-25 state budget that raises limits on how much money school districts can take in – including through property taxes – by $325 per student each year until 2425. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the unusual veto.
Gov. Tony Evers vetoed the words and numbers in red, creating a $325-per-student increase in school funding each year until 2425.
Conservatives argued Evers' veto would create a steady stream of property tax increases, and Republican nominee Tom Tiffany says he would call a special session to repeal the 400-year veto on his first day as governor. Evers has blamed Republicans for not approving state general aid to fund schools, which instead shifts the burden to property-tax payers.
Wisconsin voters have previously reined in the governor's partial veto powers, which are among the most powerful in the country, allowing them to strike words, digits and punctuation to change meanings to spending amounts. Most recently, voters widely approved a 2008 amendment that restricts creating a new sentence out of other sentences.
This new question seeks to prohibit partial vetoes that create, or increase, a tax or fee in a spending bill sent to the governor's desk. If approved by voters, it would apply to all future governors, regardless of party. Democratic nominee David Crowley has said he would vote against the referendum, while Tiffany said he would vote for it.
Scott Manley, executive vice president for government relations at Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, said the proposal should appeal to voters with affordability concerns ahead of the election. WMC, the state's largest business lobbying group, supports the amendment because it wants to see a favorable tax climate to attract and retain industry.
"Tax policy is perhaps the most powerful authority that government has," Manley said in an interview. "Those decisions should not be made unilaterally by one person, like the governor. It should be a decision that goes through the legislative process where the people's representatives ... have an opportunity to vote on those issues."
Debra Cronmiller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, said she didn't think anyone was "thrilled" with Evers' veto, but it made a statement about other bills not giving enough resources to public education.
"It's a retaliatory move, I believe, by the GOP Legislature to take a tool away from this governor – although it will take it away from all subsequent governors," Cronmiller told the Journal Sentinel. "Are there better ways to solve problems than amending our constitution to make your point? Absolutely. But are we at a point in our political discourse where we can't even have that conversation?"
Supporters: Americans for Prosperity, MacIver Impact, National Federation of Independent Business, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Wisconsin Property Taxpayers, Wisconsin Realtors Association
Opponents: League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Education Association Council
Prohibiting church closures in future pandemic, state of emergency
The second question reads: "Freedom to gather in places of worship during an emergency. Shall section 18 of article I of the constitution, which deals with religious liberty, be amended to prohibit the state or a political subdivision of the state from ordering the closure of, or forbidding gatherings in, places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including a public health emergency?”
This referendum stems from orders by the state and local governments in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. In mid-March, the Evers administration initially limited gatherings, including at churches and other places of worship, to no more than 10 people. It was lifted under a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in mid-May.
Some local governments kept restrictions in place, and churches grappled with how to safely resume services. Pro-Life Wisconsin and Wisconsin Family Action support the amendment, while the Wisconsin Council of Churches registered as neutral, noting in a letter that faith communities adapted despite the limits on in-person gatherings.
"Trying to define the options in advance, without any clear idea of exactly what we could be facing in the future, is unwise. It short-circuits the sort of careful, informed public deliberation that is essential when the life and health of Wisconsin residents, especially those who are most vulnerable, hang in the balance," the council wrote.
The Wisconsin Catholic Conference, led by the bishops of Wisconsin, also registered as neutral when the proposal was first introduced. In a statement to the Journal Sentinel, the conference said "religious liberty is the fundamental right to practice one’s faith openly without fear or coercion. Pope Leo XIV recently said that it is the 'cornerstone of any just society.'"
"Freedom to gather for worship is only one important aspect of religious liberty and religious conduct, both of which extend beyond the four walls of a house of worship," the Wisconsin Catholic Conference said.
If the amendment is approved by voters, the government couldn't close churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship during states of emergency, even if businesses and schools are closed. Other states have enacted similar protections through state law, Godar said, but many put churches on equal footing with other organizations or businesses.
Fr. Tom Brundage of St. Jerome Parish offers Holy Communion to worshipers in their cars during a special Easter Sunday drive-in service at Oconomowoc High School on Sunday, April 12, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic the church was not able to hold their service indoors.
After the amendment passed the Legislature for the second time, Wisconsin Family Action – which typically represents evangelical churches – said it would "work alongside churches and mobilize Christians across the state to educate, engage and turn out voters in support of the amendment ahead of the 2026 election.”
Wisconsin Family Action President Daniel Degner emphasized in an interview that the amendment does not require places of worship to remain open but instead allows the church to decide how to operate, rather than the government.
Supporters: Pro-Life Wisconsin, Wisconsin Family Action
Opponents: League of Women Voters of Wisconsin
No government discrimination or 'preferential treatment' based on race
The third question reads: "Governmental entity discrimination prohibited. Shall section 27 of article I of the constitution be created to prohibit governmental entities in the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, s*x, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration?”
This amendment relates to Republicans' longstanding efforts to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs and initiatives in government and state universities. GOP lawmakers cited the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down affirmative action admissions policies at Harvard.
"Governmental entities" include the state government, local governments, the University of Wisconsin system, the Wisconsin Technical College System, public school districts and boards created under state law, for example. Arizona has a similar question on its November ballot.
The proposal has exceptions: It wouldn't apply if the government would lose eligibility for a federal program or violate federal law, and the restrictions on s*x don't apply to measures that are "reasonably necessary" for certain jobs, also called a bona fide occupational qualification exception.
Godar said the amendment is being proposed "against a backdrop of federal equal protection law shifting in recent decades to be more skeptical of affirmative action programs" that seek to remedy inequities.
In testimony, the conservative law firm Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty cited programs it believes would be banned if voters pass the amendment, including UW-Madison scholarships that consider race, which WILL has sued over. Others include Milwaukee's Office of African American Affairs and Wisconsin's Supplier Diversity Program, which carries out the state's goals to contract with a certain percentage of minority-owned businesses.
"We could sue them one at a time, and we have been suing them one at a time, but a constitutional amendment will really give these governments the ability to turn off these programs immediately, without having to wait to be sued," Dan Lennington, deputy counsel at WILL, said in an interview.
More: Minority college grants are unconstitutional, state Supreme Court says
Rachel Snyder, policy counsel at the liberal law firm Law Forward, anticipates the amendment would spark litigation to test the boundaries of the new language. Some risk-averse local governments could end programs or change eligibility requirements to avoid becoming a test case, she said.
"I would be surprised if we saw a mass shutdown of programs," Snyder said. "I think folks would look for ways to comply with the amendment and still provide as much of the programming as they're able to."
"It touches on such a wide swath of daily life," she added, like health care, education and public contracting.
Cronmiller, from the League of Women Voters, is concerned the language is misleading. Voters will read the question as asking whether discrimination should be illegal in Wisconsin and respond "absolutely yes," she believes. Anti-discrimination protections are already in state laws and the constitution, opponents say, pointing to the new "preferential treatment" language.
In many cities, Cronmiller said, "there's a whole group of employees that are working every single day to make sure that the city is actually serving its citizen constituents as well as possible. That could all go away. In one moment, those positions could all be illegal."
Supporters: Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty
Opponents: American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin
Hope Karnopp can be reached at [email protected].
