Question 1Constitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
Limit tax-raising partial vetoes
Explain it like I'm 5
A governor can cross out parts of a budget bill. This rule says crossing things out cannot make a new tax or a bigger fee, like letting someone edit a shopping list without adding extra charges.
Yes vote
The governor could not use the partial veto to create, increase, or authorize an increase in a tax or fee.
No vote
The current constitutional rules for the governor’s partial-veto power would remain unchanged.
The question to ask yourself
Should tax and fee increases come only through legislative action, or should the governor retain this partial-veto tool?
The case for
- Tax and fee increases should require an open legislative vote.
- The amendment would stop governors from using wording or number changes to expand revenue authority.
- It creates a rule that applies equally to future governors of either party.
Backed by: Republican Party of Wisconsin, Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty
The case against
- It would reduce a governor’s ability to reshape a flawed budget.
- It could shift budget power toward the Legislature.
- A broad constitutional limit could create court disputes about what counts as authorizing an increase.
Opposed by: Democratic Party of Wisconsin, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Education Association Council
- Money
- There is no direct cost or immediate tax change estimated; future effects depend on how governors and lawmakers act.
- Don't be misled
- It is misleading to say the amendment ends the partial veto, because it would limit only tax and fee increases, not every use of that power.