Constitutional amendments bypass the governor entirely… no signature, no veto. That makes them a powerful political tool, especially when the legislature and the governor are different parties. Three more amendments are coming to the ballot in November.

Margo grounded the session in WJI’s own case. In 2020, WJI challenged the Marcy’s Law ballot question for failing to tell voters that the actual amendment would delete the express constitutional guarantee of a fair trial for the accused. The case reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which replaced a standard in place since 1925 with a new one: the legislature has no obligation to explain an amendment to voters, and a ballot question can only be invalidated if it is “fundamentally counterfactual.” The practical result: ballot questions are designed to make you say yes, and they may not tell you what the amendment actually changes.

Session highlights:

• The question is not the amendment. The actual text can be lengthy and contain provisions the ballot question never mentions because amendments are framed for a yes. They want you to agree.
• Many recent amendments started as vetoed bills. They are extremely difficult to change; statutes are where detailed policy typically belongs.
• Consider whether a real problem is being solved. The 2025 voter ID amendment, for example, added a constitutional provision for something Wisconsin statute already required.
• Think about the consequences. From costs to the court system to the loss of grant funding for election equipment, amendments can have effects no one discussed beforehand.

LINKS TO ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: