Wisconsin Senate Bill SB275

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/21/25
• Refer: 5/21/25
• Report Pass: 11/7/25
• Engrossed: 2/11/26
• Enrolled: 2/20/26
• Vetoed: 3/20/26

Caption

An Act to renumber and amend 227.135 (5); to amend 227.14 (6) (c) 1. a.; to create 227.135 (1) (g), 227.135 (5) (b) and 227.135 (7) of the statutes; Relating to: statements of scope for administrative rules. (FE)

Summary

SB275 changes Wisconsin’s administrative rulemaking process by requiring agencies to identify up front whether a statement of scope is for a proposed emergency rule or a proposed permanent rule. It also requires separate statements of scope if an agency wants to pursue both types of rules at the same time. Under the bill, an agency may promulgate only one permanent rule or one emergency rule based on a single statement of scope. The bill also shortens the life of emergency-rule scopes. A statement of scope for a proposed emergency rule would expire after 6 months, while the existing 30-month expiration would remain in place for permanent-rule scopes. If the relevant scope expires before a rule is submitted for legislative review, the rule is treated as withdrawn or may no longer be promulgated, depending on the type of rule. The bill makes corresponding changes to the statute governing withdrawal of proposed rules and applies only to statements of scope published on or after the effective date.

Impact

SB275 would amend Wisconsin statutes governing administrative rules, specifically s. 227.135 and related provisions in s. 227.14. Its practical effect is to tighten procedural limits on agencies by separating emergency and permanent rulemaking tracks, limiting each scope to one rule, and imposing a much shorter deadline for emergency-rule scopes. Agencies, the Department of Administration, the Governor’s review process, and the Legislative Reference Bureau would all continue to play roles in the rulemaking pipeline, but with more explicit constraints on how long a scope remains valid and how many rules may be produced from it.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had support from both chambers, passing the Senate 18-15 and the Assembly 53-45, which suggests a generally favorable but partisan split. The recorded votes indicate the measure advanced over opposition rather than by broad consensus. The final action notes that it failed to pass notwithstanding the Governor’s objections, indicating the bill was controversial enough to draw executive resistance even after legislative approval.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on agency rulemaking flexibility. Supporters appear to favor tighter control over administrative rules, especially by limiting agencies to one rule per scope and by shortening the timeframe for emergency rules. Opponents likely viewed the measure as unnecessarily constraining agencies’ ability to respond quickly or efficiently through emergency rulemaking and as adding procedural hurdles to the regulatory process. The split floor votes and the Governor’s objections suggest disagreement over the balance between legislative oversight and agency discretion.