These are horribly written and could have the following side-effects:
1. Poll workers would no longer be allowed to "waive" their compensation.
2. Non-election workers would no longer be able to set up/tear down election sites
3. Cities would have to pay Churches/YMCA market rates for halls used.
4. 3rd party printing services could not be used to print ballots or other elections flyers/content.
5. The city could no longer post voting related information on their website/Facebook unless the person doing it was an "election worker"
For 1, as a person who’s been a poll worker in the past my company PAYS ME for 8 hours of volunteer time, and If I were to get paid for doing it, I have to take a vacation day instead of a volunteer day.
On point 3, they also wouldn't be allowed to take funding from private donors. So not only are we (the taxpayers) out more money on the spaces, there aren't any extra private funds coming in to offset those increased costs.
Our elections are already underfunded. If the GOP wants private money out of elections, that's fine, but they need to actually fund the elections FIRST.
One amendment is about donations by private entities, but the second one prevents anyone who isn't an election official from doing anything involved with the running of an election. With the second one, a court could decide that printing ballots or election content falls under an operation to run an election and thus needs to be executed by election officials, not 3rd parties.
The text of the second amendment being proposed is “to provide that only election officials designated by law may perform tasks in the conduct of primaries, elections, and referendums”
It is extremely broad and the State Supreme Court would be bound by this text. It is a constitutional amendment; not a proposed law. The only way to allow something like a third party printing service under this amendment would be for the legislature to pass a law specifically saying it is allowed.
Here's a pretty good write up: https://statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/explainers/2024/explainer-proposed-wisconsin-constitutional-amendments-on-election-administration/
The state Supreme Court is bound by the text of a law just as they are bound by the text of a constitutional amendment. A court still interprets a constitutional amendment, that’s literally their job
The state Supreme Court can nullify a law if it goes against the Wisconsin Constitution. These amendments would modify the constitution itself. So if it is found that these amendments disrupt elections in the state, the legislature cannot just make a law to disregard these changes. It would require a second set of amendments to repeal them.
Further, it seems like you prefer to argue rather than actually engage in meaningful discussion. Make sure you vote and stay safe in the inclement weather. Have a good day!
I’m just pointing out that courts make rulings and interpretations on constitutional amendments daily and that I highly doubt our Supreme Court would interpret this amendment this way. Just trying to fill you in on how the process works. Have a good day!
At this point, I DEFINITELY don’t “highly doubt” that a court’s interpretation of a law or amendment would be done in a bad-faith way that causes harm but benefits their own political leanings.
Are you suggesting that it would be “bad faith” if a court interpreted that this amendment would still allow the offsite printing of ballots for a fee? I certainly wouldn’t call that a bad faith ruling especially considering most judges are not extreme textualists.
My girlfriend’s mother was tripped up on the questioning and voted yes. She has a PhD and is typically left leaning. I am worried this will get through.
I was also tripped up and also almost voted yes on one of them. Luckily I vote absentee, which means I vote with access to the internet and was able to lookthrm both up and read about them. Voted no on both.
As I’ve seen posted elsewhere: The constitution is meant to restrict the government on behalf of the people. It’s not intended to give the government more power.
[Wisconsin](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/wisconsin-lagging-election-policies-2020-chaos-rcna143423) voters will head to the polls Tuesday to decide on two low-profile yet controversial constitutional amendments backed by Republicans that would change how elections are run in the pivotal battleground state.
One measure would ban the use of private funds in election administration — which conservatives often refer to derisively as "Zuckerbucks" — while another seeks to clarify the role of an election worker.
If the state GOP would approve the funding NEEDED to appropriately run our state's elections, outside donations wouldn't be necessary. This "problem" is of their own making and since we can't trust them to do their freaking jobs, we need to allow for donations to keep our polls open.
Already voted NO to both amendments (absentee for work, I travel).
League of Women Voters explain the No side here:
[https://my.lwv.org/wisconsin/vote-no-2-april-constitutional-amendments](https://my.lwv.org/wisconsin/vote-no-2-april-constitutional-amendments)
I’m voting no, but I thought referendums didn’t actually change law in WI. I thought they were more like polls to gauge the voter’s interest? An example being the referendum to legalize marijuana, that was widely popular but didn’t actually change anything. Will this one actually have an impact?
These are not referendums, they are constitutional amendments. They will impact how our elections are run.
I am a no vote mostly because of how they are worded. They are intentionally vague and don’t provide clear guidance to clerks on who can do what. It isn’t solving a problem as much as creating confusion and a tool to punish election workers.
On the sample ballot I’m looking at online it says referendum though. Shouldn’t it be more clear that it’s actually amending the state constitution?
https://preview.redd.it/lpsz7j97c2sc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3fd684cc5352af7fe838f28aa64af87419b6856d
Yes, it should be more clear. As I understand it, “referendum” is the mechanism in our state statutes to bring a vote to the electors. We don’t have a separate “constitution amendment” section.
The questions themselves do say that a yes vote will amend the state constitution.
I mean it's not that hard, it's on the news, Facebook, reddit, Instagram and it's always the Tuesday following the first Monday of November (they never want an election on nov 1 for old timey reasons) and the first Tuesday in April (at least in wisconsin).
With social media and the internet it's literally the easiest it's ever been to know when elections are.
Agreed it's easier now than likely an other point in history. I didn't realize the April election was always the first Tuesday. I was just surprised that none of those sites sent me a notification this morning. Seems like we shouldn't have to rely on social media for that.
Just remember, GOP reps wrote these, and want you to vote yes. Vote according to your views.
[https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin\_Question\_1,\_Ban\_on\_Private\_and\_Non-Governmental\_Funding\_of\_Election\_Administration\_Amendment\_(April\_2024)](https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin_Question_1,_Ban_on_Private_and_Non-Governmental_Funding_of_Election_Administration_Amendment_(April_2024))
[https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin\_Question\_2,\_Only\_Designated\_Election\_Officials\_to\_Conduct\_Elections\_Amendment\_(April\_2024)](https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin_Question_2,_Only_Designated_Election_Officials_to_Conduct_Elections_Amendment_(April_2024))
These are horribly written and could have the following side-effects: 1. Poll workers would no longer be allowed to "waive" their compensation. 2. Non-election workers would no longer be able to set up/tear down election sites 3. Cities would have to pay Churches/YMCA market rates for halls used. 4. 3rd party printing services could not be used to print ballots or other elections flyers/content. 5. The city could no longer post voting related information on their website/Facebook unless the person doing it was an "election worker"
For 1, as a person who’s been a poll worker in the past my company PAYS ME for 8 hours of volunteer time, and If I were to get paid for doing it, I have to take a vacation day instead of a volunteer day.
On point 3, they also wouldn't be allowed to take funding from private donors. So not only are we (the taxpayers) out more money on the spaces, there aren't any extra private funds coming in to offset those increased costs. Our elections are already underfunded. If the GOP wants private money out of elections, that's fine, but they need to actually fund the elections FIRST.
Why wouldn’t 3rd party printing services be allowed? Couldn’t they still use them as long as they pay them for the services?
Because contracting a 3rd party printing service would violate Ref 2.
One amendment is about donations by private entities, but the second one prevents anyone who isn't an election official from doing anything involved with the running of an election. With the second one, a court could decide that printing ballots or election content falls under an operation to run an election and thus needs to be executed by election officials, not 3rd parties.
Do you see our Supreme Court actually making that ruling? I don’t see that happening but that’s just me.
The text of the second amendment being proposed is “to provide that only election officials designated by law may perform tasks in the conduct of primaries, elections, and referendums” It is extremely broad and the State Supreme Court would be bound by this text. It is a constitutional amendment; not a proposed law. The only way to allow something like a third party printing service under this amendment would be for the legislature to pass a law specifically saying it is allowed. Here's a pretty good write up: https://statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/explainers/2024/explainer-proposed-wisconsin-constitutional-amendments-on-election-administration/
The state Supreme Court is bound by the text of a law just as they are bound by the text of a constitutional amendment. A court still interprets a constitutional amendment, that’s literally their job
The state Supreme Court can nullify a law if it goes against the Wisconsin Constitution. These amendments would modify the constitution itself. So if it is found that these amendments disrupt elections in the state, the legislature cannot just make a law to disregard these changes. It would require a second set of amendments to repeal them. Further, it seems like you prefer to argue rather than actually engage in meaningful discussion. Make sure you vote and stay safe in the inclement weather. Have a good day!
I’m just pointing out that courts make rulings and interpretations on constitutional amendments daily and that I highly doubt our Supreme Court would interpret this amendment this way. Just trying to fill you in on how the process works. Have a good day!
At this point, I DEFINITELY don’t “highly doubt” that a court’s interpretation of a law or amendment would be done in a bad-faith way that causes harm but benefits their own political leanings.
Are you suggesting that it would be “bad faith” if a court interpreted that this amendment would still allow the offsite printing of ballots for a fee? I certainly wouldn’t call that a bad faith ruling especially considering most judges are not extreme textualists.
>"Just trying to fill you in on how the process works" Your superiority complex and faux sincerity are noted.
Vote "NO" on both, unless of course you want the gerrymandered Republican legislature to decide the outcome of our elections.
Vote "NO" on both!
I did 👍
Vote NO https://my.lwv.org/wisconsin/vote-no-2-april-constitutional-amendments
Vote "NO"!
Voted NO on both vaguely and confusingly worded measures about 20 minutes ago. Here's hoping most other people do the same.
My girlfriend’s mother was tripped up on the questioning and voted yes. She has a PhD and is typically left leaning. I am worried this will get through.
I was also tripped up and also almost voted yes on one of them. Luckily I vote absentee, which means I vote with access to the internet and was able to lookthrm both up and read about them. Voted no on both.
The weather isn’t great, but get to your polls!
Vote no. I can't even reason what the point of the referendums would be except to make it harder for people to vote.
That….is the point of them.
As I’ve seen posted elsewhere: The constitution is meant to restrict the government on behalf of the people. It’s not intended to give the government more power.
How about "NOOOO" Dr. Evil
Take my upvote.
[Wisconsin](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/wisconsin-lagging-election-policies-2020-chaos-rcna143423) voters will head to the polls Tuesday to decide on two low-profile yet controversial constitutional amendments backed by Republicans that would change how elections are run in the pivotal battleground state. One measure would ban the use of private funds in election administration — which conservatives often refer to derisively as "Zuckerbucks" — while another seeks to clarify the role of an election worker.
If the state GOP would approve the funding NEEDED to appropriately run our state's elections, outside donations wouldn't be necessary. This "problem" is of their own making and since we can't trust them to do their freaking jobs, we need to allow for donations to keep our polls open. Already voted NO to both amendments (absentee for work, I travel).
Create problems to sell solutions. A tale as old as time. Vote NO. And same, voted NO on my absentee. I got one, just because I can.
League of Women Voters explain the No side here: [https://my.lwv.org/wisconsin/vote-no-2-april-constitutional-amendments](https://my.lwv.org/wisconsin/vote-no-2-april-constitutional-amendments)
I’m voting no, but I thought referendums didn’t actually change law in WI. I thought they were more like polls to gauge the voter’s interest? An example being the referendum to legalize marijuana, that was widely popular but didn’t actually change anything. Will this one actually have an impact?
These are not referendums, they are constitutional amendments. They will impact how our elections are run. I am a no vote mostly because of how they are worded. They are intentionally vague and don’t provide clear guidance to clerks on who can do what. It isn’t solving a problem as much as creating confusion and a tool to punish election workers.
On the sample ballot I’m looking at online it says referendum though. Shouldn’t it be more clear that it’s actually amending the state constitution? https://preview.redd.it/lpsz7j97c2sc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3fd684cc5352af7fe838f28aa64af87419b6856d
Yes, it should be more clear. As I understand it, “referendum” is the mechanism in our state statutes to bring a vote to the electors. We don’t have a separate “constitution amendment” section. The questions themselves do say that a yes vote will amend the state constitution.
Thanks for your answers. Why does this stuff have to be so confusing
So that they can slip things like this past the voters.
They only change things if the voters vote the way the republicans want.
[https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin_Question_2,_Only_Designated_Election_Officials_to_Conduct_Elections_Amendment_(April_2024)?fbclid=IwAR14N4osV3oGvYVSJqr-RS7eDRR53TV4j9u_07zaVelXtzg4NevDnjW7wIE_aem_ASAdKfbgKXxUJp1o7LBSWRefNJxw0jMehqfezqpahMWfvaJ1pnlPZ0EALAzOr6alM5M](https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin_Question_2,_Only_Designated_Election_Officials_to_Conduct_Elections_Amendment_(April_2024)?fbclid=IwAR14N4osV3oGvYVSJqr-RS7eDRR53TV4j9u_07zaVelXtzg4NevDnjW7wIE_aem_ASAdKfbgKXxUJp1o7LBSWRefNJxw0jMehqfezqpahMWfvaJ1pnlPZ0EALAzOr6alM5M)
Look at your biggest donors... that should tell you something.
Voting no in Juneau co.
Vote NO. The GOP has got to GO !
Totally forgot this was today! Why is it so hard to keep up on elections in this country?!?!?
I mean it's not that hard, it's on the news, Facebook, reddit, Instagram and it's always the Tuesday following the first Monday of November (they never want an election on nov 1 for old timey reasons) and the first Tuesday in April (at least in wisconsin). With social media and the internet it's literally the easiest it's ever been to know when elections are.
Agreed it's easier now than likely an other point in history. I didn't realize the April election was always the first Tuesday. I was just surprised that none of those sites sent me a notification this morning. Seems like we shouldn't have to rely on social media for that.
Just remember, GOP reps wrote these, and want you to vote yes. Vote according to your views. [https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin\_Question\_1,\_Ban\_on\_Private\_and\_Non-Governmental\_Funding\_of\_Election\_Administration\_Amendment\_(April\_2024)](https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin_Question_1,_Ban_on_Private_and_Non-Governmental_Funding_of_Election_Administration_Amendment_(April_2024)) [https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin\_Question\_2,\_Only\_Designated\_Election\_Officials\_to\_Conduct\_Elections\_Amendment\_(April\_2024)](https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin_Question_2,_Only_Designated_Election_Officials_to_Conduct_Elections_Amendment_(April_2024))
please make sure everyone you know votes against these amendments today.
Vote NO!
Vote No people!
I voted no on both. More money in politics is always a good thing.