Question 1: Partial Veto — Prohibit Creating or Increasing Any Tax or Fee

The law today

Per the Legislative Reference Bureau analysis: currently, in exercising the partial veto power, the governor is limited only in that he or she may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences of the enrolled bill. The analysis adds that in Bartlett v. Evers, 2020 WI 68, the Wisconsin Supreme Court further restricted the governor's partial veto power, but there was no agreement by the court on the reasons for the new restrictions. The new restriction in the amendment would be in addition to the current ones.[7]

Arguments made for

• Jerry Ponio, Legislative Director of Americans for Prosperity–Wisconsin: "SJR 116 restores accountability after Governor Evers abused the partial veto to create an unpopular 400-year property tax increase during an affordability crisis. We thank the Wisconsin Senate and Assembly for passing this amendment, giving voters the chance to ensure this kind of executive overreach never happens again."[4]
• State Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R), the amendment's Assembly author, in Senate committee testimony: "No governor—Republican or Democrat—should be able to singlehandedly raise taxes on Wisconsin families with the stroke of a pen. The governor is not a king."[8]
• State Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), the resolution's author, told Wisconsin Watch: "It's always about separation of powers."[11]

Arguments made against

• State Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee): "So what would this amendment actually do? It would make it harder for any future governor to right the wrongs of any legislature that fails to provide sufficient revenues to meet our shared priorities – education-related or otherwise."[3]
• David Crowley, the Democratic candidate for governor: "What I've seen from the Republican-controlled legislatures is that, anytime that there's a stop gap on all the policies, dangerous policies, that they want to push through, they want to eliminate the power of the governor."[10]
• Debra Cronmiller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin: "But the powers of the governor, as defined, should be upheld. So that kind of good government position that we've always taken is what compelled us to say vote no on this."[11]

On record in support

• Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin (testified in support of SJR 116 on January 7, 2026)[8]
• Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state chamber of commerce (testified in support of SJR 116 on January 7, 2026)[8]
• State Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) and Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R), the resolution's authors, who testified for it[8]
• Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, listed by WUWM among groups supporting the amendment[9]
• Wisconsin Property Taxpayers and the Wisconsin Realtors Association, listed by WUWM among groups supporting the amendment[9]
• Tom Tiffany, the Republican candidate for governor, who has said he will vote for the amendment[9][10]

On record in opposition

• David Crowley, the Democratic candidate for governor, who told reporters he would "absolutely not" vote for the amendment[10]
• League of Women Voters of Wisconsin (its executive director said the group came to "vote no on this"); listed by WUWM among groups opposing the amendment[9][11]
• Wisconsin Education Association Council, listed by WUWM among groups opposing the amendment[9]
• State Sen. Chris Larson (D), who wrote that the amendment should be rejected[3]