Wisconsin state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.
The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is Wisconsin state government. Federal debt is not allocated to Wisconsin; a state budget is not the federal budget.
State debt outstanding$22.79BFY2024 · #15 of 50 · highest first
Interest expenditure$569.39MFY2024 · #20 of 50 · highest first
Total state tax collections$24.17BFY2024 · #19 of 50 · highest first
Wisconsin over time
Explore Wisconsin readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Wisconsin officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Wisconsin effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Wisconsin change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
No comparable time series is retained for this topic. The chart shows events and reviewed actions; current state comparisons appear below.
Wisconsin government actions Wisconsin · source units
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
61 of 61 reviewed Wisconsin actions match · 18 date markers shown. 50 major events shown separately.
How major events are selected
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
Wisconsin · state comparison
State debt and interest
Compare state-government balances and interest expenditure from the same Census fiscal-year survey.
Wisconsin · FY2024$22.79B
Wisconsin rank#15among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.1TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
State debt outstanding
Long-term debt outstanding plus short-term debt outstanding at fiscal year end.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Excludes local-government debt. Dollar ranks describe scale, not credit quality.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Wisconsin stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Wisconsin has a dark outline.
Lower value · $728.59MHigher value · $166.39BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Wisconsin · $22.79BFY2024 · Rank #15 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Wisconsin with every state · 50 ranked
State debt outstanding · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California
$166.39B
—
#2
New York
$120.59B
—
#3
Texas
$70.05B
—
#4
Massachusetts
$65.87B
—
#5
New Jersey
$57.23B
—
#6
Pennsylvania
$48.67B
—
#7
Illinois
$43.38B
—
#8
Virginia
$33.73B
—
#9
Connecticut
$33.27B
—
#10
Ohio
$32.29B
—
#11
Washington
$30.62B
—
#12
Maryland
$25.9B
—
#13
Michigan
$25.02B
—
#14
Colorado
$23.57B
—
#15
Wisconsin · your comparison
$22.79B
—
#16
Florida
$20.14B
—
#17
Minnesota
$17.03B
—
#18
Oregon
$16.91B
—
#19
Louisiana
$16.09B
—
#20
South Carolina
$15.36B
—
#21
West Virginia
$15.08B
—
#22
Georgia
$14.05B
—
#23
North Carolina
$13.13B
—
#24
Hawaii
$11.72B
—
#25
Rhode Island
$11.41B
—
#26
Alabama
$10.99B
—
#27
Oklahoma
$10.15B
—
#28
Kentucky
$10.08B
—
#29
Tennessee
$9.03B
—
#30
Indiana
$8.52B
—
#31
Iowa
$8.06B
—
#32
Arkansas
$8.05B
—
#33
Mississippi
$7.72B
—
#34
New Hampshire
$7.58B
—
#35
Kansas
$7.16B
—
#36
New Mexico
$7.12B
—
#37
Missouri
$6.99B
—
#38
Arizona
$6.88B
—
#39
Alaska
$5.72B
—
#40
Utah
$5.55B
—
#41
Maine
$5.3B
—
#42
North Dakota
$4.89B
—
#43
South Dakota
$4.67B
—
#44
Delaware
$3.69B
—
#45
Nebraska
$3.39B
—
#46
Nevada
$2.89B
—
#47
Montana
$2.76B
—
#48
Vermont
$2.67B
—
#49
Wyoming
$1.26B
—
#50
Idaho
$728.59M
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
All measures use Census state-government records for FY2024. Categories describe collections; they do not rank statutory tax rates.
Wisconsin · FY2024$7.59B
Wisconsin rank#19among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$465.4BSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
General sales-tax collections
Census category T09.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Wisconsin stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Wisconsin has a dark outline.
Lower value · $0Higher value · $54.35BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Wisconsin · $7.59BFY2024 · Rank #19 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Wisconsin with every state · 50 ranked
General sales-tax collections · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
$54.35B
—
#2
California
$53.33B
—
#3
Florida
$40.09B
—
#4
Washington
$22.81B
—
#5
New York
$19.99B
—
#6
Ohio
$16.33B
—
#7
Illinois
$16.05B
—
#8
Pennsylvania
$15.6B
—
#9
New Jersey
$14.31B
—
#10
Tennessee
$14.08B
—
#11
Arizona
$13.16B
—
#12
Michigan
$12.7B
—
#13
North Carolina
$12.16B
—
#14
Indiana
$10.96B
—
#15
Massachusetts
$9.4B
—
#16
Georgia
$9.01B
—
#17
Minnesota
$8.49B
—
#18
Nevada
$8.4B
—
#19
Wisconsin · your comparison
$7.59B
—
#20
Virginia
$7.4B
—
#21
Maryland
$6.85B
—
#22
South Carolina
$6.44B
—
#23
Connecticut
$6.23B
—
#24
Kentucky
$5.8B
—
#25
Missouri
$5.26B
—
#26
Mississippi
$5.07B
—
#27
Arkansas
$5.07B
—
#28
Louisiana
$4.87B
—
#29
Hawaii
$4.79B
—
#30
Colorado
$4.67B
—
#31
Iowa
$4.64B
—
#32
Utah
$4.63B
—
#33
Alabama
$4.59B
—
#34
Kansas
$4.33B
—
#35
New Mexico
$4.33B
—
#36
Oklahoma
$3.81B
—
#37
Idaho
$3.09B
—
#38
Nebraska
$2.97B
—
#39
Maine
$2.35B
—
#40
West Virginia
$1.82B
—
#41
South Dakota
$1.68B
—
#42
Rhode Island
$1.63B
—
#43
Oregon
$1.34B
—
#44
North Dakota
$1.32B
—
#45
Wyoming
$1.01B
—
#46
Vermont
$597.33M
—
#47
Alaska
$0
—
#47
Delaware
$0
—
#47
Montana
$0
—
#47
New Hampshire
$0
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Census categories allow consistent comparisons. These selected categories are not a breakdown of the current Wisconsin appropriations act.
Wisconsin · FY2024$16.26B
Wisconsin rank#23among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.02TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Public welfare current operations
Current operations for public welfare institutions and other public welfare, excluding capital and transfers.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Wisconsin stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Wisconsin has a dark outline.
Lower value · $1.09BHigher value · $156.71BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Wisconsin · $16.26BFY2024 · Rank #23 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Wisconsin with every state · 50 ranked
Public welfare current operations · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California
$156.71B
—
#2
New York
$97.35B
—
#3
Texas
$57.32B
—
#4
Illinois
$41.13B
—
#5
Florida
$40.11B
—
#6
Ohio
$39.77B
—
#7
Pennsylvania
$39.34B
—
#8
Massachusetts
$34.12B
—
#9
North Carolina
$30.64B
—
#10
New Jersey
$28.06B
—
#11
Arizona
$26.02B
—
#12
Michigan
$24.37B
—
#13
Virginia
$23.68B
—
#14
Minnesota
$23.37B
—
#15
Indiana
$22.93B
—
#16
Maryland
$21.61B
—
#17
Kentucky
$20.54B
—
#18
Oregon
$20.47B
—
#19
Washington
$19.6B
—
#20
Georgia
$18.99B
—
#21
Louisiana
$18.69B
—
#22
Tennessee
$16.42B
—
#23
Wisconsin · your comparison
$16.26B
—
#24
Missouri
$15.65B
—
#25
Oklahoma
$14.57B
—
#26
Colorado
$13.6B
—
#27
South Carolina
$12.84B
—
#28
New Mexico
$10.72B
—
#29
Iowa
$10.26B
—
#30
Alabama
$9.73B
—
#31
Arkansas
$8.67B
—
#32
Mississippi
$8.08B
—
#33
Utah
$6.91B
—
#34
Kansas
$6.84B
—
#35
Nevada
$6.62B
—
#36
West Virginia
$6.24B
—
#37
Maine
$5.7B
—
#38
Nebraska
$4.97B
—
#39
Connecticut
$4.88B
—
#40
Rhode Island
$4.54B
—
#41
Hawaii
$4.14B
—
#42
Delaware
$3.97B
—
#43
Idaho
$3.73B
—
#44
Alaska
$3.27B
—
#45
Montana
$2.89B
—
#46
New Hampshire
$2.72B
—
#47
Vermont
$2.69B
—
#48
North Dakota
$2.09B
—
#49
South Dakota
$1.95B
—
#50
Wyoming
$1.09B
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The enacted plan, spending categories and audited activity use different periods and accounting scopes; they are kept separate.
Wisconsin · FY2024$34.5B
Wisconsin rank#21among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$2.04TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Current operation expenditure
Sum of Census current-operation expenditure categories, excluding capital outlay, interest, and assistance/subsidy expenditure.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. This FY2024 comparison differs in scope and period from Wisconsin’s 2025–27 biennium appropriations and Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 audit shown below.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Wisconsin stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Wisconsin has a dark outline.
Lower value · $4.01BHigher value · $287.03BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Wisconsin · $34.5BFY2024 · Rank #21 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Wisconsin with every state · 50 ranked
Current operation expenditure · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California
$287.03B
—
#2
New York
$161.37B
—
#3
Texas
$136.18B
—
#4
Florida
$86.61B
—
#5
Pennsylvania
$77.15B
—
#6
Illinois
$75.67B
—
#7
Ohio
$66.77B
—
#8
New Jersey
$64.53B
—
#9
Massachusetts
$61.38B
—
#10
North Carolina
$59.01B
—
#11
Michigan
$57.27B
—
#12
Virginia
$53.45B
—
#13
Washington
$49.82B
—
#14
Georgia
$45.19B
—
#15
Maryland
$45.06B
—
#16
Oregon
$41.41B
—
#17
Arizona
$38.71B
—
#18
Minnesota
$38.1B
—
#19
Indiana
$37.4B
—
#20
Kentucky
$36.94B
—
#21
Wisconsin · your comparison
$34.5B
—
#22
Missouri
$34.43B
—
#23
South Carolina
$32.85B
—
#24
Colorado
$32.73B
—
#25
Louisiana
$31.67B
—
#26
Tennessee
$31.12B
—
#27
Alabama
$26.99B
—
#28
Oklahoma
$24.28B
—
#29
Utah
$22.7B
—
#30
New Mexico
$21.94B
—
#31
Connecticut
$21.22B
—
#32
Iowa
$19.89B
—
#33
Kansas
$18.39B
—
#34
Hawaii
$16.62B
—
#35
Mississippi
$16.46B
—
#36
Arkansas
$16.28B
—
#37
West Virginia
$13.19B
—
#38
Nevada
$12.43B
—
#39
Nebraska
$10.41B
—
#40
Maine
$10.12B
—
#41
Delaware
$9.24B
—
#42
Rhode Island
$8.93B
—
#43
Alaska
$8.4B
—
#44
Idaho
$8.21B
—
#45
New Hampshire
$7.12B
—
#46
Montana
$6.44B
—
#47
Vermont
$6.28B
—
#48
North Dakota
$5.63B
—
#49
South Dakota
$4.55B
—
#50
Wyoming
$4.01B
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau's enacted total for 2025 Wisconsin Act 15: $111.199 billion of all-funds appropriations and compensation reserves plus $3.157 billion of general-obligation and revenue-bond authorizations. The total excludes $1.6 billion of economic refunding bonds identified separately by the Bureau.
Shares of the $23.376 billion in taxes reported as general revenue for Wisconsin's primary government. The denominator includes taxes dedicated to general and transportation purposes; locally levied property and sales taxes are outside it.
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau's enacted all-funds appropriations and compensation reserves by functional area. Bond authorizations are intentionally excluded from this service-area denominator, and the Bureau's six smaller functional areas are combined into an exact residual.
Government-wide activity for Wisconsin's primary government on the accrual basis. Revenue combines program revenue with general revenue, contributions, and net transfers; transfers between governmental and business-type activities cancel at the primary-government level.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
61 of 61 reviewed Wisconsin actions · newest first
Jul 8, 2026 · SB 1001 · the establishment of a family and medical leave insurance program; family leave to care for a family member and for the active duty of a family member; the employers that must allow an employee to take family or medical leave; allowing a local government to adopt ordinances requiring employers to provide leave benefits; providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures; providing an exemption from rule-making procedures; granting rule-making authority; making an appropriation; and providing a penalty. (FE) · Did not passWisconsin Legislature · SB 1001
the establishment of a family and medical leave insurance program; family leave to care for a family member and for the active duty of a family member; the employers that must allow an employee to take family or medical leave; allowing a local government to adopt ordinances requiring employers to provide leave benefits; providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures; providing an exemption from rule-making procedures; granting rule-making authority; making an appropriation; and providing a penalty. (FE)
Jul 8, 2026 · Did not pass
Sen. LaTonya Johnson · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sponsored SB1001: the establishment of a family and medical leave insurance program; family leave to care for a family member and for the active duty of a family member; the employers that must allow an employee to take family or medical leave; allowing a local government to adopt ordinances requiring employers to provide leave benefits; providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures; providing an exemption from rule-making procedures; granting rule-making authority; making an appropriation; and providing a penalty. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: a family member and for the active duty of a family member; lowers the threshold number of employees above which an employer must allow…
2026-07-08: Fiscal estimate received. The proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
Wages and cash benefits can be components of household money income. Census income is measured before taxes, so tax relief alone is not an increase in this statistic; the provision does not determine the statewide median. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
a family member and for the active duty of a family member; lowers the threshold number of employees above which an employer must allow an employee to take family or medical leave; and establishes a family and medical leave insurance program under which certain covered individuals may receive benefits while taking family or medical leave. The bill defines “family member” as a spouse or domestic partner of an employee or self-employed individual; a parent, child, sibling, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, grandparent, stepgrandparent, or grandchild of an employee or self-employed individual, or of an employee’s or self-employed individual’s spouse or domestic partner; or any other person who is related by blood, marriage, or adoption to an employee or self-employed individual, or to an employee’s or self-employed individual’s spouse or domestic partner, and whose close association with the employee, self-employed individual, spouse, or domestic partner makes the person the equivalent of a family member of the employee, self-employed individual, spouse, or domestic partner. Family and medical leave expansion Under current law, an employer, including the state, that employs at least 50 individuals on a permanent basis in this state must allow an employee who has been employed by the employer for more than 52 consecutive weeks and who has worked for the employer for at least 1,000 hours during the preceding 52 weeks to take up to eight weeks of family leave in a 12-month period for the birth or adoptive placement of a child or to care for a child, spouse, domestic partner, or parent of the employee or a parent of the spouse or domestic partner of the employee who has a serious health condition and up to two weeks of medical leave in a 12-month period when the employee has a s
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jun 16, 2026 · AB 1012 · the establishment of a family and medical leave insurance program; family leave to care for a family member and for the active duty of a family member; the employers that must allow an employee to take family or medical leave; allowing a local government to adopt ordinances requiring employers to provide leave benefits; providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures; providing an exemption from rule-making procedures; granting rule-making authority; making an appropriation; and providing a penalty. (FE) · Did not passWisconsin Legislature · AB 1012
the establishment of a family and medical leave insurance program; family leave to care for a family member and for the active duty of a family member; the employers that must allow an employee to take family or medical leave; allowing a local government to adopt ordinances requiring employers to provide leave benefits; providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures; providing an exemption from rule-making procedures; granting rule-making authority; making an appropriation; and providing a penalty. (FE)
Jun 16, 2026 · Did not pass
Rep. Francesca Hong · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sponsored AB1012: the establishment of a family and medical leave insurance program; family leave to care for a family member and for the active duty of a family member; the employers that must allow an employee to take family or medical leave; allowing a local government to adopt ordinances requiring employers to provide leave benefits; providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures; providing an exemption from rule-making procedures; granting rule-making authority; making an appropriation; and providing a penalty. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: a family member and for the active duty of a family member; lowers the threshold number of employees above which an employer must allow…
2026-06-16: Fiscal estimate received. The proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
Wages and cash benefits can be components of household money income. Census income is measured before taxes, so tax relief alone is not an increase in this statistic; the provision does not determine the statewide median. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
a family member and for the active duty of a family member; lowers the threshold number of employees above which an employer must allow an employee to take family or medical leave; and establishes a family and medical leave insurance program under which certain covered individuals may receive benefits while taking family or medical leave. The bill defines “family member” as a spouse or domestic partner of an employee or self-employed individual; a parent, child, sibling, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, grandparent, stepgrandparent, or grandchild of an employee or self-employed individual, or of an employee’s or self-employed individual’s spouse or domestic partner; or any other person who is related by blood, marriage, or adoption to an employee or self-employed individual, or to an employee’s or self-employed individual’s spouse or domestic partner, and whose close association with the employee, self-employed individual, spouse, or domestic partner makes the person the equivalent of a family member of the employee, self-employed individual, spouse, or domestic partner. Family and medical leave expansion Under current law, an employer, including the state, that employs at least 50 individuals on a permanent basis in this state must allow an employee who has been employed by the employer for more than 52 consecutive weeks and who has worked for the employer for at least 1,000 hours during the preceding 52 weeks to take up to eight weeks of family leave in a 12-month period for the birth or adoptive placement of a child or to care for a child, spouse, domestic partner, or parent of the employee or a parent of the spouse or domestic partner of the employee who has a serious health condition and up to two weeks of medical leave in a 12-month period when the employee has a s
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Apr 9, 2026 · AB 854 · violence prevention grants and making an appropriation. (FE) · Did not passWisconsin Legislature · AB 854
violence prevention grants and making an appropriation. (FE)
Apr 9, 2026 · Did not pass
Rep. Darrin Madison · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sponsored AB854: violence prevention grants and making an appropriation. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: This bill directs the Department of Health Services to establish a program to distribute funds to local health departments or tribal health centers that apply to conduct violence prevention programs or to award grants to organizations to conduct violence prevention programs. Under the bill, the amounts collected from the excise taxes on vapor products are appropriated to fund the grants. The bill prohibits local health departments and tribal health centers from distributing grant funds under the program to a law enforcement agency, tribal law enforcement agency, or any entity that…
2026-04-09: Fiscal estimate received. The proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
The fact counts deaths whose underlying cause is homicide. The provision addresses a defined prevention or measurement mechanism; a general criminal penalty or post-offense benefit alone does not demonstrate homicide prevention. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Homicide deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill directs the Department of Health Services to establish a program to distribute funds to local health departments or tribal health centers that apply to conduct violence prevention programs or to award grants to organizations to conduct violence prevention programs. Under the bill, the amounts collected from the excise taxes on vapor products are appropriated to fund the grants. The bill prohibits local health departments and tribal health centers from distributing grant funds under the program to a law enforcement agency, tribal law enforcement agency, or any entity that provides services in conjunction with or through a law enforcement agency or tribal law enforcement agency. The bill increases the number of authorized DHS positions by one position in fiscal year 2025-26 for administration of the program and also increases funding to DHS for this position.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Apr 9, 2026 · AB 1203 · net zero emissions, carbon-free and renewable energy standards, and creating an office of sustainability and clean energy, granting rule-making authority, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty. (FE) · Did not passWisconsin Legislature · AB 1203
net zero emissions, carbon-free and renewable energy standards, and creating an office of sustainability and clean energy, granting rule-making authority, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty. (FE)
Apr 9, 2026 · Did not pass
Rep. Angelito Tenorio · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The introduced bill would require Wisconsin to achieve 100% clean electricity production by 2050 and change power-plant approval priorities and electricity standards. The in-state production requirement is the connection to the generation-mix fact. This describes the introduced proposal; its recorded legislative disposition is separate.
2026-04-09: Fiscal estimate received. The proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
The introduced bill would require Wisconsin to achieve 100% clean electricity production by 2050 and change power-plant approval priorities and electricity standards. The in-state production requirement is the connection to the generation-mix fact. Natural-gas share is gas-fired electricity-industry net generation divided by total in-state generation covered by EIA Table 5. The denominator excludes estimated small-scale generation outside that table. Gas-fired plants or other in-state generation resources concern this mix; procurement targets and authorizations are distinct from an operating plant or measured output. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Natural gas share of in-state electricity generation. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill creates an office of sustainability and clean energy and establishes clean electricity and emissions standards that must be met by specific dates. Office of sustainability and clean energy The bill creates in the Department of Administration an office of sustainability and clean energy. The secretary of administration must direct the office of sustainability and clean energy to establish, using rigorous sector-based modeling, an economy-wide decarbonization roadmap that incorporates, as appropriate, the state’s clean energy plan issued in 2022. The roadmap must be updated periodically. Emissions standards The bill provides that, by 2050, the state must achieve 100 percent clean electricity production and emit no more carbon into the atmosphere than can be removed economy-wide. Carbon-free and renewable energy standards Current law generally requires electric providers, which include electric utilities and retail electric cooperatives, to ensure that, in a given year, a certain specified percentage of the electricity sold to customers and members is generated from renewable resources. The bill creates a definition of “carbon-free energy” and requires that for the years 2030 to 2034, electric providers and certain state agencies have a minimum carbon-free energy percentage of 50 percent. Later, the bill requires electric providers and certain state agencies to have the following minimum carbon-free energy percentages: 1) for the years 2035 to 2039, 65 percent; 2) for the years 2040 to 2044, 80 percent; 3) for the years 2045 to 2049, 90 percent, and 4) for 2050 and each year thereafter, 100 percent. The bill requires each electric provider to submit a transition plan to PSC that includes the electric provider’s plan for satisfying the carbon-free energy percentage requirements. The transition plan must identify electric generating facilities that the electric provider proposes to add or retire. PSC may approve a transition plan only if certain criteria are satisfied, including that any continued use of an electric generating facility that is not a carbon-free facility is the most cost-effective decision for customers and that any retirements of such facilities are the most cost-effective decisions for customers. In addition, the bill creates a definition of “specified renewable energy” and requires that for the years 2030 to 2034, each electric provider have a minimum specified renewable energy percentage of 20 percent. Later, the bill requires electric providers to have a minimum specified renewable energy percentage of 40 percent for the years 2035 to 2039, and to have a minimum specified renewable energy percentage of 60 percent for 2040 and each year thereafter. If an electric provider violates either the minimum carbon-free energy percentage requirement or the minimum specified renewable energy percentage requirement, PSC may order the electric provider to engage in activities that would satisfy the requirement. An electric provider that violates such an order is subject to a forfeiture in an amount not to exceed the estimated cost of the electric provider to satisfy the requirement for which the order was issued. Also, under current law, a person seeking to construct a large electric generating facility having a nominal capacity of 100 megawatts or more or a high-voltage transmission line must obtain a CPCN from PSC. The bill requires PSC to, in taking action on CPCN applications, prioritize applications for facilities that minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Further, the bill requires PSC to make all of the following determinations to approve an application for a CPCN for a large electric generating facility: 1) that the proposed facility will not impede the applicant’s ability to satisfy the bill’s minimum carbon-free energy percentage requirement or minimum specified renewable energy percentage requirement; 2) that the applicant agreed to pay laborers, ironworkers, technicians, and mechanics the prevailing wage or the rate under an applicable collective bargaining agreement, whichever is greater; 3) that locations where other large electric generating facilities have been retired are used to the extent practicable; 4) that persons who previously worked at other large electric generating facilities that have been retired will be hired to the extent practicable; 5) that persons residing in this state will be hired to the extent practicable; and 6) that persons residing in the municipality where the large electric generating facility will be located will perform at least 15 percent of the labor hours on the project, to the extent practicable. Also, the bill allows PSC to determine that a proposed facility or high-voltage transmission does not satisfy certain requirements for granting a CPCN related to air pollution impact even if the proposed facility or high-voltage transmission line satisfies current state air pollution laws. The bill also prohibits PSC from issuing a certificate of authority (CA) to an electric utility for a project unless PSC determines that issuing the CA will not impede the ability of the electric utility to satisfy the bill’s minimum carbon-free energy percentage requirement or minimum specified renewable energy percentage requirement. Under current law, a public utility must obtain a CA from PSC to construct, extend, improve, or add to its existing facilities. Under the bill, the office of sustainability and clean energy is directed to create, using rigorous sector-based modeling, an economy-wide decarbonization roadmap. The roadmap is to be updated periodically. Apprentice utilization standards Under the bill, a contractor or subcontractor on a construction project of certain electric-generating facilities with estimated construction costs of not less than $10,000,000 must make a good faith effort to utilize specific percentages of registered apprentices on the projects. A contractor or subcontractor that does not meet the utilization thresholds must provide a written explanation to the Department of Workforce Development of the good faith effort to meet the requirement accompanied by supporting documentation. Failure to provide the explanation and supporting documentation subjects the contractor or subcontractor to forfeiture.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Apr 7, 2026 · SB 842 · violence prevention grants and making an appropriation. (FE) · Did not passWisconsin Legislature · SB 842
violence prevention grants and making an appropriation. (FE)
Apr 7, 2026 · Did not pass
Sen. LaTonya Johnson · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sponsored SB842: violence prevention grants and making an appropriation. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: This bill directs the Department of Health Services to establish a program to distribute funds to local health departments or tribal health centers that apply to conduct violence prevention programs or to award grants to organizations to conduct violence prevention programs. Under the bill, the amounts collected from the excise taxes on vapor products are appropriated to fund the grants. The bill prohibits local health departments and tribal health centers from distributing grant funds under the program to a law enforcement agency, tribal law enforcement agency, or any entity that…
2026-04-07: Fiscal estimate received. The proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
The fact counts deaths whose underlying cause is homicide. The provision addresses a defined prevention or measurement mechanism; a general criminal penalty or post-offense benefit alone does not demonstrate homicide prevention. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Homicide deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill directs the Department of Health Services to establish a program to distribute funds to local health departments or tribal health centers that apply to conduct violence prevention programs or to award grants to organizations to conduct violence prevention programs. Under the bill, the amounts collected from the excise taxes on vapor products are appropriated to fund the grants. The bill prohibits local health departments and tribal health centers from distributing grant funds under the program to a law enforcement agency, tribal law enforcement agency, or any entity that provides services in conjunction with or through a law enforcement agency or tribal law enforcement agency. The bill increases the number of authorized DHS positions by one position in fiscal year 2025-26 for administration of the program and also increases funding to DHS for this position.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Apr 3, 2026 · AB 167 · Vetoed AB 167: various changes to the unemployment insurance law and requiring approval by the Joint Committee on Finance of certain federally authorized unemployment benefits. (FE) · VetoedGovernor · AB 167
Vetoed AB 167: various changes to the unemployment insurance law and requiring approval by the Joint Committee on Finance of certain federally authorized unemployment benefits. (FE)
Apr 3, 2026 · Vetoed
Gov. Tony Evers · Vetoed
FactVote reviewed summary
Vetoed AB 167, concerning various changes to the unemployment insurance law and requiring approval by the Joint Committee on Finance of certain federally authorized unemployment benefits. (FE) A veto does not enact the proposed policy.
2026-04-03: Report vetoed by the Governor on 4-3-2026. {"entry":"Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82","reportDate":"2026-05-13"} This records the dated action and does not establish current enforceability.
Why this record is included
Wages and cash benefits can be components of household money income. Census income is measured before taxes, so tax relief alone is not an increase in this statistic; the provision does not determine the statewide median. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(b), 108.04 (15) (a) 1. and 108.14 (20); to create 16.54 (14), 108.04 (2) (a) 4. c., 108.04 (5) (e) (intro.), 108.04 (5) (e) 2. and 108.04 (5) (h) of the statutes; relating to: various changes to the unemployment insurance law and requiring approval by the Joint Committee on Finance of certain federally authorized unemployment benefits. The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows: AB167,1Section 1. 16.54 (2) (a) 1. of the statutes is amended to read: 16.54 (2) (a) 1. Except as provided in subd. 2. and sub. (14), whenever funds shall be made available to this state through an act of congress and the funds are accepted as provided in sub. (1), the governor shall designate the state board, commission, or department to administer any of such funds, and the board, commission, or department so designated by the governor is authorized and directed to administer such funds for the purpose designated by the act of congress making an appropriation of such funds, or by the department of the United States government making such funds available to this state. Whenever a block grant is made to this state, no moneys received as a part of the block grant may be transferred from use as a part of one such grant to use as a part of another such grant, regardless of whether a transfer between appropriations is required, unless the joint committee on finance approves the transfer. AB167,2Section 2. 16.54 (14) of the statutes is created to read: 16.54 (14) (a) In this subsection, “benefit augmentation” means for any state agency or official, including the governor, to encumber or expend moneys received from, or accept reimbursement from, the federal government or for any state agency or official, including the governor, to enter into any cont
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified Wisconsin officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt from FactVote’s Wisconsin candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
14 statements from 9 candidates
2026 Wisconsin Governor — General Election
1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement
Through smart revenue reform, Crowley will ensure local governments have the tools and funding to serve their residents — while lowering property taxes and re-empowering local decision-making. That means giving communities the resources to invest in what matters most: well-trained police and fire de…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Economy, jobs, taxes, and affordability
Candidate campaign source
Through smart revenue reform, Crowley will ensure local governments have the tools and funding to serve their residents — while lowering property taxes and re-empowering local decision-making. That means giving communities the resources to invest in what matters most: well-trained police and fire departments, reliable public works, responsive local services, and the ability to shape their own future without interference from Madison. As County Executive, Crowley successfully secured new state revenue tools for local governments, fought to restore local control, and delivered balanced budgets that protect public safety and expand services. As Governor, he’ll finish the job — because no one knows what a community needs better than the people who live and lead there.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
Uses her campaign to call for statewide investment in child care, housing, and grocery-cost relief; the Secretary of State does not control state appropriations.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Cost of Living
Candidate campaign source
Uses her campaign to call for statewide investment in child care, housing, and grocery-cost relief; the Secretary of State does not control state appropriations.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026
Calls for Wisconsin to fully fund public education through the state rather than repeated local referenda; the Secretary of State does not set the state education budget.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Public Education
Candidate campaign source
Calls for Wisconsin to fully fund public education through the state rather than repeated local referenda; the Secretary of State does not set the state education budget.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026
Families and workers haven’t been able to afford the things they need. Steil is working to lower costs by cutting wasteful government spending, unleashing American energy, and reducing regulatory costs.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Energy, water, and environment
Candidate campaign source
Families and workers haven’t been able to afford the things they need. Steil is working to lower costs by cutting wasteful government spending, unleashing American energy, and reducing regulatory costs.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
This section matches specific budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt terms in retained, attributed source text from published Wisconsin candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
Wisconsin incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Wisconsin legislators and Wisconsin’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Wisconsin’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
55 matching sponsorships or proposals · 28 Wisconsin incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Rep. Alex Joers
Wisconsin State Assembly, District 81 · D–WI
2 proposalsView proposals from Rep. Alex JoersWisconsin Legislature · AB 531
grants for safe firearm disposal incentive programs and making an appropriation. (FE)
Mar 23, 2026 · Did not pass
Rep. Alex Joers · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sponsored AB531: grants for safe firearm disposal incentive programs and making an appropriation. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: This bill creates a program, administered by the Department of Justice, to award grants to counties or law enforcement agencies that implement a safe firearm disposal incentive program that meets certain criteria. The bill provides $200,000 for grants in each fiscal year and authorizes a position for the purpose of administering the grant program. This describes the proposal at introduction; the recorded disposition below is separate.
2026-03-23: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide, and other intents. The provision concerns firearm access, safety, or prevention of firearm injury and may address only part of the death count. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill creates a program, administered by the Department of Justice, to award grants to counties or law enforcement agencies that implement a safe firearm disposal incentive program that meets certain criteria. The bill provides $200,000 for grants in each fiscal year and authorizes a position for the purpose of administering the grant program.
grants for firearm buyback programs and making an appropriation. (FE)
Apr 15, 2024 · Did not pass
Rep. Alex Joers · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sponsored AB673: grants for firearm buyback programs and making an appropriation. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: This bill sets up a program administered by the Department of Justice to provide grants to counties or law enforcement agencies that implement a firearm buyback program that meets certain criteria. This describes the proposal at introduction; the recorded disposition below is separate.
2024-04-15: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide, and other intents. The provision concerns firearm access, safety, or prevention of firearm injury and may address only part of the death count. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill sets up a program administered by the Department of Justice to provide grants to counties or law enforcement agencies that implement a firearm buyback program that meets certain criteria.
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Angelito TenorioWisconsin Legislature · AB 1203
net zero emissions, carbon-free and renewable energy standards, and creating an office of sustainability and clean energy, granting rule-making authority, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty. (FE)
Apr 9, 2026 · Did not pass
Rep. Angelito Tenorio · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The introduced bill would require Wisconsin to achieve 100% clean electricity production by 2050 and change power-plant approval priorities and electricity standards. The in-state production requirement is the connection to the generation-mix fact. This describes the introduced proposal; its recorded legislative disposition is separate.
2026-04-09: Fiscal estimate received. The proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
The introduced bill would require Wisconsin to achieve 100% clean electricity production by 2050 and change power-plant approval priorities and electricity standards. The in-state production requirement is the connection to the generation-mix fact. Natural-gas share is gas-fired electricity-industry net generation divided by total in-state generation covered by EIA Table 5. The denominator excludes estimated small-scale generation outside that table. Gas-fired plants or other in-state generation resources concern this mix; procurement targets and authorizations are distinct from an operating plant or measured output. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Natural gas share of in-state electricity generation. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill creates an office of sustainability and clean energy and establishes clean electricity and emissions standards that must be met by specific dates. Office of sustainability and clean energy The bill creates in the Department of Administration an office of sustainability and clean energy. The secretary of administration must direct the office of sustainability and clean energy to establish, using rigorous sector-based modeling, an economy-wide decarbonization roadmap that incorporates, as appropriate, the state’s clean energy plan issued in 2022. The roadmap must be updated periodically. Emissions standards The bill provides that, by 2050, the state must achieve 100 percent clean electricity production and emit no more carbon into the atmosphere than can be removed economy-wide. Carbon-free and renewable energy standards Current law generally requires electric providers, which include electric utilities and retail electric cooperatives, to ensure that, in a given year, a certain specified percentage of the electricity sold to customers and members is generated from renewable resources. The bill creates a definition of “carbon-free energy” and requires that for the years 2030 to 2034, electric providers and certain state agencies have a minimum carbon-free energy percentage of 50 percent. Later, the bill requires electric providers and certain state agencies to have the following minimum carbon-free energy percentages: 1) for the years 2035 to 2039, 65 percent; 2) for the years 2040 to 2044, 80 percent; 3) for the years 2045 to 2049, 90 percent, and 4) for 2050 and each year thereafter, 100 percent. The bill requires each electric provider to submit a transition plan to PSC that includes the electric provider’s plan for satisfying the carbon-free energy percentage requirements. The transition plan must identify electric generating facilities that the electric provider proposes to add or retire. PSC may approve a transition plan only if certain criteria are satisfied, including that any continued use of an electric generating facility that is not a carbon-free facility is the most cost-effective decision for customers and that any retirements of such facilities are the most cost-effective decisions for customers. In addition, the bill creates a definition of “specified renewable energy” and requires that for the years 2030 to 2034, each electric provider have a minimum specified renewable energy percentage of 20 percent. Later, the bill requires electric providers to have a minimum specified renewable energy percentage of 40 percent for the years 2035 to 2039, and to have a minimum specified renewable energy percentage of 60 percent for 2040 and each year thereafter. If an electric provider violates either the minimum carbon-free energy percentage requirement or the minimum specified renewable energy percentage requirement, PSC may order the electric provider to engage in activities that would satisfy the requirement. An electric provider that violates such an order is subject to a forfeiture in an amount not to exceed the estimated cost of the electric provider to satisfy the requirement for which the order was issued. Also, under current law, a person seeking to construct a large electric generating facility having a nominal capacity of 100 megawatts or more or a high-voltage transmission line must obtain a CPCN from PSC. The bill requires PSC to, in taking action on CPCN applications, prioritize applications for facilities that minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Further, the bill requires PSC to make all of the following determinations to approve an application for a CPCN for a large electric generating facility: 1) that the proposed facility will not impede the applicant’s ability to satisfy the bill’s minimum carbon-free energy percentage requirement or minimum specified renewable energy percentage requirement; 2) that the applicant agreed to pay laborers, ironworkers, technicians, and mechanics the prevailing wage or the rate under an applicable collective bargaining agreement, whichever is greater; 3) that locations where other large electric generating facilities have been retired are used to the extent practicable; 4) that persons who previously worked at other large electric generating facilities that have been retired will be hired to the extent practicable; 5) that persons residing in this state will be hired to the extent practicable; and 6) that persons residing in the municipality where the large electric generating facility will be located will perform at least 15 percent of the labor hours on the project, to the extent practicable. Also, the bill allows PSC to determine that a proposed facility or high-voltage transmission does not satisfy certain requirements for granting a CPCN related to air pollution impact even if the proposed facility or high-voltage transmission line satisfies current state air pollution laws. The bill also prohibits PSC from issuing a certificate of authority (CA) to an electric utility for a project unless PSC determines that issuing the CA will not impede the ability of the electric utility to satisfy the bill’s minimum carbon-free energy percentage requirement or minimum specified renewable energy percentage requirement. Under current law, a public utility must obtain a CA from PSC to construct, extend, improve, or add to its existing facilities. Under the bill, the office of sustainability and clean energy is directed to create, using rigorous sector-based modeling, an economy-wide decarbonization roadmap. The roadmap is to be updated periodically. Apprentice utilization standards Under the bill, a contractor or subcontractor on a construction project of certain electric-generating facilities with estimated construction costs of not less than $10,000,000 must make a good faith effort to utilize specific percentages of registered apprentices on the projects. A contractor or subcontractor that does not meet the utilization thresholds must provide a written explanation to the Department of Workforce Development of the good faith effort to meet the requirement accompanied by supporting documentation. Failure to provide the explanation and supporting documentation subjects the contractor or subcontractor to forfeiture.
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Ann RoeWisconsin Legislature · AB 607
housing and homelessness; emergency rental assistance program; indigent civil legal services; workforce development; community action agencies; poverty reports; mental health; economic security; reimbursement for nonemergency medical transportation services; urban mass transit aid; lead exposure and abatement services; lead service line replacement; providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures; granting rule-making authority; and making an appropriation. (FE)
Mar 23, 2026 · Did not pass
Rep. Ann Roe · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sponsored AB607: housing and homelessness; emergency rental assistance program; indigent civil legal services; workforce development; community action agencies; poverty reports; mental health; economic security; reimbursement for nonemergency medical transportation services; urban mass transit aid; lead exposure and abatement services; lead service line replacement; providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures; granting rule-making authority; and making an appropriation. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: Housing, homelessness, and indigence Grants to facilitate the independent living of homeless persons Under current law, the Department of Administration provides housing grants to…
2026-03-23: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and tenant-paid utilities. Rental protections, assistance, and housing supply concern components of rental-market conditions; they do not set Wisconsin’s median rent. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Housing, homelessness, and indigence Grants to facilitate the independent living of homeless persons Under current law, the Department of Administration provides housing grants to counties, municipalities, community action agencies, and private organizations for the purpose of providing housing and associated supportive services to homeless individuals and families in order to facilitate the movement of homeless persons to independent living. This bill provides an additional $5,000,000 in the 2025-27 fiscal biennium to fund that grant program. Emergency rental assistance grants The bill creates an emergency rental assistance program under which DOA awards grants to provide tenant-based rental assistance to individuals and families who have suffered an economic hardship and whose annual household income does not exceed 80 percent of the median household income for the county in which the individual or family resides. The bill appropriates $10,000,000 for the program in the 2025-27 fiscal biennium. Grants to defray housing costs The bill increases funding for DOA to award grants to persons or families of low or moderate income to defray housing costs. The bill provides an additional $220,000 in each fiscal year of the 2025-27 fiscal biennium for that purpose. Duties of the Interagency Council on Homelessness The bill requires the Interagency Council on Homelessness to do all of the following every two years: 1. Identify ways in which DOA and other state agencies specified in the bill and the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority can increase access to services for homeless individuals and families, including homeless children and youths as defined under federal law. 2. Advise each of the state agencies specified in the bill and WHEDA to revise any policy or
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Calvin CallahanWisconsin Legislature · AB 542
grants to schools to acquire proactive firearm detection software and making an appropriation. (FE)
Apr 15, 2024 · Did not pass
Rep. Calvin Callahan · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sponsored AB542: grants to schools to acquire proactive firearm detection software and making an appropriation. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: ildings, equipment, and facilities, and expenditures to provide blueprints or mapping data to law enforcement. This bill requires DOJ to award grants of up to $325,000 to schools to acquire proactive firearm detection software and provides $4,000,000 in the 2023-25 fiscal biennium for the grants. Under the bill, schools must apply for the grants jointly with the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the school. If the funding is insufficient to award grants to all eligible applicants, the bill requires DOJ to award the grants to qualified…
2024-04-15: Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide, and other intents. The provision concerns firearm access, safety, or prevention of firearm injury and may address only part of the death count. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
ildings, equipment, and facilities, and expenditures to provide blueprints or mapping data to law enforcement. This bill requires DOJ to award grants of up to $325,000 to schools to acquire proactive firearm detection software and provides $4,000,000 in the 2023-25 fiscal biennium for the grants. Under the bill, schools must apply for the grants jointly with the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the school. If the funding is insufficient to award grants to all eligible applicants, the bill requires DOJ to award the grants to qualified applicants in the order that the applications were received.
2 proposalsView proposals from Rep. Darrin MadisonWisconsin Legislature · AB 854
violence prevention grants and making an appropriation. (FE)
Apr 9, 2026 · Did not pass
Rep. Darrin Madison · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sponsored AB854: violence prevention grants and making an appropriation. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: This bill directs the Department of Health Services to establish a program to distribute funds to local health departments or tribal health centers that apply to conduct violence prevention programs or to award grants to organizations to conduct violence prevention programs. Under the bill, the amounts collected from the excise taxes on vapor products are appropriated to fund the grants. The bill prohibits local health departments and tribal health centers from distributing grant funds under the program to a law enforcement agency, tribal law enforcement agency, or any entity that…
2026-04-09: Fiscal estimate received. The proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
The fact counts deaths whose underlying cause is homicide. The provision addresses a defined prevention or measurement mechanism; a general criminal penalty or post-offense benefit alone does not demonstrate homicide prevention. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Homicide deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill directs the Department of Health Services to establish a program to distribute funds to local health departments or tribal health centers that apply to conduct violence prevention programs or to award grants to organizations to conduct violence prevention programs. Under the bill, the amounts collected from the excise taxes on vapor products are appropriated to fund the grants. The bill prohibits local health departments and tribal health centers from distributing grant funds under the program to a law enforcement agency, tribal law enforcement agency, or any entity that provides services in conjunction with or through a law enforcement agency or tribal law enforcement agency. The bill increases the number of authorized DHS positions by one position in fiscal year 2025-26 for administration of the program and also increases funding to DHS for this position.
violence prevention grants and making an appropriation. (FE)
Oct 3, 2024 · Did not pass
Rep. Darrin Madison · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sponsored AB1221: violence prevention grants and making an appropriation. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: This bill directs the Department of Health Services to establish a program to distribute funds to local health departments or tribal health centers that apply to conduct violence prevention programs or to award grants to organizations to conduct violence prevention programs. Under the bill, the amounts collected from the excise taxes on vapor products are appropriated to fund the grants. The bill prohibits local health departments and tribal health centers from distributing grant funds under the program to a law enforcement agency, tribal law enforcement agency, or any entity that…
2024-10-03: Representative Vining added as a coauthor. The proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
The fact counts deaths whose underlying cause is homicide. The provision addresses a defined prevention or measurement mechanism; a general criminal penalty or post-offense benefit alone does not demonstrate homicide prevention. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Homicide deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill directs the Department of Health Services to establish a program to distribute funds to local health departments or tribal health centers that apply to conduct violence prevention programs or to award grants to organizations to conduct violence prevention programs. Under the bill, the amounts collected from the excise taxes on vapor products are appropriated to fund the grants. The bill prohibits local health departments and tribal health centers from distributing grant funds under the program to a law enforcement agency, tribal law enforcement agency, or any entity that provides services in conjunction with or through a law enforcement agency or tribal law enforcement agency. The bill increases the number of authorized DHS positions by one position in fiscal year 2023-24 for administration of the program and also increases funding to DHS for this position.
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Deb AndracaWisconsin Legislature · AB 319
extreme risk protection temporary restraining orders and injunctions, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty. (FE)
Mar 23, 2026 · Did not pass
Rep. Deb Andraca · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sponsored AB319: extreme risk protection temporary restraining orders and injunctions, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: Under current law, a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm, and must surrender all firearms, if the person is subject to a domestic abuse injunction, a child abuse injunction, or, in certain cases, a harassment or an individuals-at-risk injunction. If a person surrenders a firearm because the person is subject to one of those injunctions, the firearm may not be returned to the person until a court determines that the injunction has been vacated or has expired and that the person is not otherwise prohibited from…
2026-03-23: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide, and other intents. The provision concerns firearm access, safety, or prevention of firearm injury and may address only part of the death count. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Under current law, a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm, and must surrender all firearms, if the person is subject to a domestic abuse injunction, a child abuse injunction, or, in certain cases, a harassment or an individuals-at-risk injunction. If a person surrenders a firearm because the person is subject to one of those injunctions, the firearm may not be returned to the person until a court determines that the injunction has been vacated or has expired and that the person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm. A person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under such an injunction is guilty of a Class G felony for violating the prohibition. This bill creates an extreme risk protection temporary restraining order and injunction to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm. Under the bill, either a law enforcement officer or a family or household member of the person may file a petition with a court to request an extreme risk protection injunction. The petition must allege facts that show that the person is substantially likely to injure themself or another if the person possesses a firearm. Under the bill, the petitioner may request the court to consider first granting a temporary restraining order. If the petitioner requests a TRO, the petitioner must include evidence that there is an immediate and present danger that the person may injure themself or another if the person possesses a firearm and that waiting for the injunction hearing increases the immediate and present danger. If the petitioner requests a TRO, the court must hear the petition in an expedited manner. The judge must issue a TRO if, after questioning the petitioner and witnesses or relying on affidavits, the judge determines that it is substantially likely that the
Only current Wisconsin officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Wisconsin statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
Wisconsin snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to Wisconsin, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.