Wisconsin Prohibit Government Closure of Places of Worship During Emergencies Amendment (2026)
| Wisconsin Prohibit Government Closure of Places of Worship During Emergencies Amendment | |
|---|---|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Constitutional rights and Religion-related policy |
|
| Status On the ballot |
|
| Type Legislatively referred constitutional amendment |
Origin |
The Wisconsin Prohibit Government Closure of Places of Worship During Emergencies Amendment is on the ballot in Wisconsin as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2026.
A "yes" vote supports this amendment to prohibit the state or any political subdivision from ordering the closure of or forbidding gatherings in places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including public health emergencies. |
A "no" vote opposes this amendment to prohibit the state or any political subdivision from ordering the closure of or forbidding gatherings in places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including public health emergencies. |
Overview
What would AJR 10 do?
- See also: Text of measure
The amendment, Assembly Joint Resolution 10 (AJR 10), would prohibit the state or any political subdivision, such as cities and counties, from ordering the closure of, or forbidding, gatherings in places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including a public health emergency.
What constitutes a state of emergency in Wisconsin?
- See also: Background
Under Wisconsin Statute 323.10, the governor may issue an executive order declaring a state of emergency for the state or any portion of the state if they determine that an emergency from a disaster or an imminent threat of a disaster exists.[1]
The governor can also make the same determination for public health emergencies and can issue an executive order declaring a state of emergency related to public health. The governor is also authorized to designate the Department of Health Services as the lead state agency to respond to that emergency.[1]
Who supports and opposes AJR 10?
- See also: Support and Opposition
In the Wisconsin State Assembly, the amendment was passed by a vote of 56-43. In the Wisconsin State Senate, the amendment was approved by a vote of 18-15. Votes in both chambers were largely along party lines, with Republicans supporting the amendment and all but two Democrats opposing it.[2]
Speaking in support of AJR 10, State Rep. Ron Tusler (R-3) said, "The events of 2020 exposed a troubling inconsistency in how we apply constitutional rights. While liquor stores, bars, and casinos remained open under the label of 'essential,' houses of worship were shuttered, even when their leaders followed the same or stricter health protocols. This disparity sent a damaging message that faith, and those who practice it, are somehow less important or less worthy of protection."[3]
Speaking in opposition to the amendment, State Sen. Chris Larson (D-7) stated that, "None of us want to be in a position to prevent large, meaningful gatherings of our neighbors from taking place, and thanks to virtual meeting technology, we don’t have to. We do have a responsibility as government officials to preserve the lives of our constituents to the degree that we can. AJR 10 prevents public health officers from doing their jobs, endangering countless lives in any future pandemic. To date, Wisconsin has lost nearly 19,000 lives to COVID-19. How many more might be lost in a future pandemic if this constitutional amendment passes?"[4]
At the outset of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, Gov. Tony Evers (D) declared a state of emergency on March 12, 2020.[5]
On March 24, 2020, Evers issued Executive Order #12, directing Wisconsinites to stay at home as much as possible and non-essential businesses and operations to cease, with limited exceptions for minimum basic operations and working from home. The order was initially set to expire on April 24, 2020.[6]
Below is a list of essential businesses per Gov. Evers and the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, which included religious gatherings with fewer than ten people:
| “ |
What is an Essential Business or Operation Under the Order?
|
” |
Text of measure
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article I, Wisconsin Constitution
The ballot measure would amend Section 18 of Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution. The following underlined text would be added:[8]
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
Section 18. Freedom of Worship; Liberty of Conscience; State Religion; Public Funds
The right of every person to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries; nor shall the state or a political subdivision of the state order the closure of or forbid gatherings in places of worship in response to a state of emergency at the national, state, or local level, including an emergency related to public health.[7]
Support
Supporters
Officials
- State Asm. Ron Tusler (R)
Organizations
Arguments
Opposition
Opponents
Officials
- State Sen. Chris Larson (D)
Organizations
Arguments
Campaign finance
- See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2026
As of February 6, 2026, Ballotpedia has not identified any committees registered to support or oppose the measure.[9]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Background
The following statutes govern the declaration and handling of a state of emergency:[1][10]
- Wisconsin Statute 323.10: This statute grants the governor the authority to issue an executive order declaring a state of emergency for the state or any portion of the state if they determine that an emergency from a disaster or an imminent threat of a disaster exists. Similarly, the governor can also make the same determination for public health emergencies, issue an executive order declaring a state of emergency related to public health, and designate the department of health services as the lead state agency to respond to that emergency.
- Wisconsin Statute 252.02(3): This statute grants the department of health services the authority to close schools and forbid public gatherings in schools, churches, and other places for the purpose of controlling outbreaks and epidemics.
If passed, AJR 10 would remove the authority granted under Wisconsin Statutes 323.10 and 252.02(3) to prohibit public gatherings in churches and places of worship, regardless of whether a state of emergency or public health emergency is declared.
Ballotpedia is tracking ballot measures proposed in response to the pandemic or pandemic-related regulations and restrictions. Some of these changes, such as state constitutional amendments, require ballot measures for ratification. Others are citizen-initiated proposals, meaning campaigns collect signatures to put policies and laws on the ballot for voters to decide. Click here to see a full list of measures on the ballot related to coronavirus-related regulations.
Three states have voted on similar policies regarding gathering in places of worship and religious expression since the COVID-19 pandemic. Of these measures, two were approved, and one was defeated. The topic was last voted on in Louisiana in 2023. Louisiana Amendment 2, which added a clause to the Louisiana Constitution to provide the right to worship in a church or other place of worship, was approved with 79% of the vote in favor of it.
| Year | State | Official Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Louisiana | Amendment 2 | Provide a right to worship in a church or other place of worship in the state constitution, and provide that legal challenges brought against the right to be examined by strict scrutiny | |
| 2022 | Arkansas | Issue 3 | Amend the state constitution to provide that "government shall not burden a person's freedom of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability" | |
| 2021 | Texas | Proposition 3 | Prohibit the state or any political subdivision from enacting a law, rule, order, or proclamation that limits religious services or organizations |
Nevada
On July 24, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request by a Nevada church for permission to hold in-person services in excess of COVID-19 capacity limits imposed by Gov. Steve Sisolak (D). The church, in its emergency application to the justices, sought an injunction pending appellate review that would bar enforcement of Directive 021, which would “allow the church to host religious gatherings on the same terms as comparable secular assemblies.” At issue in the case was the church’s argument that the capacity limit violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in that it “treats at least seven categories of secular assemblies 'where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time' better than religious services." The directive, which imposed a 50% fire-code capacity limit on places of business, such as casinos, restaurants, and movie theaters, limited gatherings at places of worship to a 50-person maximum. The court, in a 5-4 split, rejected the request. The majority made no comment, a common practice when acting on emergency applications. In a dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the state's argument that "allowing Calvary Chapel to admit 90 worshippers presents a greater public health risk than allowing casinos to operate at 50% capacity is hard to swallow." Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh joined Alito's dissent. Justice Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh each wrote separate dissents.[11]
California
South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. v. Newsom: On May 29, 2020, the United States Supreme Court rejected a challenge to California's religious gathering limits, which order attendance in churches or places of worship to a maximum of 25% or 100 attendees. The 5-4 decision was joined by Chief Justice Roberts who warned against intervening in emergencies: "Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an 'unelected federal judiciary,' which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people." Justice Kavanaugh joined the remaining three Republican-appointed justices in dissenting from the ruling, arguing that the California limits "indisputably discriminates against religion."[12]
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Wisconsin Constitution
Amending the Wisconsin Constitution
A simple majority vote is required during two legislative sessions for the Wisconsin State Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 50 votes in the Wisconsin State Assembly and 17 votes in the Wisconsin State Senate, assuming no vacancies. Amendments do not require the governor's signature to be referred to the ballot.
Senate Joint Resolution 54 (2023-2024)
The following is the timeline of the constitutional amendment in the state legislature:[13]
- June 14, 2023: The constitutional amendment was introduced into the Wisconsin State Legislature as Senate Joint Resolution 54 (SJR 54).
- November 7, 2023: The Wisconsin State Senate voted 21-10 to approve the constitutional amendment.
- February 22, 2024: The Wisconsin State Assembly voted 63-33 to approve the constitutional amendment.
| Votes Required to Pass: 17 | |||
| Yes | No | NV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 21 | 10 | 2 |
| Total % | 63.6% | 30.3% | 6.1% |
| Democratic (D) | 0 | 10 | 1 |
| Republican (R) | 21 | 0 | 1 |
| Votes Required to Pass: 50 | |||
| Yes | No | NV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 63 | 33 | 3 |
| Total % | 63.6% | 33.3% | 3.0% |
| Democratic (D) | 2 | 33 | 0 |
| Republican (R) | 61 | 0 | 3 |
Assembly Joint Resolution 10 (2025-2026)
The following is the timeline of the constitutional amendment in the state legislature:[2]
- February 24, 2025: The constitutional amendment was reintroduced during the second legislative session as Assembly Joint Resolution 10 (AJR 10).
- January 13, 2026: The Wisconsin State Assembly voted 56-43 to pass the constitutional amendment.
- January 21, 2026: The Wisconsin State Senate voted 18-15 to pass the constitutional amendment.
Learn more about the ballot measures PDI →
| Votes Required to Pass: 17 | |||
| Yes | No | NV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 18 | 15 | 0 |
| Total % | 54.5% | 45.5% | 0.0% |
| Democratic (D) | 0 | 15 | 0 |
| Republican (R) | 18 | 0 | 0 |
| Votes Required to Pass: 50 | |||
| Yes | No | NV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 56 | 43 | 0 |
| Total % | 56.6% | 43.4% | 0.0% |
| Democratic (D) | 2 | 43 | 0 |
| Republican (R) | 54 | 0 | 0 |
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in Wisconsin
See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Wisconsin.
See also
View other measures certified for the 2026 ballot across the U.S. and in Wisconsin.
Explore Wisconsin's ballot measure history, including constitutional amendments.
Understand how measures are placed on the ballot and the rules that apply.
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Wisconsin State Legislature, "Wisconsin Statute 323.10," accessed January 28, 2026
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Wisconsin State Legislature, "Assembly Joint Resolution 10," accessed February 6, 2026
- ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "Testimony in Support of Assembly Joint Resolution 10 (Second Consideration)," accessed February 6, 2026
- ↑ Urban Milwaukee, "Republican-Backed Constitutional Amendments Take US Backwards, Deny Hard Truths," accessed February 6, 2026
- ↑ Wisconsin Public Radio, "Evers Declares Public Health Emergency Due To COVID-19," March 12, 2020
- ↑ "Tom Evers-Office of the Governor| State of Wisconsin, "Safer at Home FAQs," March 24, 2020
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "Assembly Joint Resolution 10 Text," accessed January 28, 2026
- ↑ State of Wisconsin Ethics Commission, "Wisconsin Campaign Finance Reporting Site," accessed February 6, 2026
- ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "Wisconsin Statute 252.02(3)," accessed January 28, 2026
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak: On Application for Injunctive Relief," July 24, 2020
- ↑ Politico, "Roberts joins court's liberals to deny California church's lockdown challenge," May 30, 2020
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedOverview - ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "Wis. Stat. § 6.78," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Wisconsin Elections Commission, "Voter Registration and Proof of Residence," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ City of Milwaukee Election Commission, "How to Register to Vote," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Automatic Voter Registration," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ Vote.gov, "Register to vote Wisconsin," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ Wisconsin Elections Commission, "Wisconsin Voter Registration Application," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ Wisconsin Elections Commission, "Acceptable Photo IDs," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ Wisconsin Elections Commission, "Acceptable Photo IDs for Voting in Wisconsin," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ Wisconsin Elections Commission, "Exceptions to the Photo ID law," accessed January 5, 2026
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 Wisconsin Department of Transportation, "Wisconsin ID card for voting purposes - petition process," accessed January 5, 2026