An Act to amend 5.64 (2) (am) of the statutes; Relating to: the form of referendum questions.
Summary
AB224 would change Wisconsin law governing how referendum questions are written on ballots. Under current law, referendum questions must be concise and cannot be framed so that voters must vote “no” to approve a proposal or “yes” to reject one. This bill adds two new drafting requirements: referendum questions must be written in plain language, and questions on proposed constitutional amendments must clearly state whether any part of the amendment already exists in the statutes at the time the joint resolution is finally passed.
The bill is aimed at making ballot questions easier for voters to understand and more transparent about the relationship between proposed constitutional changes and existing statutory law. It would amend s. 5.64 (2) (am) of the Wisconsin statutes, which governs the form of ballot questions submitted to the electorate, and would apply to referendum questions generally, with a specific added disclosure rule for constitutional amendments.
Impact
If enacted, AB224 would require election officials and drafters of referendum language to use plain-language ballot wording and to include an explicit notice when a proposed constitutional amendment overlaps with existing statutes. The practical effect would be to alter how ballot questions are prepared and reviewed, potentially affecting the drafting process for constitutional amendments and other statewide referenda. It would not itself change substantive policy areas, but it would change election administration and the legal standards for ballot question wording under Wisconsin election law.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote on the bill, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a voter-information and transparency reform, which typically draws support from those favoring clearer ballot language and more accessible elections materials. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating that it did not advance to enactment.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the added requirement that constitutional-amendment questions disclose whether any portion of the amendment is already contained in statute. Supporters would likely view that as useful context for voters, while opponents could argue it adds complexity, creates drafting disputes, or could influence how referendum questions are perceived. Another possible area of disagreement is the meaning and enforceability of “plain language,” since that standard can be subjective and may lead to disputes over whether a ballot question is sufficiently clear.
Requires ballot question on approval of State bond issue to disclose total amount of debt of State or other entity, debt service on which is funded through annual State appropriation.
Requires that Miranda rights statements be more specific with respect to the right to counsel; requires inquiry into whether such rights are understood.