Tag Archives: Wisconsin Senate

Dem vs. Dem and Rep vs. Rep

Posted on by

Wisconsin budget surplus bill gets both bipartisan support and opposition

On May 11 Wisconsin Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Republican Senate and Assembly leaders announced they had reached a compromise that would spend about 72% of a projected $2.5 billion budget surplus on schools and property tax relief. The bill increased funding for special education, reduced property taxes by about 5% and sent rebate checks to income taxpayers of $300 per individual, $600 per couple. It also eliminated state taxes on tips and overtime.

Evers and GOP leaders had negotiated over the compromise bill since January. When announced on Monday, May 11, it was presented as a done deal. On Tuesday legislative committees held hearings and sent the bill to the floor for votes on Wednesday. Where the bill died.

What is unique, in deeply polarized Wisconsin, is that a bipartisan compromise bill was met with bipartisan opposition. While Evers and GOP leaders supported the bill, both Democratic and Republican gubernatorial candidates opposed it. In the legislature, the bill passed the Assembly with bipartisan (though far from unanimous) support while in the Senate it was defeated buy opposition from three Republicans and all 15 Democrats, while 15 Republicans voted for passage. That a popular Democratic governor could not get one (let alone the two needed for passage) Democratic senators to support his bill is a telling statement about relations between the governor and his legislative caucus.

The opponents of the bill emphasized uncertainty about the anticipated future budget surplus the bill was tapping. They pointed to the uncertainty of revenues, a possible economic downturn, and “fiscal responsibility.” A subsequent Legislative Audit Bureau report concluded the bill would leave a near $3 billion structural deficit in the budget to be adopted in 2027. Supporters of the bill noted this estimate assumes no revenue growth, and so is a quite conservative estimate. (Such estimates are customary for the Audit Bureau.)   Opponents also noted that Evers and both Republican leaders are retiring, so any mess they leave will be up to someone else to clean up.

In addition to bipartisan opposition in the Senate, several Democratic gubernatorial candidates strongly opposed the bill, others were tepid and only one strongly supported it. And the only major Republican candidate, Rep. Tom Tiffany (WI-7th) also opposed it. News reports say Tiffany aids made calls to senators raising criticisms of the bill. In interviews Tiffany said he would not sign it if he were governor.

And so this is how polarized Wisconsin found bipartisanship break out, yet on both sides of a compromise bill. Supporters say it gave money to schools and property tax relief and cash to voters. Opponents say it wasn’t enough for schools, or for property tax relief or for cash to voters, and pointed to possible future deficits. Unsaid, for the most part, is that each side imagines how they would like to spend the $2.5 billion next year if they control the governorship and the legislature. For Democrats, after 16 years of GOP legislative control, a possible majority in 2027 offers opportunity for proposals that have been stymied since 2011. For Republicans, the chance to win back the governorship after 8 years of Evers is tantalizing. So, with the defeat of the bill, they will get their wish for money to play with. With the one small challenge of actually winning control in November.

Tensions remain now, approaching 3 weeks after the bill was defeated, with governor and legislative Democrats sniping at one another, and some Republican criticism of the three GOP senators who sunk the bill that 15 Republicans voted for. For the gubernatorial candidates the issue of who is in favor of school funding and of property tax relief in the fall will live in the shadow of opposition to a bill that provided some of that. 

After the bill died my Marquette Law School poll asked Wisconsin voters what they thought of the bill. They liked it. Eighty percent said the bill should have been passed, with 11% opposed and 9% didn’t know. In a second question that raised the opponents concerns about future deficits, 69% still favored the bill with 21% opposed and 9% didn’t know. More remarkable was the complete lack of a partisan divide on either question. The tables show opinion on each question.

Surprised? I’m always surprised when partisan divides are absent in Wisconsin. But as the Wisconsin State Journal editorial cartoon put it, maybe I shouldn’t be.

If you have an insatiable desire for more on this very Wisconsin story, see this interview with Wisconsin Public Television’s Here and Now with Frederica Freyberg.

Or listen to a longer radio interview with WCLO in Janesville. 

And you can see the full results of the poll at my Marquette Law School Poll website here.

How to spend a surplus

Posted on by

Property tax relief, schools, both? For now, the answer is neither.

On May 13, the Wisconsin Senate defeated a proposal from Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, Republican Senate Majority leader Devin LeMahieu and Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to use $1.8 billion of a projected $2.5 billion state surplus to provide additional funding for special education, about a 5% reduction of school property taxes, plus direct payments of $300 to each income tax payer in the state. This compromise had been long in the making with Republicans favoring more direct payments to taxpayers and the governor favoring more for schools. Neither side got everything. Both sides got something.

The bill was defeated in the Wisconsin Senate with 3 Republicans and every Democrat voting no. The Assembly easily passed the measure with all Republicans plus 10 Democrats voting yes.

There was also unusual bipartisan opposition from Republican gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, and almost all Democratic candidates for governor, including Francesca Hong, a self-described democratic socialist, and Kelda Roys, who was recently endorsed by the state teachers union, WEAC.

The vote complicates messaging around affordability, property taxes and school funding for the fall campaign in which Republican Tiffany seeks to replace the two-term Democratic governor and Democrats aim to flip both Senate and Assembly after 16 years of Republican majorities.

The compromise spending bill was announced and voted on over just three days, leaving little time for public opinion to form, or for interest groups to mobilize. But we have polling on the central issues from February and March when similar arguments were circulating from Evers and Republicans during the regular legislative session.

A majority of Wisconsin registered voters have come to say holding down property taxes is a greater priority than providing funding to K-12 schools. As of March, 58% said reducing property taxes was more important, while 41% said funding schools was more important. This balance has shifted dramatically since 2018 when 37% wanted property tax cuts while 58% favored school spending. This reversal has been one of the most striking changes in public opinion over the past eight years, and followed a surge in support for public school funding during the previous administration of Gov. Scott Walker.

Funding for special education costs has been a major concern for school districts and was addressed in the previous budget, though rising costs have produced a shortfall in coverage that was partially addressed by the proposed compromise plan. Across 5 polls taken since 2019, more than 70% have favored “a major increase” in state funding for special education, most recently 71% in June 2025.

Concern for property taxes and for special education funding are not mutually exclusive. In the 2025 surveys of February and June, 59% of those more concerned about property taxes also favored more funding for special education, as did 96% of those who place greater priority on school spending over property tax reductions.

As for returning the projected surplus to tax-payers, voters were evenly divided in March, with 47% in favor of a one-time payment to offset property taxes while 52% favored an ongoing increase in state aid to schools to reduce property taxes. There was a considerable partisan divide on this question, though not as enormous as on many issues: 68% of Republicans favored a one-time payment, as did 60% of independents, while 80% of Democrats favored increased state aid to schools.

The amount of the projected surplus that should be used for a property tax reduction divided the state about evenly in February, with 29% saying all or 3/4s should go to property tax reduction, 34% saying about half, and 37% saying 1/4 or none. Here too the partisan divide is clear, though not extreme.

There is a larger partisan divide over state aid to schools. Overall, 51% say the legislature had failed to provide enough funding for schools, while 49% say schools must learn to live within their budget limits. Partisans divide more sharply on this question.

The compromise bill reflected aspects of public opinion by providing some property tax relief, increased aid for special education, and some direct payments to individual income tax payers, while spending about 3/4 of the projected surplus. The lack of extreme partisan divides on these issues also suggest public openness to compromise. The bill did not address the issue of ongoing state aid to schools which would also reduce property taxes, an issue certain to face the new legislature and governor in January.

Affordability, inflation, and the cost of living remain the top concern of 35% of Wisconsin voters. Property taxes are the top concern of 7% and public schools are the top issue for 5%, as of the March Marquette Law School Poll. Costs and broad financial concerns are also reflected by concern with health insurance, 11%, jobs and the economy, 9%, and the affordability of housing, 6%.

Both parties claim they will address voters’ concern about the cost of living. In different ways the positions of Tiffany, Democratic candidates for governor, and Democratic legislators, conflict with their public commitments to property tax reductions, support for school spending and affordability promises, leaving none of them with clean attacks on the other side’s positions on the surplus bill. Both sides positioned themselves against more money for special education and against property tax relief in this bill. Complicated explanations of why may not convince voters of the underlying wisdom of the strategies.

It is too soon to know what voters think about this, or whether this vote will be an issue in the fall campaigns. But I’d love to hear what candidates hear “on the doors” over the next few weeks.