To amend section 1 of article IV and section 17 (2) of article IV; to create section 17 (5) of article IV, section 17 (6) of article IV and section 17 (7) of article IV of the constitution; Relating to: reserving to the people the power of referendum to reject acts of the legislature and the power of initiative to propose and approve at an election laws and constitutional amendments (first consideration).
AJR148 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would reserve to Wisconsin voters the power of referendum and initiative. It would allow voters to circulate petitions to reject acts of the legislature, specific sections of an act, or items of appropriation through a referendum, and to propose new laws or constitutional amendments through an initiative process. The resolution sets signature thresholds based on the last gubernatorial vote total: 4% for referendums, 6% for initiative laws, and 8% for initiative constitutional amendments.
The measure also establishes procedural rules for these petitions. Referendum and initiative petitions would have to be filed at least 120 days before the election, include the full text of the proposal, and be signed on paper. After verification by the state elections agency, the proposal would go to the next general election meeting the timing requirements. Approved initiative laws or amendments would take effect 30 days after certification unless otherwise specified, and initiative laws would be shielded from legislative repeal or amendment for two years and then only by a two-thirds vote of each house. Rejected initiatives could not be resubmitted in substantially the same form for five years. The resolution also prohibits paying petition circulators based on the number of signatures collected.
If adopted, the amendment would significantly change the state constitution and Wisconsin’s lawmaking process by creating direct-democracy tools currently not available in the same form. It would limit the legislature’s ability to undo voter-approved initiatives and would create a new role for the state elections agency in reviewing petitions, verifying signatures, and placing measures on the ballot. Because it is a constitutional amendment, it would require approval by two successive legislatures and ratification by the voters before taking effect.
The overall sentiment in the available record appears neutral to supportive in concept, but the bill did not advance; it failed to adopt pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. No committee transcript or recorded vote details are provided, so there is no evidence of formal debate in the supplied materials. The main points of contention likely center on the policy choice to expand direct democracy, the signature thresholds and paper-only petition requirement, the restrictions on paid signature gathering, and the limits placed on the legislature after voter approval.
AJR148 would amend Article IV of the Wisconsin Constitution to reserve initiative and referendum powers to the people, creating new constitutional procedures for voter-initiated laws, constitutional amendments, and referenda on legislative acts or appropriations. It would affect the legislature’s authority by allowing voters to block enacted legislation and by restricting legislative repeal or amendment of approved initiative laws for two years, and thereafter only by a two-thirds vote in each house. It would also assign duties to the state elections agency for petition review, signature verification, and ballot placement, and it would impose a ban on compensation tied to the number of signatures collected.
The available materials suggest the proposal was framed as a structural reform to expand voter power, with no recorded committee testimony or vote breakdown to show detailed support or opposition. The bill’s failure to adopt indicates it did not secure the necessary legislative approval, but the record provided does not show whether that was due to procedural timing, partisan disagreement, or substantive objections. Overall, the sentiment in the record is best characterized as procedurally unsuccessful rather than clearly hostile or enthusiastic.
Likely areas of contention include whether Wisconsin should adopt initiative and referendum powers at all, how high the signature thresholds should be, and whether requiring paper signatures and banning pay-per-signature arrangements would make the process too difficult to use. Another likely dispute is the degree to which voter-approved initiatives should be insulated from legislative change, since the resolution would sharply limit the legislature’s ability to amend or repeal such laws. Supporters would likely view these provisions as protecting voter sovereignty, while critics would likely see them as constraining representative lawmaking and making ballot access more burdensome.