ELECTION INFORMATION: Three statewide constitutional amendments on the Nov. 3 ballot

Along with races for Wisconsin governor, Congress, and county offices, Merrill-area voters will find three statewide referendum questions on the Nov. 3, 2026, ballot. Each would amend the Wisconsin Constitution.
The questions appear in the “Referendum” section of the ballot, under the heading “State.” Voters fill in the oval next to “Yes” to vote in favor of a question or next to “No” to vote against it.
Each of the proposed amendments was first agreed to by a majority of the members of both houses of the 2023 Legislature. Each was then agreed to again by the 2025 Legislature, which sent it to voters. If a majority of voters statewide approve a question, the amendment becomes part of the state constitution.
The ballot questions and explanatory statements below appear verbatim as published in the Notice of Referendum Election for the Nov. 3, 2026, election. The notice was issued Aug. 24 by Lincoln County Clerk Chris Marlowe.

Question 1: Partial veto

Background: The amendment was proposed after a 2023 budget veto by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. A provision passed by lawmakers allowed school districts to raise revenue through property taxes for two years. By striking a few digits and a hyphen, Evers changed the end date from the 2024-25 school year to 2425, extending it roughly 400 years. Republican legislators who sponsored the amendment have called that veto an abuse of power and say the governor should not be able to raise taxes or fees through a veto. Opponents say Evers was trying to help schools make up for years of inadequate funding, and that the amendment would make it harder for future governors to raise needed revenue. Wisconsin governors hold the broadest veto power in the country, and governors of both parties have used the partial veto. The amendment would apply to future vetoes and would not undo the 2023 veto.

Ballot question: “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?”

Explanatory statement: “Under current law, the Governor may partially veto language in a spending bill passed by the Legislature. The veto may result in either more or fewer taxes or fees being imposed and may also result in local government entities being authorized to increase or decrease local taxes or fees.
“The proposed amendment would add a new clause to Article V, section 10(1)(c) of the Wisconsin Constitution, providing that the Governor’s veto ‘may not create or increase or authorize the creation or increase of any tax or fee.’ This language would not only prevent a veto from increasing any state taxes or fees, but also prevent a veto from allowing local governments, such as school districts, to increase their own taxes or fees.

• “A ‘yes’ vote on Question 1 would vote to amend Wis. Const. art. V, § 10(1)(c) to prohibit the Governor from partially vetoing a spending bill in a way that would create or increase or authorize the creation or increase of any tax or fee.

• “A ‘no’ vote on Question 1 would vote not to amend Wis. Const. art. V § 10(1)(c) of the Wisconsin Constitution.”

Question 2: Gathering in places of worship during an emergency
The second amendment would add language to the religious liberty section of the constitution. Under it, the state and local governments could not close places of worship or forbid gatherings in them in response to a state of emergency at the national, state, or local level, including a public health emergency.

Background: The amendment grew out of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, emergency orders from the Evers administration limited indoor, in-person religious gatherings to fewer than 10 people. The Wisconsin Supreme Court later struck down those orders. Supporters also point to an April 2020 incident in which police stopped a Palm Sunday service at a West Bend church; the church’s pastor later called it a misunderstanding. Sponsors say stronger constitutional language would protect the right to worship and provide clarity in future emergencies. Opponents say the state and U.S. constitutions already protect religious freedom, and that the amendment could limit emergency management and public health officials’ ability to protect public safety. Analysts at the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative have noted that the wording leaves open whether governments could still impose neutral limits, such as capacity restrictions, that apply equally to places of worship and other organizations.

Ballot question: “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?”

Explanatory statement: “Under current law, Article I, section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution, like the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, protects religious rights. In a declared state of emergency, officials may limit public gatherings, including religious gatherings, so long as religious and secular gatherings are treated equivalently.
“The proposed amendment would add a new clause to the end of Article I, section 18, prohibiting the state and local governments from ordering the closure or forbidding gatherings ‘in places of worship’ when there is a state of emergency. That language would prevent officials from forbidding gatherings in places of worship even when other types of public gatherings have been closed.

• “A ‘yes’ vote on Question 2 would vote to amend Wis. Const. art. I, § 18. The amendment would prohibit the state and local governments from closing or prohibiting gatherings in places of worship during a state of emergency.

• “A ‘no’ vote on Question 2 would vote not to amend Wis. Const. art. I, § 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution.”

Question 3: Governmental entity discrimination
The third amendment would create a new section of the constitution. Under it, governmental entities could not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, contracting or administration.
As defined in the amendment, “governmental entity” includes the state and its political subdivisions, including municipalities. It also covers the University of Wisconsin System, the Technical College System, any public college or university, any public school district, the Legislature, the courts, and other state and local government offices, agencies, boards, and commissions.

Background: The amendment comes as Republican lawmakers have pushed back against diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, known as DEI, in education and public hiring. Other states, including Michigan, have similar provisions in their constitutions. Supporters say preferential treatment of any individual or group based on race or sex is wrong regardless of who benefits, and that past discrimination should not be corrected with new discrimination. Opponents, including the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, say the amendment would make it harder for schools and government agencies to diversify and would reduce opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups, including women and people of color. The amendment does not specifically address sexual orientation or gender identity.

Ballot question: "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, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration?”

Explanatory statement: “Under current law, both under Article I, section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, states and local governments may not discriminate based on race, ethnicity, color, national origin, or sex except under specific circumstances. For race, color, ethnicity, or national origin, discrimination in favor of or against a group is permissible only if the government has a compelling interest and a narrowly tailored remedy. For sex, discrimination is permissible if it serves an important government interest and is substantially related to that interest. Current law also makes distinctions depending on whether discrimination is overt and intentional, or merely a disparate impact of a neutral policy.
“The proposed amendment would create a new provision, Article I, section 27, which would prohibit state and local governmental entities from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration.
“This language appears to impose stricter standards against discrimination than the standards under current state and federal law.
“The amendment contains three exceptions. It does not apply if it would cause the governmental entity (1) to lose eligibility for a federal program or (2) to violate federal law. And the amendment’s prohibition on treating people differently based on sex does not apply to measures that are ‘reasonably necessary’ to the ‘normal operation’ of public employment, education, contracting, or administration.

• “A ‘yes’ vote on Question 3 would vote to create a new provision of the Wisconsin Constitution—Wis. Const. art. I, § 18, which would prohibit any governmental entity from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration.

• “A ‘no’ vote on Question 3 would vote not to add Wis. Const. art. I § 18 to the Wisconsin Constitution.”
Editor’s note: As printed in the official notice, the “yes” and “no” paragraphs of the Question 3 explanatory statement refer to “art. I, § 18.” The proposed amendment would create Article I, section 27, as stated in the ballot question and elsewhere in the explanatory statement.

Voters can view their own sample ballot, including all three referendum questions, at myvote.wi.gov. The full text of each amendment is included in the Notice of Referendum Election.