Welcome to your informational guide for the upcoming statewide election on Tuesday, November 3,  2026. Wisconsin voters will decide on three constitutional amendments referred by the state  legislature. This page breaks down each measure, explains how to find your local sample ballot,  and answers key voter questions.  

Overview of November 2026 Ballot Measures  

Constitutional amendments in Wisconsin require approval by a simple majority of voters to take  effect. Below is a clear breakdown of the three referendum questions appearing on your ballot.  

Assembly Joint Resolution 10 (AJR 10)  

Official Title: Prohibit Government Closure of Places of Worship During Emergencies Amendment  

What it does: This measure amends the Wisconsin Constitution to prohibit state or local  government entities from closing or banning gatherings at places of worship during a declared state  of emergency, including a public health emergency.  

A YES vote means: You support prohibiting state and local officials from ordering the closure of  places of worship during declared emergencies.  

A NO vote means: You oppose this constitutional ban, preserving existing emergency health and  safety closure authority.  

Background: Proponents state that religious gathering rights should remain protected at all times.  Opponents argue that public health officials require flexible emergency authority to protect lives  during health crises. 

Extra Info: During the Covid-19 pandemic, government officials in Wisconsin declared a public health emergency and banned large groups of people from gathering in physical proximity in order to reduce the spread of the virus.
Legislators who disagreed with this decision have proposed this amendment. They believe that religious gathering rights should remain protected at all times, including during emergencies, as part of our overall freedom of worship.
Those who are against this amendment believe that government officials have a responsibility to protect the public during an emergency and must have the flexibility to take necessary steps to save lives. They state that banning large gatherings during an emergency does not infringe on the right to worship as people can safely worship during an emergency in other ways, such as individually at home or as part of an online community. 

Assembly Joint Resolution 102 (AJR 102)  

Official Title: Prohibit Government Discrimination or Preferential Treatment Amendment  

What it does: This measure adds Section 27 to Article I of the state constitution. It prohibits state  agencies, local governments, public schools, and state universities from discriminating against or  granting preferential treatment to individuals based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.  It applies to public employment, education, contracting, and administration.  

A YES vote means: You support prohibiting state and local government entities from considering  race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin in hiring, admissions, contracting, and public administration.  

A NO vote means: You oppose adding this section to the state constitution, preserving current state  and local diversity initiative frameworks. 

Background: Proponents argue that public entities should operate entirely without group  preferences. Opponents maintain that the measure restricts local programs intended to broaden access and community opportunity. 

Extra Info: In the last few years, there’s been renewed debate about programs meant to provide information, access, resources, or opportunities to marginalized groups. On the federal level, the Trump administration has disparaged such efforts, calling for an end to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Many supporters of this amendment would agree. They state they are advocating a merit-based approach. Their priority is equality (everyone gets the same treatment, resources, and opportunities).

Opponents tend to argue that a merit-based system is not possible when some people are not starting from the same place and face additional barriers. Their focus is on equity (support, resources, and opportunities based on need) and fairness. They say this misleading amendment would restrict programs that are meant to broaden access and community opportunity. Legislators have voiced concerns that the amendment would impede their ability to target and uplift the most disadvantaged in their districts. This could affect public policies meant to address health disparities, provide community support, grant scholarships, or diversify government workforces and suppliers.

Senate Joint Resolution 116 (SJR 116)  

Official Title: Prohibit Partial Veto to Increase Tax or Fee Amendment  

What it does: This measure restricts executive partial veto power. It amends the Wisconsin  Constitution to explicitly prohibit the governor from using a partial veto to create or increase any  state tax or fee.  

A YES vote means: You support prohibiting the governor from utilizing partial vetoes to increase or  establish taxes or fees in legislation.  

A NO vote means: You oppose this restriction, preserving current gubernatorial partial veto  authority over state budget bills.  

Background: Proponents state that veto powers should not be used to increase revenues beyond  legislative intent. Opponents argue that restricting veto authority alters traditional executive  oversight of state budgets.

Extra Info: The Wisconsin governor has had partial veto power since 1930. A partial veto is the ability to veto, and therefore change, small parts of a funding bill. Most governors can strike through a line to veto an item but in Wisconsin, our governor can strike through individual numbers, which can result in changing dates or amounts. Over the years, many governors, both Democrats and Republicans, have used the partial veto. This tends to meet with approval from supporters but is viewed as an unfair loss by those who oppose the action.

For example, in 2017 Republican Governor Scott Walker used a partial veto to change a deadline of 2018 to 3018 for a moratorium on schools using state funds for energy efficiency projects (extending the moratorium by 1,000 years). In 2023 Democratic Governor Tony Evers used a partial veto to extend an increase in school funding which would have expired in 2025. With his partial veto, Evers changed this to 2425 (ensuring the higher level of school funding for 400 years).

People who support this amendment believe the Wisconsin state constitution has given the governor too much power with the partial veto and that governors occasionally abuse this power. They are concerned about governors using the partial veto to go against what the legislature has intended and specifically worry about another governor increasing taxes through a partial veto.

Those who oppose this amendment believe governors should continue to have the option to veto parts of funding bills. This is seen as within the scope of their oversight of the state budget and can be overridden by a two-thirds vote in the legislature if needed. They believe that if legislatures are not providing optimal amounts of funding for state needs, the governor should be able to veto parts of the bill to correct this.