Ballot Language
QUESTION 1: “Photographic identification for voting. Shall section 1m of article III of the constitution be created to require that voters present valid photographic identification verifying their identity in order to vote in any election, subject to exceptions which may be established by law?”
Legislative Language
SECTION 1. Section 1m of article III of the constitution is created to read:
[Article III] Section 1m (1) No qualified elector may cast a ballot in any election unless the elector presents valid photographic identification that verifies the elector’s identity and that is issued by this state, the federal government, a federally recognized American Indian tribe or band in this state, or a college or university in this state. The legislature shall by law establish acceptable forms of photographic identification, and the legislature may by law establish exceptions to the requirement under this subsection.
(2) A qualified elector who is unable to present valid photographic identification on election day shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot may not be counted unless the elector presents valid photographic identification at a later time and place as provided by the legislature by law.
SECTION 2. Numbering of new provision. If another constitutional amendment ratified by the people creates the number of any provision created in this joint resolution, the chief of the legislative reference bureau shall determine the sequencing and the numbering of the provisions whose numbers conflict.
Vote NO: Here's Why
A statute, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, establishes the requirement that in order to vote, the voter must present an approved form of photo ID to the poll worker on election day or to the municipal clerk (or agents of the clerk) when voting during early in-person voting or to vote absentee (aka vote by mail).
Embedding it in the state constitution does not alter the law or its enforcement. It simply makes it harder for some future legislature. That's because to amend the state constitution to remove the language, two successive legislatures would have to approve the language of an amendment to alter any part of the state constitution. Then the voters would also have to approve it.
Amending the constitution should be rare and should only present the principles by which we are to be governed. So having a provision that protects the right to vote certainly belongs in the constitution. Having a provision that specifies who is eligible to vote and under what circumstances is now and ought to be a matter hammered out in the legislature with the concurrence of the governor.
In 2024 and 2025, the legislature has presented Wisconsin voters with six ballot questions, each of which sought to amend the state constitution. Between 1848, when it was originally ratified, and 2023, the constitution had been amended only 148 times. So over 175 years, it has been changed 148 times. In 2024, voters were asked to ratify a further four amendments. Only three of them passed. Now another proposed amendment is on the ballot for voters to consider. These ballot measures represent the gerrymandered legislature's attempts to make policies around elections and voting rights as difficult to change as possible. Most of the amendments that voters approved in 2024 should have been legislative matters and do not present the general principles.