Alexa Grefe casts her ballot at the Catholic Multicultural Center in Madison, Wis., during the spring election on April 1, 2025. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
The bill has broad support, but some worry that a lack of standards and a risk of partisanship could undermine its impact.
By Alexander Shur
Votebeat
This story was produced and originally published by Wisconsin Watch, a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. It was made possible by donors like you.
Wisconsin Republicans want to require that all proposed constitutional amendments come with a plain-language explanation, a move that they say would help voters better understand complex ballot questions.
The proposal has drawn broad support. But some lawmakers are concerned about whether the measure as proposed would leave the interpretation of ballot questions vulnerable to partisanship. And even some supporters say the bill should have more specific standards for what constitutes plain language.
In its current version, the bill calls for the Legislature to pass a plain-language explanation along with any proposed constitutional amendment. The explanation would be drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau, a nonpartisan legislative agency that helps draft bills, but legislators would be able to revise it. Neither the explanation nor the amendment would be subject to a governor’s veto.
The proposal has the support of a wide swath of voting organizations: The ACLU of Wisconsin, the city of Madison, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, All Voting Is Local Action and Common Cause in Wisconsin are all registered in support of it. No group has registered in opposition.
“Most of our voters do not have law degrees to interpret many of these questions,” Rep. Jerry O’Connor, R-Fond du Lac, the bill’s author, said at a June 3 public hearing before the Assembly elections committee. “It leaves individuals unprepared to really make an informed decision.”
But Republicans and Democrats expressed concern at the hearing that the bill, as written, gives too much control of the process to the legislative majority.
O’Connor maintained that crafting the explanation should ultimately be the Legislature’s responsibility. He didn’t respond to Votebeat’s request for comment.
Proposal leaves plain language undefined
States that require plain-language summaries of their ballot proposals vary widely in how they craft them. Oregon uses a demographically representative citizen panel. Arizona leaves it to a legislative council controlled by the majority party.
The drafting process is often contentious, and litigation over fairness is common, said Thomas Collins, executive director of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission.
There’s no gold standard for laws on plain-language explanations, said Michael Blasie, an expert on the subject and an associate professor at Seattle University School of Law.
Regardless of who writes the explanation, he said, the key is user testing: giving drafts to readers and checking whether they understand them as intended.
The Wisconsin bill doesn’t require that. Without testing and feedback, Blasie said, the bill is a positive step but won’t have a meaningful impact unless it’s followed by further reforms.