Wisconsin Senate Bill SB922

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/26
• Refer: 2/6/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to renumber 5.07; to amend 5.05 (1) (e), 5.056, 5.06 (2), 5.25 (4) (b), 5.35 (6) (a) (intro.), 5.35 (6) (a) 5., 5.35 (6) (b), 5.35 (6) (c), 6.33 (2) (a), 6.35 (3), 6.86 (1) (b), 6.86 (3) (c), 12.09 (1), 12.09 (3), 12.60 (1) (a), 12.60 (4) and 85.61 (1); to create 5.07 (2), 5.25 (4) (c), 5.35 (6) (a) 4c., 5.35 (6) (d), 6.256, 6.29 (2) (e), 7.08 (3) (d) to (g), 7.08 (13), 7.08 (14), 7.10 (11), 7.15 (16), 12.17, 12.19, 12.60 (1) (ae), 12.60 (1) (an), 12.60 (1) (as), 12.60 (1) (bn) and 343.14 (2p) of the statutes; Relating to: automatic voter registration, deceptive election practices, voter intimidation and suppression, voter rights, polling place posting and language requirements, election manual requirements, withholding of voluntarily provided elector information, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty. (FE)

Summary

SB922 is an elections and voting bill that would make broad changes to Wisconsin election administration and voter protections. The bill would direct the Elections Commission to use all feasible means to facilitate the registration of eligible electors, including a new automatic voter registration system tied to Department of Transportation records. It would require the commission to obtain specified DOT information, compare it with the statewide voter list, resolve discrepancies, mail notices when voters are added or removed, and allow individuals to opt out of having their information shared for registration purposes. The bill also requires a report to the Legislature on implementation and on the feasibility of integrating voter-registration data with other state agencies and educational systems. The bill also creates new prohibitions and enforcement tools aimed at deceptive election practices, voter intimidation, and voter suppression. It would make it a crime to intentionally mislead someone about election details, voting qualifications, or candidate endorsements in order to prevent voting, and it would create a separate offense for knowingly trying to stop someone from voting or registering based on false or spurious information. It expands private rights of action, allowing electors to seek injunctive relief in circuit court, and it requires the Elections Commission to investigate complaints, provide corrective information to affected voters, refer matters for prosecution, and report periodically to the Legislature. In addition, SB922 would create a voter bill of rights that must be posted at polling places, strengthen polling-place posting and language-access requirements, and require the Elections Commission to update its election manual with clearer, more detailed guidance for election officials. The bill would also protect voluntarily provided elector telephone numbers and email addresses from public disclosure, while allowing their use for election administration. It includes new or revised penalties for violations and authorizes the commission to adopt rules and alternative notice methods where they are at least as effective as posting. The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s structure is strongly pro-voter and pro-administration, emphasizing access, accurate information, language access, and protection from coercion or misinformation. At the same time, the bill is also enforcement-oriented, with substantial criminal penalties and new complaint and reporting mechanisms. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, and the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, so there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment in the supplied materials beyond the bill’s text and disposition. The main points of contention likely concern the scope of automatic voter registration, the use and sharing of personally identifiable information from DOT records, the creation of new criminal offenses for election-related speech or conduct, and the expansion of private lawsuits and commission enforcement authority. The opt-out structure for data sharing, confidentiality protections, and the balance between preventing misinformation and protecting legitimate political speech are the most likely areas of debate. The bill also imposes new duties on local election officials regarding posting, language access, and manual compliance, which could raise administrative and fiscal concerns.

Impact

SB922 would substantially revise Wisconsin election law by creating a statewide automatic voter registration framework, expanding the Elections Commission’s authority over voter-list maintenance, and adding new duties for DOT and local election officials. It would amend statutes governing registration, absentee voting, polling-place postings, language assistance, election manuals, and public records treatment of elector contact information. It also creates new criminal and civil enforcement provisions for deceptive election practices, voter intimidation, and voter suppression, while adding penalties for noncompliance with certain posting and manual requirements.

Sentiment

The bill’s overall tone is protective of voting rights and election access, with a strong emphasis on helping eligible voters register, ensuring they receive accurate information, and shielding them from coercion or deception. Its provisions on language access, voter rights postings, and confidentiality of contact information suggest a reform-minded, voter-centered approach. Because no committee discussion or vote history was provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislators in the supplied materials, but the bill’s failure to pass indicates it did not advance to enactment.

Contention

Likely areas of contention include automatic voter registration through DOT data matching, the confidentiality and opt-out rules for sharing personally identifiable information, and the bill’s new criminal penalties for deceptive election practices and voter suppression. Opponents may view these provisions as overbroad, administratively burdensome, or potentially implicating free-speech concerns, while supporters would likely frame them as necessary protections against misinformation and intimidation. Local election officials could also object to the added posting, language-access, and manual requirements, especially where compliance would require additional resources or staffing.