By Lydia Larsen for Inside Climate News.
Broadcast version by Mike Moen for Wisconsin News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

Environmental groups in Wisconsin are urging voters to reject two proposed amendments to the state constitution in the upcoming Aug. 13 primary. The measures, if approved, would remove the governor from the process of allocating certain federal funds and instead place control in the hands of the legislature. Members of Wisconsin's Republican-controlled legislature proposed the amendments in an attempt to rein in what they see as a series of oversteps by the state's Democratic governor, Tony Evers.

In addition to the environmental groups, voters rights groups, the Wisconsin Democratic Party and other concerned citizens say the changes would introduce delays into federal disaster relief funding and generate uncertainties in the process through which the state allocates federal funding. The proposed changes come at a time when the state is poised to receive millions from the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for clean energy projects.

"These amendments disallow the governor from doing the things necessary to protect human health and the environment in an expeditious way," said Meleesa Johnson, executive director of Wisconsin's Green Fire, a non-partisan conservation organization.

Representative Robert Wittke, a Republican who wrote and sponsored the amendments, said the changes are a non-partisan move that would lead to better governance of federal funds within the state. The ballot measure stems from a disagreement between Republican state legislators and Evers regarding the state's allotment from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Evers vetoed a bill that would give the legislature oversight on ARPA spending, saying that any disagreements or delays would prevent Wisconsinites from getting the aid they need. He ultimately ended up spending the money on assistance for small businesses, infrastructure upgrades, pandemic response and the tourism industry.

The amendments are intended to apply to a small number of federal funds that do not have a specifically designated use, such as the $5 billion in ARPA funds. According to the state constitution, the governor can allocate those federal funds without the legislature's approval. These dollars ultimately make up a small portion of the total federal money that enters the state each year.

After Evers vetoed the legislature's attempts to exert more control over the ARPA funding in March of 2021, Republicans introduced these amendments to prevent a similar situation from occurring again.

Johnson sees these amendments as part of a sustained movement that undermines the checks and balances in the state's constitution. In the past 15 years, a series of laws and court cases have slowly moved power to the legislative branch, thus limiting the executive branch's ability to protect natural resources. Johnson believes these amendments on the August ballot are another step in this movement.

To Jennifer Giegerich, the government affairs director for the Wisconsin Conservation Voters, the amendments are a dramatic change for a problem that doesn't really exist. After all, most federal funds enter the state with a designated purpose. Those are line items in the state budget that's approved by both houses of the legislature and the governor. Instead, what the amendments will do is create confusion among voters and, if approved, among the courts, administrative offices and officials that will have to negotiate how to interpret the broad language, she said.

"There's a whole lot of concern about what [the changes] would actually mean," Giegerich said. "It's very confusing language and we just don't have any idea of what that could open the door to."

According to an analysis from the University of Wisconsin Law School, it's unclear if the passed amendments could impact the allocation of federal funds on a wider scale. It's common for issues relating to new constitutional amendments to end up in the courts and it's very possible the same could happen in this case. The courts could ultimately decide the exact limits of what federal funding is covered under these amendments.

Disaster Relief Funding

One of the main concerns for environmental groups is that the amendments, if approved, would tie up federal funding for disaster relief. The governor is responsible for declaring a state of emergency. This declaration begins a process of applying for and subsequently bringing funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency into the state and allocating them appropriately.

This change is especially relevant as Wisconsin continues to see more flooding and extreme weather due to climate change. June was the state's sixth wettest month on record, and heavy rains led to flooding and storm damage. This summer is a big flip from last year, which was the fifth driest June in Wisconsin's history.

Tony Wilkin Gibart, the executive director for the Midwest Environmental Advocates, said that even if the legislature doesn't aim to be an obstacle in this process, their involvement would ultimately slow down the process. It's possible that in the event of a natural disaster, such as a flood, tornado or drought, the legislature would need to be in session to allocate the money if the new amendments go into effect.

"That's antithetical to the whole purpose of disaster relief," Gibart said. "Emergency assistance is the last type of funding we would want to be delayed for political reasons."

Wittke said he and his colleagues considered this issue and, given the agencies through which the emergency relief funds move, it shouldn't impact that kind of funding.

But the Wisconsin Policy Forum, a non-partisan policy research group, said in a report that the changes could affect the deployment of emergency funds and, in the case of delays or extreme situations, cause the state to lose out on funding.

Inflation Reduction Act Grants

Grants from the IRA, including $3 million for the state's Office of Sustainability and Clean Energy and $62 million for solar development, help the state work on climate projects without specific money from the legislature. Although Evers proposed money in the state budget for clean energy and other environmental projects, the Republican-controlled legislature historically has not approved money for climate related projects, making federal grants, especially the IRA, one of the only avenues for supporting these programs.

At the moment, it's difficult to predict how the amendments would impact the state's ability to spend other types of federal funds. Given the vague language in the amendments, it's possible Wisconsin would become less competitive for federal grants, including those under the Inflation Reduction Act, according to Wilkin Gibart.

Tribes, municipalities and nonprofits within the state would not be affected by the amendments, as the constitutional changes only apply for money entering the state government.

Nearby states, including Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, are doing their best to take advantage of IRA funding, according to Courtney Bourgoin, senior policy and advocacy manager at Evergreen Action, an environmental advocacy group. These states have passed laws that help align their policies to IRA funding opportunities.

"It's unfortunate to be in such a historic, opportune moment that you'd see [Wisconsin] Republicans racing to prevent investment in their own state," Bourgoin said.

Wittke said that if the federal government specifies the purpose of the funding, he doesn't believe it would affect how that money is allocated in the state

In applications for these highly competitive federal grants, state agencies need to explain how they will use the federal dollars. The amendments could complicate the arguments these agencies can make in grant applications, Wilkin Gibart said. Additionally, delays in allocating the money could mean that the state could lose it.

If the amendments are approved by voters, it's up to the legislature to determine how the new rules will work, and so far, it's not clear what that would look like, Hillary Vedvig, the director of government relations at the Nature Conservancy in Wisconsin, said.

Because of this, it's almost impossible to know the exact effect the amendments will have on the state's ability to accept IRA funding or other federal funding for conservation projects in the state.

"It's just really hard to pinpoint exactly what's on the line," Vedvig said. "So we're taking the position that everything is on the line, because it all could be."


Lydia Larsen wrote this article for Inside Climate News.


get more stories like this via email

Groups working for human rights causes in Iowa warn proposed cuts being debated in Congress would trickle down to the people least able to sustain them.

The Trump administration has proposed $880 billion in cuts over the next decade to Medicaid and other services, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Progress Iowa Executive Director Mazie Stilwell said those cuts would fall most squarely on average Iowans, many of them kids, who don't have a voice in the process.

"There is so much fear right now, and it's fear from everyday working Iowans who know there's no one fighting for them," said Stilwell. "It's the Iowans who know that when push comes to shove, and when programs are put on the chopping block, they're the ones who are going to suffer."

The Trump administration has said it is working to downsize the federal government and cut expenses.

About 270,000 Iowans receive SNAP or federal food assistance, and more than 700,000 get their health coverage from Medicaid.

Stilwell contended that Iowans aren't the only ones afraid of potential social service cuts, but politicians are too.

She said she suspects that's one reason they aren't showing up at town hall meetings, that have long been the hallmark of grassroots democracy in the state.

"What we've seen is these members of Congress running away from their constituents," said Stilwell. "They are refusing to answer their questions. They are trying to make a mockery of their constituents and their efforts."

Stilwell said in light of the just-passed income tax filing deadline, Iowans want to know their money is being used to represent their interests - and not to fund tax cuts or corporate interests.

Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Zach Nunn, both Republicans, voted in favor of the measure that would social service programs.

Adrian Fontes, Arizona's Secretary of State, argued there is nothing wrong with American elections but some leaders in Washington, D.C., disagree.

The U.S. Senate will consider the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act this week. It would require people to show documents in person, like a passport or birth certificate, to register to vote. Republican proponents said it is needed to keep noncitizens from voting.

Fontes countered it is an exceedingly rare occurrence and he has yet to see proof of widespread voter fraud or abuse.

"This 'documented proof of citizenship' issue, where is the data that shows that we have a significant and severe problem with nonqualified voters, voting? Where is the data?" Fontes asked. "This is another example of the tail wagging the dog."

The measure faces a long shot in the Senate. At the same time, one of President Donald Trump's latest executive orders would overhaul major facets of the nation's election system, in part by restricting people's ability to register by mail or online. Voting rights advocates said the president does not have the legal authority to do it.

Liz Avore, senior policy adviser for the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, said many states have taken Trump's executive order as a call to action, as 24 states so far this year have considered legislation to impose or expand proof of citizenship requirements. Since 2013, Arizona voters have had to provide documents proving their citizenship to vote in state and local elections. Avore suggested it was not the administration's intent to change federal law.

"The goal of the executive order was and is to send clear marching orders to the states, and also to Congress, to tell them exactly what President Trump wants them to be doing," Avore contended. "The states are listening."

Democratic attorneys general in 19 states, including Arizona, have a filed a lawsuit, arguing the Trump executive order "sows confusion and sets the stage for chaos" in state election systems.


get more stories like this via email

Despite voter approval in November, Missouri lawmakers are moving to undo part of Proposition A, specifically, the clause requiring employers to provide paid sick leave.

The Missouri House passed the repeal legislation last month by a 96-51 vote. The provision was approved by nearly 60% of voters, who also supported raising the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2026.

Prop A proponents said repealing any part of the measure so soon after its approval undermines the will of the voters.

John Davis, partner at the bipartisan polling firm Red America, Blue America Research, said its latest survey showed 75% of respondents oppose efforts to repeal the legislation.

"Legislators who are thinking about what voters had approved just this past November should be concerned that there's such a strong response in opposition to that particular type of proposal," Davis noted.

Supporters of the repeal contended the sick-leave mandate is too rigid and burdensome, warning it could lead to reduced hiring or even business closures. The bill is now in the Senate, which has two weeks to act before the mandate takes effect May 1.

Business groups have filed lawsuits claiming Proposition A violates Missouri's single-subject rule by linking minimum wage hikes with paid sick leave. Supporters of the repeal also argued the Legislature can amend the law without a public vote since it changed state law, not the constitution.

Davis highlighted the importance of public opinion surveys.

"Some of the decisions made at statehouses are of extraordinary consequence," Davis pointed out. "What we have tried to do is just establish sort of baselines, to take a look over time how folks are feeling about a variety of topics, because state laws really do impact people very, very directly."

If the Missouri Senate approves the bill, it will move to Gov. Mike Kehoe's desk, where he can sign it into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature.


get more stories like this via email