News & Articles

“These people see it as their patriotic duty to work to overturn, by violent means if necessary, the results of rigged elections. Their definition of a rigged election? One that they lost.” Professor Emeritus Allen Pincus talking about election deniers.

On the Nov. 5 Wisconsin ballot there will be another constitutional amendment for voters to decide. This is the fifth amendment this year put forward by the Republican-controlled legislature. Like the prior four amendments, this amendment is not needed. The intent is not to improve the state constitution. Rather it is a ploy for the Republicans to avoid the governor’s veto and play political games with the state constitution.

For legislation to become law it has to pass the Assembly, Senate and be signed by the governor. The governor can veto all or part of any legislation. But the governor has no veto power over a constitutional amendment. A proposed constitutional amendment must pass both houses of the legislature twice and then be approved by a majority of voters. 

So the Republicans in the legislature are proposing constitutional amendments to enact legislation that Democratic Governor Evers won’t sign.
The amendment on November’s ballot is about voting rights. For a long time Republicans all over the country have tried to make it more difficult to vote. When fewer people vote – especially minorities and poor people – Republicans have a better chance of winning. Creating obstacles to voting, like having fewer polling places, cumbersome voter registration, restrictions on absentee voting or strict voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements, is a way to discourage people from voting. 

Republicans claim this is to prevent voter fraud (which is almost non-existent) but the real objective is voter suppression. 
In this spirit Wisconsin’s Republicans are pushing a constitutional amendment that is  unnecessary, divisive and deliberately confusing to many voters.
Here is the text of the proposed amendment. “Question: Eligibility to vote. Shall section 1 of article III of the constitution, which deals with suffrage, be amended to provide that only a United States citizen age 18 or older who resides in an election district may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum?” 

This seems like a reasonable proposal everyone should support. But the devil is in the details.  Sociology Professor Emeritus Allen Pincus (UW-Madison) has written about the deceptive wording of this constitutional amendment (The Constitutional Amendment: Voter Protection or Voter Suppression?, a letter-to-the-editor in the Monroe Times, September 19, 2024). 

He wrote, “The wording of the amendment makes it appear that (a) a YES vote means you agree that it is necessary to change the constitution in order to prohibit non-citizens from voting and (b) a NO vote means you are in favor of extending the vote to non-citizens.” 
But this is confusing to most voters and deceptive. Professor Pincus continues, “A no vote does not mean you are voting to allow non-citizens to vote. It means the constitution does not need to be amended to protect against non-citizen voting.” 

Specifically, a “yes” vote would change the word “every” in the current language to “only.” From a legal standpoint “every” is stronger wording that is more protective and inclusive. Opponents of the amendment say the word “only” is weaker language that opens the door to future limits or obstacles to voting. Future court rulings or legislation could use this legalistic hair splitting to potentially disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of eligible voters in Wisconsin.

Eileen Newcomer, with the Wisconsin League of Women Voters says, “If the constitution says ‘only’ citizens can vote, that means that sub-sets of citizens could be excluded – like citizens that don’t have documents to prove their citizenship. If the constitution says ‘every’ citizen it means that it’s a guarantee.” 

Currently in Wisconsin “every” citizen has a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. But in the future “only” those citizens with written proof of citizenship (or other requirements) could be able to vote. 
Requiring proof of citizenship is the latest Republican voter suppression tactic. Again this sounds reasonable, until you investigate the issue. Federal and state laws already prohibit non-citizens from voting. Existing voter registration and voting procedures are working well to prevent voter fraud and ineligible people from voting. So there is no problem to fix. 

But creating more restrictive proof of citizenship requirements does create problems for many voters. The Brennan Center for Justice says nationally 10% of citizens don’t have, or don’t have readily available, proof of citizenship. Nationwide millions of people could be disfranchised, not because they are ineligible to vote, but because the documents were lost, accidentally destroyed (think court house fires), or are too difficult or expensive to obtain decades after the fact. 

Republicans are not improving election integrity. They are simply creating unnecessary obstacles for some people to vote.
Clearly, Republicans must believe there is some advantage to making this change and plan to use it to push future restriction on the ability to vote. If there is no meaningful difference between “every” and “only” in the constitutional wording, then why are Republicans spending the time, effort and money to make the change? 

These are the same people who have a long record of undemocratic behavior including giving Wisconsin (until recently) the most gerrymandered electoral districts in the country.

Professor Pincus points out another reason to vote no. He has written, “This is not an inconsequential change being proposed. This amendment, [creates] fears that illegal voting is threatening the integrity of elections...Even more problematic, raising doubts about the integrity of elections plays into the hands of extremist election outcome deniers. These people see it as their patriotic duty to work to overturn, by violent means if necessary, the results of rigged elections. Their definition of a rigged election? One that they lost.” 

Another reason to vote “no” is to push back against Republicans circumventing the normal lawmaking process with unnecessary constitutional amendments. You will be chastising them for playing political games with the state constitution.

There are at least 42 issue advocacy organizations including the League of Women Voters, Wisconsin Conservation Voters and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign who oppose this amendment. They are urging everyone to vote “NO” on this unnecessary constitutional amendment.