For status updates, visit lucyburns.org.
Ballotpedia's coverage of elections held on March 3, 2015, was limited. Select races were covered live, and all results will be added once the merger is complete.
Wisconsin Legislative Supermajority for Tax Increases Amendment (2016)
|Voting on Taxes|
|Not on ballot|
Currently, a three−fifths majority vote is required in the legislature to increase taxes.
Text of measure
|Section 8 (1) On the passage in either house of the legislature of any law which imposes, continues or renews a tax, or creates a debt or charge, or makes, continues or renews an appropriation of public or trust money, or releases, discharges or commutes a claim or demand of the state, the question shall be taken by yeas and nays, which shall be duly entered on the journal; and three−fifths of all the members elected to such house shall in all such cases be required to constitute a quorum therein.
Section 8 (2) Except as provided in sub. (3), no house of the legislature may pass a bill that increases the rate of the state sales tax or that increases any of the rates of the income tax or franchise tax unless the bill is approved by two-thirds of those members present and voting.
Section 8 (3) Subsection (2) shall not apply if the legislature passes a joint resolution requiring a statewide advisory referendum on the question of whether the legislature should authorize the tax increase provided in the bill and a majority of voters voting at the referendum vote to approve the tax increase.
- Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-20)
- Sen. Neal Kedzie (R-11)
- Sen. Mary Lazich (R-28)
- Sen. Joe Leibham (R-9)
- Sen. Leah Vukmir (R-5)
- Rep. Dean Knudson (R-30)
- Rep. Tyler August (R-32)
- Rep. Robin Vos (R-63)
- Rep. Dave Craig (R-83)
- Rep. Mary Czaja (R-35)
- Rep. Rob Hutton (R-13)
- Rep. Andre Jacque (R-2)
- Rep. Chris Kapenga (R-99)
- Rep. Joel Kleefisch (R-38)
- Rep. Daniel Knodl (R-24)
- Rep. Dale Kooyenga (R-14)
- Rep. Scott Krug (R-72)
- Rep. Daniel R. LeMahieu (R-59)
- Rep. Stephen Nass (R-33)
- Rep. Adam Neylon (R-98)
- Rep. Kevin Petersen (R-40)
- Rep. Warren Petryk (R-93)
- Rep. Don Pridemore (R-22)
- Rep. Joe Sanfelippo (R-15)
- Rep. Michael Schraa (R-53)
- Rep. John Spiros (R-86)
- Rep. Jim Steineke (R-5)
- Rep. Pat Strachota (R-58)
- Rep. Duey Stroebel (R-60)
- Rep. Paul Tittl (R-25)
- Rep. Chad Weininger (R-44)
- Wisconsin Council on Children & Families
- Jon Peacock, director of Wisconsin Budget Project, said that AJR 79 would have a number of negative "unintended consequences," including:
- “The most worrisome of those [consequences] is the strong possibility of higher costs to finance construction. States with constitutional constraints on the options for balancing their budgets run a significant risk of getting lower ratings for the bonds they sell, which raises their interest rates and can significantly increase the cost of borrowing for major construction projects
- “Bond rating agencies give higher scores to states that don't have constitutional limits on their ability to raise revenue when necessary to balance the state budget. In downgrading Nevada's credit rating, Moody's noted that Nevada's "supermajority requirement to raise taxes presents a hurdle to achieving balance on an ongoing basis." Moody's also cited Arizona's supermajority requirement as a reason for reducing that state's bond rating.”
- “Another unintended consequence of creating a higher hurdle for tax rate increases is a shift to other types of state and local revenue. By holding down income tax revenue, the state will have less funding for property tax relief, which will put upward pressure on local property taxes… The proposed change in the state constitution also would make it more difficult for state lawmakers to pass legislation that makes comprehensive tax reforms. It wouldn't be possible without a two-thirds vote for legislators to pass a revenue-neutral bill that raises income or sales tax rates in order to pay for a substantial cut in property taxes.”
- “In addition, when state policy-makers need to raise revenue to balance the state budget, they would be much more likely to raise fees, such as university tuition. Although the proposed amendment allows tax rates to be increased by referendum, the timetable for accomplishing that will generally make it an unworkable solution when it comes time for legislators to pass a biennial budget bill.”
- “Although supporters argue that a supermajority requirement is necessary to hold down tax rates, history shows this not to be the case. The three tax rates that would be restricted by the proposed constitutional change have rarely been increased in Wisconsin. In fact, the state's sales tax rate and corporate income tax rate have not been raised in 32 years. The only increase in the individual income tax in the past 28 years, which took place in 2009 during the recession, affected only about one out of every hundred tax filers.”
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Wisconsin Constitution
The Wisconsin State Legislature is required to approve the amendment by majority vote in two successive sessions. AJR 79 was approved for the first time in the Wisconsin Assembly, with all Republicans voting for and all Democrats voting against, on February 11, 2014.
February 11, 2014 Assembly vote
|Wisconsin AJR 79 Assembly Vote|
- Wisconsin Legislature, "2013 Assembly Joint Resolution 79," accessed March 18, 2014
- Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, "Wisconsin Council on Children & Families," accessed March 25, 2014
- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Constitutional amendment's unintended consequences," March 17, 2014
- Wisconsin Legislature, "Assembly Joint Resolution 79 Status," accessed March 18, 2014