To create section 1m of article I of the constitution; Relating to: the right to privacy (first consideration).
Summary
AJR136 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would add a new section to Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution stating that “the people have an individual and fundamental right to privacy.” The resolution frames privacy as “a necessary part of a free society” and is presented as a first-consideration amendment, meaning it would need approval by two successive legislatures and then ratification by the voters before taking effect.
Because it is a constitutional amendment rather than ordinary legislation, AJR136 would not itself change statutory law immediately. Instead, it would create a constitutional privacy right that could influence how courts review state actions and how future laws are drafted, especially in areas involving personal autonomy, data protection, surveillance, reproductive rights, medical decision-making, and other privacy-related issues. The resolution also includes standard language for handling numbering conflicts if another amendment creates the same section number.
Impact
If adopted through the required constitutional process, AJR136 would add an enforceable privacy guarantee to the state constitution, potentially affecting interpretation of existing statutes and future legislation across a wide range of policy areas. It would not directly amend any specific statute, but it could provide a constitutional basis for legal challenges to state or local government actions that are alleged to intrude on personal privacy.
Sentiment
The bill’s introduction by a large bipartisan group of legislators suggests broad interest in elevating privacy as a constitutional principle. However, the available record shows no committee debate or recorded votes, and the resolution ultimately failed to adopt pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. As a result, the public record here reflects support at introduction but no documented floor-level consensus or final enactment.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the breadth and legal effect of creating a general, fundamental right to privacy in the constitution. Supporters would view the amendment as a strong safeguard for personal liberty, while opponents may be concerned that the language is too open-ended and could expand judicial review or create uncertainty for existing laws and future policymaking. Because there are no committee transcripts or vote details provided, specific arguments by named legislators are not available in the record.
Proposing An Amendment To Article Xvii, Section 3 Of The Hawaii Constitution To Specify That The Standard For Voter Approval Of A Constitutional Amendment Proposed By The Legislature Is A Majority Of All The Votes Tallied Upon The Question.
Proposing An Amendment To Article Xvii, Section 3 Of The Hawaii Constitution To Specify That The Standard For Voter Approval Of A Constitutional Amendment Proposed By The Legislature Is A Majority Of All The Votes Tallied Upon The Question.
A concurrent resolution to amend and reenact section 9 of article III and section 16 of article IV of the Constitution of North Dakota, relating to the threshold for approving a constitutional amendment.