Wisconsin · individual fact

Wisconsin budget, debt, and interest

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.

Events and reviewed actionsNo saved observations in this range.Sep 1, 2005Jul 31, 2026
✦ Major events & context · 50National context · Hurricane Katrina emergency appropriations · 2005-09-08Katrina relief fundingNational context · Medicare prescription drug benefit begins · 2006-01-01Medicare Part D beginsNational context · Iraq and Afghanistan war funding assessment · 2007-07-31War funding assessmentNational context · Economic Stimulus Act tax rebates · 2008-02-132008 tax rebatesNational context · Treasury support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac · 2008-09-07Fannie / Freddie supportNational context · Great Financial Crisis and Great Recession · 2008-09-15Great Financial CrisisNational context · Emergency stabilization law creates TARP · 2008-10-03TARP stabilizationNational context · Federal Reserve cuts rates close to zero · 2008-12-16Fed near-zero ratesNational context · American Recovery and Reinvestment Act · 2009-02-17Recovery ActNational context · Affordable Care Act changes health financing · 2010-03-23Health-care financing lawNational context · Tax extensions and payroll-tax relief · 2010-12-172010 tax / benefit dealNational context · Budget Control Act and debt-limit agreement · 2011-08-022011 budget agreementNational context · S&P lowers the U.S. sovereign credit rating · 2011-08-05S&P rating downgradeNational context · Fiscal-cliff tax agreement · 2013-01-02Fiscal-cliff agreementNational context · Automatic federal spending cuts begin · 2013-03-01Federal spending cutsNational context · Shutdown ends and debt limit is suspended · 2013-10-172013 funding / debt dealNational context · Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 · 2013-12-262013 budget caps dealNational context · Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 · 2015-11-022015 budget / debt dealNational context · Fed begins lifting rates after the crisis · 2015-12-16Fed rate normalizationNational context · 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act · 2017-12-222017 tax lawNational context · Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 · 2018-02-092018 budget / debt dealNational context · 2018–19 partial government shutdown · 2018-12-222018–19 funding lapseNational context · Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 · 2019-08-022019 budget / debt dealNational context · COVID-19 pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · Emergency rate cuts and Treasury purchases · 2020-03-15Fed pandemic responseNational context · CARES Act pandemic relief · 2020-03-27CARES Act reliefNational context · Further pandemic relief and annual funding · 2020-12-27December pandemic reliefNational context · American Rescue Plan · 2021-03-11American Rescue PlanNational context · Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act · 2021-11-15Infrastructure fundingNational context · Congress raises the debt limit after two impasses · 2021-12-162021 debt-limit increaseNational context · Federal Reserve begins 2022 rate increases · 2022-03-16Fed rate increasesNational context · Semiconductor funding and investment credits · 2022-08-09CHIPS fundingNational context · PACT Act expands veterans’ benefits · 2022-08-10Veterans’ benefits expansionNational context · Inflation Reduction Act changes taxes and spending · 2022-08-16Energy / health / tax lawNational context · Student-loan cancellation cost recorded · 2022-09-30Loan-cost accountingNational context · Inflation and rates raise interest costs above forecasts · 2023-01-09Inflation / interest costsNational context · Fed reports suspension of Treasury payments · 2023-01-13Fed payments suspendedNational context · Disaster tax deadlines move into the next fiscal year · 2023-02-24Disaster tax deferralsNational context · Fiscal Responsibility Act · 2023-06-032023 debt-limit agreementNational context · Fitch lowers the U.S. sovereign credit rating · 2023-08-01Fitch rating downgradeNational context · Student-loan cost reversal lowers recorded outlays · 2023-08-31Loan-cost reversalNational context · National security supplemental funding · 2024-04-24Security supplementalNational context · Federal Reserve begins 2024 rate cuts · 2024-09-182024 Fed rate cutsNational context · Social Security Fairness Act becomes law · 2025-01-05Social Security benefitsNational context · Treasury begins extraordinary measures · 2025-01-21Debt-limit measuresNational context · Broad U.S. tariff announcement · 2025-04-02Tariffs / customs receiptsNational context · Moody’s lowers the U.S. sovereign credit rating · 2025-05-16Moody’s rating downgradeNational context · 2025 tax and spending reconciliation law · 2025-07-042025 tax / spending lawNational context · 2025 federal government shutdown · 2025-10-012025 funding lapseNational context · Supreme Court rejects IEEPA tariff authority · 2026-02-20Tariff authority ruling● Wisconsin Legislature · 55342162202● U.S. Congress · Wisconsin delegation · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.◆ Governor · 62■ Wisconsin agencies · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.2005-09-012026-07-31

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
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California$166.39B—
#2New York$120.59B—
#3Texas$70.05B—
#4Massachusetts$65.87B—
#5New Jersey$57.23B—
#6Pennsylvania$48.67B—
#7Illinois$43.38B—
#8Virginia$33.73B—
#9Connecticut$33.27B—
#10Ohio$32.29B—
#11Washington$30.62B—
#12Maryland$25.9B—
#13Michigan$25.02B—
#14Colorado$23.57B—
#15Wisconsin · your comparison$22.79B—
#16Florida$20.14B—
#17Minnesota$17.03B—
#18Oregon$16.91B—
#19Louisiana$16.09B—
#20South Carolina$15.36B—
#21West Virginia$15.08B—
#22Georgia$14.05B—
#23North Carolina$13.13B—
#24Hawaii$11.72B—
#25Rhode Island$11.41B—
#26Alabama$10.99B—
#27Oklahoma$10.15B—
#28Kentucky$10.08B—
#29Tennessee$9.03B—
#30Indiana$8.52B—
#31Iowa$8.06B—
#32Arkansas$8.05B—
#33Mississippi$7.72B—
#34New Hampshire$7.58B—
#35Kansas$7.16B—
#36New Mexico$7.12B—
#37Missouri$6.99B—
#38Arizona$6.88B—
#39Alaska$5.72B—
#40Utah$5.55B—
#41Maine$5.3B—
#42North Dakota$4.89B—
#43South Dakota$4.67B—
#44Delaware$3.69B—
#45Nebraska$3.39B—
#46Nevada$2.89B—
#47Montana$2.76B—
#48Vermont$2.67B—
#49Wyoming$1.26B—
#50Idaho$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.

Wisconsin · state comparison

Where state revenue comes from

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
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Texas$54.35B—
#2California$53.33B—
#3Florida$40.09B—
#4Washington$22.81B—
#5New York$19.99B—
#6Ohio$16.33B—
#7Illinois$16.05B—
#8Pennsylvania$15.6B—
#9New Jersey$14.31B—
#10Tennessee$14.08B—
#11Arizona$13.16B—
#12Michigan$12.7B—
#13North Carolina$12.16B—
#14Indiana$10.96B—
#15Massachusetts$9.4B—
#16Georgia$9.01B—
#17Minnesota$8.49B—
#18Nevada$8.4B—
#19Wisconsin · your comparison$7.59B—
#20Virginia$7.4B—
#21Maryland$6.85B—
#22South Carolina$6.44B—
#23Connecticut$6.23B—
#24Kentucky$5.8B—
#25Missouri$5.26B—
#26Mississippi$5.07B—
#27Arkansas$5.07B—
#28Louisiana$4.87B—
#29Hawaii$4.79B—
#30Colorado$4.67B—
#31Iowa$4.64B—
#32Utah$4.63B—
#33Alabama$4.59B—
#34Kansas$4.33B—
#35New Mexico$4.33B—
#36Oklahoma$3.81B—
#37Idaho$3.09B—
#38Nebraska$2.97B—
#39Maine$2.35B—
#40West Virginia$1.82B—
#41South Dakota$1.68B—
#42Rhode Island$1.63B—
#43Oregon$1.34B—
#44North Dakota$1.32B—
#45Wyoming$1.01B—
#46Vermont$597.33M—
#47Alaska$0—
#47Delaware$0—
#47Montana$0—
#47New 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.

Wisconsin · state comparison

Where state operating spending goes

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
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California$156.71B—
#2New York$97.35B—
#3Texas$57.32B—
#4Illinois$41.13B—
#5Florida$40.11B—
#6Ohio$39.77B—
#7Pennsylvania$39.34B—
#8Massachusetts$34.12B—
#9North Carolina$30.64B—
#10New Jersey$28.06B—
#11Arizona$26.02B—
#12Michigan$24.37B—
#13Virginia$23.68B—
#14Minnesota$23.37B—
#15Indiana$22.93B—
#16Maryland$21.61B—
#17Kentucky$20.54B—
#18Oregon$20.47B—
#19Washington$19.6B—
#20Georgia$18.99B—
#21Louisiana$18.69B—
#22Tennessee$16.42B—
#23Wisconsin · your comparison$16.26B—
#24Missouri$15.65B—
#25Oklahoma$14.57B—
#26Colorado$13.6B—
#27South Carolina$12.84B—
#28New Mexico$10.72B—
#29Iowa$10.26B—
#30Alabama$9.73B—
#31Arkansas$8.67B—
#32Mississippi$8.08B—
#33Utah$6.91B—
#34Kansas$6.84B—
#35Nevada$6.62B—
#36West Virginia$6.24B—
#37Maine$5.7B—
#38Nebraska$4.97B—
#39Connecticut$4.88B—
#40Rhode Island$4.54B—
#41Hawaii$4.14B—
#42Delaware$3.97B—
#43Idaho$3.73B—
#44Alaska$3.27B—
#45Montana$2.89B—
#46New Hampshire$2.72B—
#47Vermont$2.69B—
#48North Dakota$2.09B—
#49South Dakota$1.95B—
#50Wyoming$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.

Wisconsin · state comparison

State operating costs and the enacted budget

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
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California$287.03B—
#2New York$161.37B—
#3Texas$136.18B—
#4Florida$86.61B—
#5Pennsylvania$77.15B—
#6Illinois$75.67B—
#7Ohio$66.77B—
#8New Jersey$64.53B—
#9Massachusetts$61.38B—
#10North Carolina$59.01B—
#11Michigan$57.27B—
#12Virginia$53.45B—
#13Washington$49.82B—
#14Georgia$45.19B—
#15Maryland$45.06B—
#16Oregon$41.41B—
#17Arizona$38.71B—
#18Minnesota$38.1B—
#19Indiana$37.4B—
#20Kentucky$36.94B—
#21Wisconsin · your comparison$34.5B—
#22Missouri$34.43B—
#23South Carolina$32.85B—
#24Colorado$32.73B—
#25Louisiana$31.67B—
#26Tennessee$31.12B—
#27Alabama$26.99B—
#28Oklahoma$24.28B—
#29Utah$22.7B—
#30New Mexico$21.94B—
#31Connecticut$21.22B—
#32Iowa$19.89B—
#33Kansas$18.39B—
#34Hawaii$16.62B—
#35Mississippi$16.46B—
#36Arkansas$16.28B—
#37West Virginia$13.19B—
#38Nevada$12.43B—
#39Nebraska$10.41B—
#40Maine$10.12B—
#41Delaware$9.24B—
#42Rhode Island$8.93B—
#43Alaska$8.4B—
#44Idaho$8.21B—
#45New Hampshire$7.12B—
#46Montana$6.44B—
#47Vermont$6.28B—
#48North Dakota$5.63B—
#49South Dakota$4.55B—
#50Wyoming$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.

2025–27 biennium · Signed July 3, 2025

Enacted appropriations and authorizations

$114.4B

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.

Where State tax revenue comes from

FY2025 ACFR actual

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.

Income taxes
$12.7B · 54.4%
Sales and excise taxes
$8.6B · 36.9%
Motor-fuel and transportation taxes
$1.1B · 4.7%
Other taxes
$436.4M · 1.9%
Public utility taxes
$369.3M · 1.6%
Other dedicated taxes
$124.9M · 0.5%

2025–27 enacted appropriations

2025–27 biennium

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.

Human relations and resources
$50.9B · 45.8%
Education
$36.4B · 32.7%
Environmental resources
$9.7B · 8.7%
Shared revenue and tax relief
$7.7B · 6.9%
Other government functions
$6.5B · 5.9%

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

David Crowley

1 statement

Democratic · Governor · WI

Budgets, spending & debt

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

David Crowley — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

2026 Wisconsin Secretary of State — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 3 statements

JoCasta Zamarripa

3 statements

Democratic · Secretary of State · WI

Budgets, spending & debt

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

JoCasta Zamarripa — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
View 2 more statements from JoCasta Zamarripa
Budgets, spending & debt

Calls for major state investment in child-care access, quality, and provider pay; the Secretary of State does not control state appropriations.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Child Care

Candidate campaign source

Calls for major state investment in child-care access, quality, and provider pay; the Secretary of State does not control state appropriations.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026

JoCasta Zamarripa — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Budgets, spending & debt

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

JoCasta Zamarripa — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗

2026 Wisconsin U.S. House — District 1 — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Bryan Steil

1 statement

Republican · U.S. House District 1 · WI

Budgets, spending & debt

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

Bryan Steil — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
Race groups · Page 1 of 3
How statements are selected

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 proposals
View proposals from Rep. Alex Joers
Wisconsin 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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Wisconsin Legislature · AB 673

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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Angelito Tenorio

Wisconsin State Assembly, District 14 · D–WI

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Angelito Tenorio
Wisconsin 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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Ann Roe

Wisconsin State Assembly, District 44 · D–WI

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Ann Roe
Wisconsin 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
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Calvin Callahan

Wisconsin State Assembly, District 35 · R–WI

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Calvin Callahan
Wisconsin 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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Darrin Madison

Wisconsin State Assembly, District 10 · D–WI

2 proposals
View proposals from Rep. Darrin Madison
Wisconsin 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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Wisconsin Legislature · AB 1221

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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Deb Andraca

Wisconsin State Assembly, District 23 · D–WI

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Deb Andraca
Wisconsin 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
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

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.