In 2021, Wisconsin received more than $20 billion in federal funding, almost double the amount it got in 2018. That’s continued through 2023.
The majority of those funds had to go towards specific uses like unemployment insurance or transportation.
But $4.4 billion was designated as COVID recovery funds over the last couple of years that Governor Tony Evers had discretion over how it was distributed.
Republican state lawmakers tried to pass bill saying state agencies needed to submit plans to get the funds, but it was vetoed by the Governor.
Now, Republican lawmakers are asking voters if they approve two constitutional amendments which would limit the authority of Wisconsin Governors to spend federal funds.
Tyler Byrnes is a research associate for the Wisconsin Policy Forum and the author of its latest report focusing on the constitutional amendment questions that will be on the August ballot.
He says transparency is important and the constitutional amendments could add to the checks and balance system.
“In this special case, one person had an awful lot of discretion over how to spend $4.4 billion, which is an incredible amount of money. And so, legislative input and increasing transparency over those sorts of decisions is important and is a benefit,” said Byrnes.
On the other hand, this could also slow funds getting out to people that need them.
In this case, the federal funds were emergency funds pushed out to states to help people and economies weather the COVID-19 pandemic.
“If you don't spend the money quickly enough, it goes back to the federal money, and then they send it to other states,” said Byrnes. “It could potentially slow or even cause us to lose federal money.”
The two questions will appear on the August 13th ballot:
Question One: “Delegation of appropriation power. Shall Section 35 (1) of Article IV of the Constitution be created to provide that the Legislature may not delegate its sole power to determine how moneys shall be appropriated?”
Question Two: “Allocation of federal moneys. Shall Section 35 (2) of Article IV of the Constitution be created to prohibit the governor from allocating any federal moneys the governor accepts on behalf of the state without the approval of the Legislature by joint resolution or as provided by legislative rule?”
Byrnes also says the language of the amendments is very broad which makes it unclear who exactly would have authority over how federal funds are spent.
For example, the "approval of the Legislature by joint resolution or as provided by legislative rule" language could mean allocations would need approval of both houses or it could mean the legislature sets up standing committee to approve or deny.
“There's a lot of, I think, uncertainty about how the courts and the legislature are going to interpret these two amendments, either together or separately. It's kind of tough to say exactly what the impact will be, but it could potentially be relatively large,” he said.
Byrnes says federal funding can have a direct impact on people’s lives, so it’s worth taking the time to make an informed decision about these amendment questions.
“It is a substantial amount of money. Because the permanent change, and because the amount of change that's made is relatively uncertain, it's definitely worth looking into and reading about and trying to figure out, ‘How is this going to impact things that I'm interested in and things that I care about,’” said Byrnes when asked why people should care about these constitutional amendments.
