On August 13, Wisconsin voters will face two significant constitutional amendments on the ballot. These amendments aim to reshape how state funds are managed and allocated, making this election crucial for the state’s financial governance. Here’s a closer look at each amendment, their implications, and the perspectives for and against them.

Background and Recent Spending Decisions:

Wisconsin’s recent handling of $2.5 billion in ARPA funds by Governor Tony Evers highlights the debate surrounding these amendments. Opponents of Evers handling over the funds point to specific expenditures, such as $56 million on police and court backlog, $626 million on healthcare coverage, and $48 million on broadband, as examples of the governor’s unchecked spending. These instances have increased calls for more legislative oversight to ensure more balanced and representative use of such funds.

The August 13 ballot presents Wisconsin voters with crucial decisions that will shape the state’s financial governance. By understanding the implications of these constitutional amendments and the arguments for and against them, voters can make informed choices that reflect their views on transparency, accountability, and efficient use of state and federal funds.

Wisconsin Question 1: Prohibit Legislature from Delegating Appropriations Amendment

What It Means:

A “Yes” vote on this amendment supports changing the state constitution to prevent the legislature from delegating its power to appropriate money. Essentially, it ensures that only the legislature can decide how state funds are allocated, not any external body or sole constitutional officer like the Governor. 

Purpose:

The primary purpose of this amendment is to maintain strict legislative control over the state budget, ensuring transparency and accountability in financial decisions. By preventing delegation, it aims to avoid potential misuse of funds and ensure that elected representatives directly oversee appropriations. 

Arguments For:

– Accountability: Proponents argue that this amendment will increase accountability, ensuring that those elected by the public have sole control over state expenditures.

– Transparency: It promotes transparency in financial decisions, making it easier for citizens to see how their tax dollars are being spent.

– Preventing Misuse: Supporters believe it will prevent potential misuse of funds by restricting the appropriation power to the legislature.

Arguments Against:

– Flexibility: Opponents argue that the amendment could reduce flexibility in managing state funds, potentially causing delays in responding to urgent financial needs.

– Complexity: It could complicate the budget process, making it more challenging to allocate funds quickly and efficiently when needed.

Wisconsin Question 2: Require Legislative Approval for State Expenditures of Federal Funds Amendment

What It Means:

A “Yes” vote on this amendment supports changing the state constitution to require legislative approval via a joint resolution before the governor can expend federal money appropriated to the state. This means the governor would need legislative consent before using federal funds. This amendment stems from federal bureaucrats giving state Governors sole discretion on how COVID related funds were spent without any legislative input. If this amendment were to pass, it would require the executive branch to work with and seek approval from the legislative branch to appropriate money.

Purpose:

The amendment aims to involve the legislature more directly in the allocation of federal funds, ensuring a check on the governor’s power and promoting collaborative decision-making between the executive and legislative branches.

Arguments For:

– Checks and Balances: Proponents emphasize the importance of checks and balances, ensuring that the governor cannot unilaterally decide on federal fund expenditures.

– Legislative Oversight: It increases legislative oversight, promoting a more democratic process in financial decision-making.

– Precedent of Mismanagement: Citing past instances, supporters argue that the governor’s sole discretion has led to questionable spending decisions, such as the $2.5 billion ARPA funds allocation.

Arguments Against:

– Efficiency: Opponents argue that requiring legislative approval could slow down the process of utilizing federal funds, potentially delaying crucial projects and services.

– Governance: They believe that the governor, as the state’s executive, should have the authority to make timely decisions regarding federal funds to address immediate needs.

If you want to preview your ballot prior to voting in Wisconsin, please see here.