Wisconsin Transportation Fund Amendment, Question 1 (2014)
|Referred by:||Wisconsin Legislature|
|Topic:||State and local government budgets, spending and finance on the ballot|
- 1 Election results
- 2 Text of the measure
- 3 Background
- 4 Support
- 5 Opposition
- 6 Media editorial positions
- 7 Path to the ballot
- 8 Similar measures
- 9 See also
- 10 External links
- 11 Additional reading
- 12 References
The Wisconsin Transportation Fund Amendment, Question 1 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in Wisconsin as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The amendment required that revenue generated by transportation fees and taxes be deposited into the state's transportation fund. According to the amendment, none of the revenue collected from transportation-related levies could be appropriated to any program that is not directly administered by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Therefore, the amendment guaranteed that revenue from transportation-related levies, such as the gas tax and vehicle registration fee, would be allocated to transportation-related projects.
While Question 1 supporters argued that the amendment would prohibit politicians from transferring money from the state’s transportation fund to other parts of the budget, opponents contended that the measure would create budget inflexibility and encourage politicians to raid non-constitutionalized funds, such as education funds.
|Wisconsin Question 1|
Election results via: Wisconsin Government Accountability Board
Text of the measure
The official ballot text was as follows:
|“||Question 1: "Creation of a Transportation Fund. Shall section 9 (2) of article IV and section 11 of article VIII of the constitution be created to require that revenues generated by use of the state transportation system be deposited into a transportation fund administered by a department of transportation for the exclusive purpose of funding Wisconsin's transportation systems and to prohibit any transfers or lapses from this fund?"||”|
|“||In general, funds collected in fees and taxes may be appropriated for any public purpose determined by the Legislature. Wisconsin’s transportation fund, which currently exists under statute, is designed to be the source of funding for all modes of transportation in the state. Wisconsin law requires that specific revenue streams such as taxes or fees related to motor vehicles, aircraft, and railroads be deposited into the transportation fund.
At times, the Legislature has transferred moneys initially deposited into the transportation fund to programs with non-transportation-related purposes. Such transfers have typically been to general revenue funds, which are used for state programs such as education, health care, and shared revenue. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suggested that these transfers are permissible under current law.
In essence, the proposed amendment would change the Wisconsin Constitution to require that revenues generated by specified uses of the state transportation system be deposited into a transportation fund and expended only for transportation-related purposes.
A “yes” vote on this question would establish a department of transportation and a transportation fund in the state constitution. The current Department of Transportation and transportation fund exist only under statute. A “yes” vote would mean that all funds collected from taxes or fees in existence after December 31, 2010 for the licensing of motor vehicle operators, for the titling, licensing, or registration of motor vehicles, for motor vehicle fuel, or for the use of roadways, highways, or bridges, and from taxes and fees levied or imposed for aircraft, airline property, or aviation fuel or for railroads or railroad property would be deposited in the transportation fund or with certain authorized parties, such as a trustee for the benefit of the department of transportation. Funds in the transportation fund may not be lapsed, further transferred, or used for any program that is not directly administered by the department of transportation in furtherance of the department’s responsibility for the planning, promotion, and protection of all transportation systems in the state (except for programs with an appropriation from the statutory transportation fund as of December 31, 2010). The proposed amendment does not define “transportation systems.”
A “no” vote would mean that the Department of Transportation continues to be a statutory agency. It also would mean that monies collected from motor vehicle, air-craft, and railroad fees and taxes could be appropriated by the Legislature for transportation systems or for other programs as determined by the Legislature.
|I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII • XIII • XIV|
[Article IV] Section 9(2). The legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of a department of transportation and a transportation fund.
[Article VIII] Section 11. All funds collected by the state from any taxes or fees levied or imposed for the licensing of motor vehicle operators, for the titling, licensing, or registration of motor vehicles, for motor vehicle fuel, or for the use of roadways, highways, or bridges, and from taxes and fees levied or imposed for aircraft, airline property, or aviation fuel or for railroads or railroad property shall be deposited only into the transportation fund or with a trustee for the benefit of the department of transportation or the holders of transportation-related revenue bonds, except for collections from taxes or fees in existence on December 31, 2010, that were not being deposited in the transportation fund on that date. None of the funds collected or received by the state from any source and deposited into the transportation fund shall be lapsed, further transferred, or appropriated to any program that is not directly administered by the department of transportation in furtherance of the department's responsibility for the planning, promotion, and protection of all transportation systems in the state except for programs for which there was an appropriation from the transportation fund on December 31, 2010. In this section, the term "motor vehicle" does not include any all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, or watercraft.
At the time of the amendment's approval, the Wisconsin Transportation Fund received revenue from transportation-related levies, including federal and state gas taxes, vehicle registration fees, driver license fees, motor carrier fees, aircraft registration fees, general aviation fuel taxes, the property tax on air carriers and the tax on rail property. The fund was the source of financing all transportation infrastructure, such as highways, air, rail, transit, harbors, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It also funded the Division of Motor Vehicles and the Division of State Patrol.
In 2013, about 56 percent of all transportation-related revenue came from state sources. Wisconsin's gas tax and registration fees accounted for about 87 percent of state transportation-related revenue. In July 2013, the gas tax was 30.9 cents per gallon, and the vehicle registration fee was $75 for automobiles. Revenue from the federal government accounted for 26 percent of all revenue to the transportation fund. Most of the federal money was raised through the federal gas tax, which was 18.4 cents per gallon.
Transfers from the fund
Approximately $1.4 billion of revenue in the transportation fund was allocated to the general fund between 2003 and 2011. Former Gov. Jim Doyle's (D) administration and the legislature were responsible for transferring money from the transportation fund. This process is often called "raiding" a fund. According to the Pew Center on the States:
|“||Often, lawmakers shifted money around, taking money from the state's transportation fund, for example, to pay for day-to-day operations - and then borrowed to cover the transportation budget. Legislators also failed to put money in reserve before the recession hit.||”|
—Pew Center on the States
Gov. Doyle addressed the raids on the fund, saying, "My budget transfers $250 million from the transportation fund to support our investment in schools and other key priorities. With such a large transportation budget, and so many pressing needs in our state, it's the only responsible thing to do." Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (R-13), on the other hand, criticized the transfers, arguing, "In the 2009-11 budget, Wisconsin Democrats raided $205.5 million from the transportation fund and diverted the money to their pet projects."
When Republicans took over the state government in 2011, the practice largely ceased. Gov. Scott Walker (R) campaigned on the issue, saying he would "end the practice of raiding segregated state funds to pay for other programs. If taxpayer revenue is collected for a specific purpose such as building and maintaining roads, it should be used for that purpose and that purpose only." While Gov. Walker lived up to his promise to not raid the transportation fund, his administration supported raiding other segregated funds and some special program funds.
Local advisory questions
In 2010, 54 out of Wisconsin’s 72 counties voted on advisory questions that asked voters whether or not the legislature should pursue a constitutional amendment to ban allocating revenue from the transportation fund to solve other budget issues. All 54 counties approved the advisory question.
Vote Yes for Transportation led the campaign in support of Question 1.
Question 1 supporters argued that the amendment would prohibit politicians from “raiding” the state’s transportation fund, something which occurred in the past. Craig Thompson of the Transportation Development Association utilized the following simile: “For most of us, any other use of the funds is the equivalent of our child using lunch money to purchase a book at the school book sale. While we certainly wouldn't fault our child's desire to read, we would prefer to be in on the decision. This is particularly true when we know we are eventually going to have to come up with additional money for lunch.”
- Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch (R)
- Sen. Frank Lasee (R-1)
- Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-3)
- Sen. Alberta Darling (R-8)
- Sen. Joe Leibham (R-9)
- Sen. Sheila Harsdorf (R-10)
- Sen. Neal Kedzie (R-11)
- Sen. Luther Olsen (R-14)
- Sen. Dale Schultz (R-17)
- Sen. Rick Gudex (R-18)
- Sen. Terry Moulton (R-23)
- Sen. Mary Lazich (R-28)
- Sen. Jerry Petrowski (R-29)
- Sen. Dave Hansen (D-30)
- Sen. Paul Farrow (R-33)
- Rep. Garey Bies (R-1)
- Rep. Andre Jacque (R-2)
- Rep. Alvin R. Ott (R-3)
- Rep. Chad Weininger (R-44)
- Rep. Jim Steineke (R-5)
- Rep. Gary Tauchen (R-6)
- Rep. Josh Zepnick (D-9)
- Rep. Don Pridemore (R-22)
- Rep. Paul Tittl (R-25)
- Rep. Mike Endsley (R-26)
- Rep. Steve Kestell (R-27)
- Rep. Tyler August (R-32)
- Rep. Mary Czaja (R-35)
- Rep. Jeffrey Mursau (R-36)
- Rep. Kevin Petersen (R-40)
- Rep. Joan Ballweg (R-41)
- Rep. Keith Ripp (R-42)
- Rep. Andy Jorgensen (D-43)
- Rep. Robb Kahl (D-47)
- Rep. Travis Tranel (R-49)
- Rep. Ed Brooks (R-50)
- Rep. Howard Marklein (R-51)
- Rep. Jeremy Thiesfeldt (R-52)
- Rep. Michael Schraa (R-53)
- Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-55)
- Rep. Dave Murphy (R-56)
- Rep. Pat Strachota (R-58)
- Rep. Daniel R. LeMahieu (R-59)
- Rep. Samantha Kerkman (R-61)
- Rep. Tom Larson (R-67)
- Rep. Kathy Bernier (R-68)
- Rep. Stephen Smith (D-75)
- Rep. John Spiros (R-86)
- Rep. Mary Williams (R-87)
- Rep. John Klenke (R-88)
- Rep. John Nygren (R-89)
- Rep. Chris Danou (D-92)
- Rep. Warren Petryk (R-93)
- Rep. Steve Doyle (D-94)
- Rep. Lee A. Nerison (R-96)
The following officials voiced support for the amendment:
- AAA - Wisconsin
- Aggregate Producers of Wisconsin
- American Council of Engineering Companies of Wisconsin
- American Petroleum Institute
- Centergy, Inc.
- Constitution Business Group
- Dairy Business Group
- Discover Mediaworks
- Easter Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
- Forward Janesville, Inc.
- Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association
- Greater Brookfield Chamber of Commerce
- Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce
- Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce
- International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 139
- Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce
- Midwest Food Processors Association
- National Federation of Independent Businesses
- Oshkosh Camber of Commerce
- Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
- Racine Area Manufacturers and Commerce
- Transportation Development Association of Wisconsin
- Wisconsin Agri-Business Association
- Wisconsin Automobile & Truck Dealers Association
- Wisconsin Automotive Aftermarket Association
- Wisconsin Asphalt Pavement Association
- Wisconsin Commercial Ports Association
- Wisconsin Concrete Pavement Association
- Wisconsin Counties Association
- Wisconsin County Business Alliance
- Wisconsin County Highway Association
- Wisconsin Earth Movers Association
- Wisconsin Economic Development Association
- Wisconsin Grocers Association
- Wisconsin Housing Alliance
- Wisconsin Laborers’ District Council
- Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce
- Wisconsin Motor Carriers Association
- Wisconsin Petroleum Council
- Wisconsin Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association
- Wisconsin Restaurant Association
- Wisconsin Retail Council
- Wisconsin Towns Association
- Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association
- Wisconsin Troopers’ Association
- Wisconsin Urban & Rural Transit Association
Vote Yes for Transportation's "The People Speak" video supporting Question 1.
Vote Yes for Transportation issued an information sheet detailing five reasons to support the amendment:
1. This amendment to constitutionally protect the transportation fund is just common sense. Wisconsin’s economy can’t grow without a healthy transportation network. The gas tax and vehicle registration fees we all pay were always intended to fund the upkeep of the system.
—Vote Yes for Transportation
CASE Construction Equipment's interview with Craig Thompson of Vote Yes for Transportation.
Craig Thompson, Executive Director of the Transportation Development Association of Wisconsin, said, "Vote YES on Nov. 4 to get what we expected: Our gas tax and vehicle registration fee dollars for transportation." The following is an excerpt from his argument:
|“||The state of Wisconsin collects fees – primarily the gas tax and vehicle registration fee – from users of the transportation system to pay for its upkeep. This money should be used for transportation purposes.
Well, of course.
For most of us, any other use of the funds is the equivalent of our child using lunch money to purchase a book at the school book sale. While we certainly wouldn't fault our child's desire to read, we would prefer to be in on the decision. This is particularly true when we know we are eventually going to have to come up with additional money for lunch...
Constitutionally protecting transportation user fees is not a new idea. Most other states, including our neighbors in Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan and Ohio, already have such language in their state constitutions.
We are naturally reluctant to solve problems by amending the constitution. That is a healthy reflex. This issue, however, truly belongs in the constitution. This is not a narrow bit of fiscal policy, but rather a common sense safeguard that will keep transportation user fees dedicated for their intended purpose.
Experience has shown that state laws to protect user fees don't work. Wisconsin, in fact, has statutory language limiting the use of transportation user fee revenue to transportation purposes. That did not prevent the diversion of approximately $1.4 billion over the better part of a decade.
| Total campaign cash |
as of December 3, 2014
The Vote Yes for Transportation Referendum Committee raised approximately $417,831 as of December 3, 2014. The following data was obtained from the Wisconsin Campaign Finance Information System.
|PAC||Amount raised||Amount spent|
|Vote Yes for Transportation Referendum Committee||$417,831||$73,740|
|Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association||$150,200|
|Transportation Development Association||$101,947|
|JLMWPF Public Affairs||$50,000|
|Operating Engineers 139 PAC||$30,000|
|Great Lakes Region Organizing Committee||$25,000|
|Wisconsin Laborers-Employees Cooperation and Education Trust||$25,000|
|International Union of Operating Engineers #139||$20,000|
There was no organized opposition to Question 1.
Opponents contended that the measure would create budget inflexibility and encourage politicians to raid non-constitutionalized funds, such as education funds. Some argued that special interests in the transportation sector donated tens of millions to the amendment’s legislative backers and that these businesses would benefit from Question 1, rather than the people of Wisconsin.
- U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-2)
- Sen. Lena Taylor (D-4)
- Sen. Nikiya Harris (D-6)
- Sen. Chris Larson (D-7)
- Sen. Tim Cullen (D-15)
- Sen. Mark Miller (D-16)
- Sen. John Lehman (D-21)
- Sen. Robert Jauch (D-25)
- Sen. Fred Risser (D-26)
- Rep. Daniel Riemer (D-7)
- Rep. JoCasta Zamarripa (D-8)
- Rep. Sandy Pasch (D-10)
- Rep. Frederick P. Kessler (D-12)
- Rep. Mandela Barnes (D-11)
- Rep. LaTonya Johnson (D-17)
- Rep. Jon Richards (D-19)
- Rep. Gary Hebl (D-46)
- Rep. Melissa Sargent (D-48)
- Rep. Penny Bernard Schaber (D-57)
- Rep. Chris Taylor (D-76)
- Rep. Terese Berceau (D-77)
- Rep. Dianne Hesselbein (D-79)
- Rep. Chris Kapenga (R-99)
|“||This proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit the use of money in the transportation fund for any other means, even in times of economic crisis or in the advent of a state emergency. This resolution creates guaranteed funding for a powerful special interest. We must ask ourselves, is a constitutional amendment an appropriate way to allocate funds?
Currently, the Legislature determines how to allocate our tax revenues in response to the relevant needs of the state. The highway lobby, however, wants a constitutional amendment passed to guarantee roads will continue receiving funds from the gas tax and vehicle registration fees (which the Legislature normally gives them anyway) and also to guarantee that any funds from any source that it might receive in the future cannot be used for any other purpose regardless of other pressing needs and priorities of the state.
This proposed amendment would tie the hands of the governor and Legislature by denying them the fundamental duty of addressing the needs of our state by allocating funds where needed...
In addition, the devil is in the details of this proposal. Nothing in this measure will guarantee that public transit and other transportation needs will be protected. For instance, the Legislature could decide that transportation programs like mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian funding, or even local road aids are no longer included in the newly created transportation fund, resulting in even more money being set aside for the highway lobby.
Everyone loves new roads and a good transportation infrastructure is important. However, the bottom line is that passage of this constitutional amendment will mean that Wisconsin has prioritized building roads over addressing funding for schools, health care, conservation, police and fire services, and other vital programs and services the state provides its citizens.
Times change and the needs of the state change. In my opinion, it serves no useful purpose to submit to the highway lobby and guarantee them a constitutionally protected fund that can never be touched even in the case of economic crisis or statewide emergency.
—Sen. Fred Risser (D-26)
Paul Fanlund, editor of The Capital Times, argued the amendment was "political payback to special interests that have been financially instrumental to the campaigns of Gov. Scott Walker and fellow Republicans, helping ensure they can continue to rule state government with uncompromising iron fists." He elaborated on his critique:
|“||... From the moment in 2011 in which Walker, keeping one of his campaign promises, proudly rejected $810 million in federal money to scuttle high-speed rail between Milwaukee and Madison, the partisan divide has been clear, pitting those who want a balanced system that embraces mass transit against the GOP’s 1950s vision, whose motto might be “our only way is the highway.”
I know, it comes as no surprise that the GOP is driven by those with a direct economic stake in road-building and fossil-fuel consumption at the expense of any form of mass transit.
An analysis of the database of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a respected nonprofit, nonpartisan group that tracks campaign contributions, shows that from Jan. 1, 2011, to Dec. 31, 2013, the special interests that back the ballot question, led by groups with a financial stake in more highways, contributed $21.6 million to individuals and political action committees. Presumably the donors got other benefits, but having their way on transportation is certainly a tangible reward for that support.
Predictably, organizations supporting the amendment include producers of road-building material, various fossil fuel energy interests, tourism interests, chambers of commerce, and of course Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s retro business lobby...
Another $150 million was transferred to transportation from the general fund in the 2013-15 budget. Some might see that as the same sort of “raid” for which Walker condemned Doyle, but this was into transportation, not out of it, so we did not hear a peep...
The governor and other Republicans ignored those systemic revenue ideas, moving other state money into transportation at the same time they cut taxes, wailed that the “state is broke” and chopped $800 million from K-12 education...
So when you check that box on the ballot — and “no” would be a good idea — pause and think about what this says about Wisconsin.
You won’t find a ballot question to wall off money in the state’s conservation fund or for any other worthwhile areas of public expenditure. No, it is only for the highway lobby.
Other arguments against the amendment included:
- Rep. Gary Hebl (D-46) disagreed with putting constitutional protections on one segregated fund, but not the other segregated funds. He viewed this as prioritizing transportation over other important budget issues, such as education and health care, since the transportation fund could not be raided, but the other funds could still be raided. Rep. Chris Kapenga (R-99), the only Republican to vote against the amendment, issued a similar statement, saying all segregated state funds should be protected, not just the transportation fund.
- Shahla Werner, Director of the Wisconsin Sierra Club, argued, "The amendment doesn't recognize that Wisconsinites are driving less and they need more transportation options, not fewer. Putting all transportation funding into a lock box will fuel wasteful highway spending and simply doesn’t recognize community needs and the changing dynamics."
Media editorial positions
- Beloit Daily News said, "The referendum should be approved by voters with an overwhelming bipartisan support. The first step in fixing this problem is to make sure the political class can’t play games with road money."
- The Chippewa Herald said, "Not only is a yes vote a guarantee that transportation funds will be used for transportation needs, it means we’ll do less borrowing on behalf of transportation that dilutes the general fund — and our ability to pay for schools, health care and public safety."
- Eau Claire Leader-Telegram said, "A bigger issue is how we can continue to have smooth roads and otherwise improve our transportation system as gas tax revenues stagnate as cars become more fuel efficient. That’s a thorny issue we can’t continue to ignore, but for now we can and should stop the raids on transportation revenues."
- Green Bay Press-Gazette said, "If the those in the State Capitol can't stop themselves from taking money from designated funds and using it for unrelated expenses, then maybe it's time for a constitutional amendment to do that."
- Janesville Gazette said, "Yet Wisconsinites are right to expect that their $75 annual vehicle registration fees and the 30.9 cents per gallon in gas tax go to pay for roadwork. While the amendment won’t solve Wisconsin’s transportation funding shortfalls, it will help keep them from growing faster."
- La Crosse Tribune said, "If this seems like overkill, remember that statutory language hasn’t prevented the previous raids on the transportation fund. That’s why voters in Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan and Ohio, for instance, have taken similar measures to provide constitutional protection for transportation funding."
- Oshkosh Northwestern said, "We reluctantly support this amendment. Transportation dollars should be used for transportation. Digging out of the hole Wisconsin has dug for itself will require the type of brave political leadership that has eluded the state. Anyone who disputes that notion need look no further than this constitutional amendment to explain why."
- Portage Daily Register said, "Legislators obviously can’t resist the urge to tap into the state’s largest segregated fund. Because of that, we endorse the constitutional amendment and suggest a yes vote for transportation."
- Wisconsin Rapids Tribune said, "So yes, sure, we support the constitutional amendment. There's no future in which state spending on transportation will be a low priority. Raids of the transportation fund solved a short-term budget problem but were destructive in the longer term. Just don't mistake this amendment for a real solution. Wisconsin still needs a real conversation about paying for transportation here."
- Wisconsin State Journal said, "Approving Question 1 on the Nov. 4 ballot is only part of the solution. Wisconsin also needs to find new ways to pay for roads that reflect changing technology and habits. The gas tax is in decline because driving has slowed and because vehicles go farther on less gas... Voters this fall can help steer state leaders in the right direction by insisting the transportation fund is protected."
- The Capital Times said, "Yet that is precisely what special-interest groups are proposing, in the form of a constitutional amendment that would severely limit the allocation and use of revenues raised through the state’s gas tax, vehicle registration fees, and certain other air and rail taxes and fees. If enacted, the amendment would take away the flexibility of lawmakers to use state revenues to meet urgent needs and create a slush fund for powerful transportation interests... There’s no such special treatment for funds for public schools and other crucial needs."
- WISC-TV 3 said, "Right now we have as little trust in our elected officials as anybody else. But we are still unwilling to tie their hands to the point where money that might be needed for critical health or well-being needs of citizens is required to be spent on roads. Roads will get their due, as they should. But we need not enshrine that fact in the state constitution. We urge a ‘No’ vote next Tuesday."
- Appleton Post-Crescent said, "Our editorial board was split, so we offer no recommendation, other than to think through the pros and cons presented here."
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Wisconsin Constitution
A simple majority vote was required in two successive sessions of the Wisconsin Legislature to put the amendment before voters. SJR 23, from the first session, was approved in the Wisconsin State Assembly and Wisconsin Senate on May 17, 2011. AJR 2, from the second session, was approved in the assembly and senate on February 14 and February 20, 2013, respectively.
May 17, 2011 Senate vote
|Wisconsin Question 1, SJR 23 Senate Vote|
February 20, 2013 Senate vote
|Wisconsin Question 1, AJR 2 Senate Vote|
May 17, 2011 Assembly vote
|Wisconsin Question 1, SJR 23 Assembly Vote|
February 14, 2013 Assembly vote
|Wisconsin Question 1, AJR 2 Assembly Vote|
- Assembly Joint Resolution 2
- Constitutional Amendment to be Considered by Wisconsin Voters, November 4, 2014
- Wisconsin Department of Transportation Finance Issues
- The Capital Times, "Push for constitutional amendment protecting state's transportation fund gets little opposition," September 30, 2014
- Beloit Daily News, "Transportation fund amendment sought," July 24, 2014
- The McFarland Thistle, "Voters can weigh in on transportation spending," July 18, 2014
- Wisconsin Legislature, "Enrolled Assembly Joint Resolution 2," accessed April 22, 2014
- The McFarland Thistle, "Voters can weigh in on transportation spending," July 18, 2014
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, "Constitutional Amendment to be Considered by Wisconsin Voters, November 4, 2014," accessed September 18, 2014
- Wisconsin Department of Transportation, "Transportation Finance Issues," accessed August 14, 2014
- LaCrosse Tribune, "Voters to be asked to weigh in on constitutionally protecing the state's transporation fund," October 8, 2014
- The Lakeland Times, "Fact check: Dems to blame for abducted transportation funds," March 5, 2010
- PolitiFact Wisconsin, "Walk-O-Meter: Never "raid" special state funds for other programs," November 17, 2011
- Vote Yes for Transportation, "Homepage," accessed August 14, 2014
- Milwaukee Business News, "Vote yes on transportation referendum," October 16, 2014
- Channel 3000, "Transportation amendment on ballot in November," October 16, 2014
- Wisconsin Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution 23 History," access April 23, 2014
- Wisconsin Legislature, "Assembly Joint Resolution 2 History," accessed April 23, 2014
- LaCrosse Tribune, "Lawmakers consider ways to raise money for roads," September 26, 2014 (dead link)
- Vote Yes for Transportation, "Vote Yes Overview," accessed April 22, 2014
- Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, "Wisconsin Voters - OOIDA Supports Question #1," accessed October 22, 2014
- Wisconsin Campaign Finance Information System, "View Filed Reports," accessed October 27, 2014
- The Capital Times, "Paul Fanlund: Pro-highway interests buy their way onto our ballot," October 13, 2014
- Wisconsin State Journal, "Sen. Fred Risser: Vote 'no' on transportation amendment," October 5, 2014
- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Assembly backs constitutional amendment on transportation fund raids," February 12, 2013
- PR Watch, "ALEC Tampers with Wisconsin Constitution," October 30, 2014
- Beloit Daily News, "Cast ‘yes’ vote on amendment," October 13, 2014
- The Chippewa Herald, "Our View: Vote yes on transportation referendum," October 19, 2014
- Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, "On Nov. 4, put road funds in lock box," October 12, 2014
- Green Bay Press-Gazette, "Ballot question protects transportation fund," October 15, 2014
- Janesville Gazette, "Our Views: Vote ‘yes’ to ensure transportation dollars are used for roadwork," October 25, 2014
- La Crosse Tribune, "Our view: Vote yes on transportation referendum," October 19, 2014
- Oshkosh Northwestern, "Editorial: Vote yes on state transportation Constitutional Amendment," October 10, 2014
- Portage Daily Register, "Editorial: Vote yes on transportation referendum," October 20, 2014
- Wisconsin Rapids Tribune, "Transportation amendment is no long-term fix: Our View," October 18, 2014
- Wisconsin State Journal, "Vote 'yes' on transportation amendment," October 3, 2014
- The Capital Times, "Vote NO on transportation slush fund amendment," October 21, 2014
- WISC-TV 3, "Vote ‘no’ on transportation amendment," October 26, 2014
- Appleton Post-Crescent, "Editorial: Split decision on transportation vote," October 29, 2014
State of Wisconsin
|State executive officers||
Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Secretary of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection| Secretary of Natural Resources | Secretary of Workforce Development | Public Service Commission |
Wisconsin Supreme Court | Courts of Appeal | Circuit Courts | Municipal Courts | Wisconsin Commission Appointed Judicial Method Proposal | Wisconsin Judicial Commission | Wisconsin Supreme Court elections | Judicial news | Judicial activist organizations |