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).
SJR146 proposes a constitutional amendment to reserve to Wisconsin voters two direct-democracy powers: referendum and initiative. Under the referendum provision, voters could petition to reject an act of the legislature, a section of an act, or an item of appropriation in an act. Under the initiative provision, voters could petition to place proposed laws or constitutional amendments on the ballot for approval or rejection at a general election.
The resolution sets detailed petition requirements and procedures. Referendum petitions would need signatures equal to at least 4% of the vote cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election, while initiative petitions would need 6% for proposed laws and 8% for proposed constitutional amendments. Petitions would have to be filed at least 120 days before the election, include the full text of the proposal, satisfy a single-subject/title requirement, and use paper signatures. If approved, an initiative law would take effect 30 days after certification unless otherwise specified, and the legislature would face limits on repealing or amending it for two years and thereafter only by a two-thirds vote. Rejected initiatives could not be resubmitted for five years, and referendum-rejected legislation could not be reenacted in the same session.
If adopted, the amendment would change Article IV of the Wisconsin Constitution by explicitly limiting legislative power “except for the initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people” and by adding new constitutional sections governing those processes. It would also bar compensation based on the number of signatures gathered for initiative or referendum petitions, while allowing other forms of payment for signature gathering. Because this is a constitutional amendment, it would require approval by two successive legislatures and ratification by voters before taking effect.
The overall sentiment in the available record appears procedural and reform-oriented rather than divided by recorded debate, but the bill did not advance: it failed to adopt pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 23, 2026. The text suggests support from the authors for expanding voter power over legislation, while the lack of committee transcripts or recorded votes leaves no detailed public record of opposition arguments in the provided materials.
The main points of contention likely center on the balance of power between the legislature and the electorate, the signature thresholds and waiting periods, and the restrictions on paid signature gathering. Supporters would likely view the measure as increasing voter access and accountability, while critics may see it as weakening representative lawmaking or creating administrative burdens for election officials.
The resolution would amend the Wisconsin Constitution to create a voter referendum process and a voter initiative process, directly affecting Article IV and the state’s lawmaking structure. It would add new constitutional provisions governing petition thresholds, filing deadlines, ballot placement, single-subject requirements, signature verification, effective dates, limits on legislative repeal or amendment of approved initiatives, and a five-year waiting period for resubmitting rejected measures. It would also prohibit compensation tied to the number of signatures collected on petitions, affecting petition circulators and campaign operations. As a constitutional amendment, it would not itself change statutory law immediately, but would establish a new framework that the legislature and election administration agency would have to implement through future laws and procedures if ratified.
The available record suggests a generally reform-minded, pro-direct-democracy sentiment among the bill’s authors, who sought to reserve initiative and referendum powers to the people. However, there is no committee transcript or vote breakdown showing broader legislative support or opposition, and the measure ultimately failed to adopt pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. In short, the proposal appears to have been presented as a structural democracy reform, but it did not secure the necessary legislative approval.
The likely areas of contention are the scope of direct democracy and the practical rules governing it. Supporters would likely favor giving voters the power to reject legislation and propose laws or constitutional amendments, while opponents may argue that the proposal shifts too much authority away from the legislature. Specific points that could draw debate include the 4%, 6%, and 8% signature thresholds, the 120-day filing requirement, the two-year and two-thirds-vote limits on legislative changes to approved initiatives, the five-year waiting period after rejection, and the ban on pay-per-signature arrangements. The absence of recorded committee discussion means these concerns are inferred from the bill’s structure rather than documented floor or committee testimony.