What the Amendment Does
Wisconsin’s second constitutional question this November is narrower and more mechanical-sounding than the other two, but it goes to the heart of who controls tax and spending policy in the state. The amendment would add a new line to Article V, Section 10(1)(c) of the constitution, on top of two existing restrictions already placed on the governor’s partial veto power: the 1990 “Vanna White” rule barring the governor from striking individual letters to spell out new words, and a 2008 rule barring the governor from combining parts of separate sentences into one.
The proposed language would prohibit the governor from using a partial veto to create or increase, or to authorize the creation or increase of, any tax or fee.
The governor would keep the rest of the partial veto power that Wisconsin governors have used for decades, including striking whole sections, lines, or provisions from an appropriations bill.
A yes vote limits that authority.
A no vote would allow any future governor to single-handedly increase your taxes and fees.
The Background
The proposed amendment stems from the “400-year veto.” In the 2023-25 state budget, Gov. Tony Evers used his partial veto to strike the digits “20” and a hyphen from a provision that was meant to raise per-pupil school revenue limits by $325 for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years. Removing those characters changed the sunset date from 2025 to 2425, converting a two-year increase into one that runs for four centuries.
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Litigation Center, representing two taxpayers, sued, arguing the maneuver went beyond what the partial veto was ever meant to do. The Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed, 4-3, upholding the veto in an April 2025 ruling on the theory that Evers had altered digits rather than letters, so the existing “Vanna White” restriction didn’t technically apply. Republican legislators had already begun moving a constitutional fix before that ruling came down; the amendment first passed as Assembly Joint Resolution 112 in the 2023-24 session, then had to clear the newly elected legislature again to meet Wisconsin’s two-session requirement for constitutional changes. It came back as Senate Joint Resolution 116, led by Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), and passed both chambers in January 2026, again on party-line votes.
Supporters & Opponents
The amendment has drawn a broad coalition of business and taxpayer groups into public support: Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, Americans for Prosperity, MacIver Impact, the National Federation of Independent Business, Wisconsin Property Taxpayers, and the Wisconsin Realtors Association. On the opposing side, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state’s largest teachers’ union, and the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin have registered against it. Neither side appears to have reported specific ad spending as of this writing; so far, the fight has played out mostly in legislative testimony and public statements rather than paid media.
What the Polling Shows
Little publicly available polling has been done on this amendment. One poll commissioned by WILL found voters leaning toward supporting the amendment.
The Arguments, For and Against
Supporters frame this as a separation-of-powers issue more than a schools issue. Sen. Kapenga has said the amendment “resets the separation of powers” between the legislature and the governor’s office. WMC’s Scott Manley put it bluntly: “Tax policy is perhaps the most powerful authority that government has… Those decisions should not be made unilaterally by one person.” U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, now the GOP’s gubernatorial nominee, has argued no governor “should have unchecked power to raise taxes or fees with the stroke of a pen.”
Opponents, starting with Gov. Evers himself, have dismissed all three amendments this year as “frankly off base.” Democratic gubernatorial nominee David Crowley has characterized the push as an attempt to “eliminate the power of the governor… to rig the system” in Republicans’ favor. League of Women Voters’ Debra Cronmiller called the move “retaliatory,” arguing Republicans are targeting the veto because they refused to adequately fund schools through the normal state aid process in the first place, leaving Evers to find another way.
Where This Leaves Voters
Set aside, for a moment, the underlying debate of school funding. The question this amendment actually puts to voters is narrower and, frankly, easier to answer: should one elected official be able to unilaterally lock in a tax or fee increase?
A yes vote limits that authority.
A no vote would allow any future governor to single-handedly increase your taxes and fees.
