Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB1165

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/19/26
• Refer: 3/19/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to repeal 5.02 (22), 5.58, 8.05 (3), 8.05 (5), 8.11, 8.13, 10.02 (3) (b) 4., 10.06 (2) (b), 10.06 (2) (d), 10.06 (3) (as), 10.06 (3) (b), 11.0101 (33), 11.0204 (2), 11.0304 (2), 11.0504 (2), 11.0604 (2), 11.0704 (2), 11.0804 (2), 60.10 (1) (c) 2., 117.22 (2) (e) and 120.06 (7) (b); to renumber 60.10 (1) (c) 1. and 120.06 (7) (a); to renumber and amend 7.60 (4) (c); to amend 5.01 (4) (a), 5.01 (4) (b), 5.01 (4) (c), 5.01 (5), 5.02 (19), 5.02 (20r), 5.15 (6) (b), 5.60 (1) (ag), 5.64 (1) (ar) 1m., 5.64 (1) (ar) 2., 5.66 (1), 5.68 (5), 7.08 (1) (c), 7.10 (6), 7.50 (1) (b), 7.50 (1) (c), 7.50 (2) (intro.), 7.50 (2) (hm), 7.51 (4) (a), 7.51 (5) (a) 3., 7.53 (1) (a), 7.53 (2) (d), 7.53 (3) (a), 7.53 (3) (b), 7.60 (4) (a), 7.60 (4) (b), 7.70 (3) (a), 8.05 (4) (a), 8.10 (1), 8.17 (1) (a), 8.17 (4), 8.17 (5) (b), 8.50 (2) (a), 8.50 (2) (b), 8.50 (3) (a), 8.50 (3) (b), 10.01 (2) (d), 10.01 (2) (e), 10.02 (3) (intro.), 10.06 (1) (c), 10.06 (1) (e), 10.06 (3) (am), 10.06 (3) (bm), 10.06 (3) (f), 10.06 (4) (g), 11.0101 (29), 11.0204 (3) (a), 11.0304 (3) (a), 11.0504 (3) (a), 11.0604 (3) (a), 11.0804 (3) (a), 38.16 (3) (br) 1., 59.17 (7), 59.605 (3) (a) 1., 64.04 (2), 66.0602 (4) (a), 66.0619 (2m) (b), 66.0921 (2), 67.05 (6a) (a) 2. a., 67.05 (6m) (b), 67.12 (12) (e) 5., 77.994 (3) (b) 2. b., 119.08 (2), 120.06 (8) (a), 120.06 (8) (b), 120.06 (8) (c) (intro.), 120.06 (8) (d), 120.06 (8) (f), 120.06 (8) (g), 120.06 (8) (h), 120.06 (9) (a), 121.91 (3) (a) 1. and 995.20; to create 5.05 (1) (g), 5.20, 6.80 (2) (g), 7.60 (4) (c) 3., 7.60 (4) (c) 4., 7.62, 8.05 (1) (L), 10.02 (4), 11.0204 (3) (am), 11.0304 (3) (am), 11.0504 (3) (am), 11.0604 (3) (am), 11.0804 (3) (am), 20.510 (1) (ed) and 20.510 (1) (em) of the statutes; Relating to: ranked-choice voting, granting rule-making authority, and making an appropriation. (FE)

Summary

AB1165 would overhaul Wisconsin election law by requiring ranked-choice voting for most elections for federal, state, and local offices, while excluding recall elections. Under the bill, voters could rank candidates in order of preference, and ballots would be tabulated in rounds: if no candidate wins an initial majority, the lowest-performing candidate is eliminated and votes are transferred until a candidate reaches a majority or, in multi-seat contests, until candidates meet a calculated threshold. The bill also specifies how to handle write-ins, skipped rankings, exhausted ballots, overvotes, undervotes, and ties, and it creates detailed canvass procedures for election officials. The bill would eliminate or revise a number of existing primary-election and ballot-arrangement provisions to fit the ranked-choice system. It repeals several statutes tied to current primary structures, changes notice and canvass requirements, and directs the Elections Commission to prescribe forms and rules for ranked-choice voting administration. It also authorizes state grants to counties and municipalities for equipment, software, secure technologies, outreach, and education, and includes an appropriation for implementation. The bill states that ranked-choice voting would first apply to the 2027 spring primary and spring election. Its impact on state law would be broad and structural. It would replace Wisconsin’s traditional winner-take-all tabulation in many elections with ranked-choice counting rules, alter how primaries function for partisan offices, and require election administrators at the state, county, municipal, and school-district levels to update ballot design, canvassing, reporting, and certification procedures. The bill also touches related election-administration statutes, special election timing, referendum procedures, and certain legal-holiday provisions tied to election days. The general sentiment reflected in the available materials is limited because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included here. Based on the bill’s introduction by a large group of Assembly and Senate Democrats, the measure appears to be a reform proposal intended to modernize election administration and change how winners are determined. The fiscal note reference and implementation funding suggest the bill is framed as a major administrative transition rather than a narrow policy tweak. The main points of contention likely center on the scope and complexity of the change. Supporters would likely emphasize voter choice, majority support, and the potential to reduce spoiler effects, while opponents may focus on cost, administrative burden, voter education needs, and the departure from existing election procedures. Because the bill applies to nearly all elections and requires substantial rulemaking, equipment updates, and new canvass methods, implementation details and the effect on local election officials are likely to be the most significant issues.

Impact

AB1165 would substantially amend Wisconsin election statutes by creating a new ranked-choice voting framework in chs. 5, 7, 8, 10, and related provisions, while repealing or revising statutes that assume traditional primaries and plurality-style tabulation. It would require the Elections Commission and local election officials to administer ranked-choice ballots, canvass results in multiple rounds, and report ranked preferences, and it would authorize state funding and grants for equipment, software, secure technologies, outreach, and education. The bill would also affect certain election-related deadlines, notices, and special-election procedures, with initial applicability beginning in 2027.

Sentiment

No committee discussion or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment to summarize. From the bill text and sponsorship pattern, the measure appears to be a reform-oriented proposal with likely support from sponsors favoring electoral modernization and majority-based outcomes. The inclusion of implementation funding and outreach provisions suggests the bill anticipates a significant administrative rollout and seeks to address practical concerns about transition.

Contention

The likely points of contention are the breadth of the change, the cost of implementation, and the operational burden on election administrators. Supporters would likely argue that ranked-choice voting produces majority winners and gives voters more expressive ballots, while critics may question whether voters and local officials can adapt easily, whether the new counting rules are too complex, and whether equipment/software upgrades and education efforts are sufficiently funded. The bill’s application to most elections, along with its repeal of existing primary-related provisions, makes the transition itself a major source of debate.