Senate Bill 509
Operation of agricultural vehicles on highways and providing a penalty. (FE)
Became law
The governor signed it on Apr 24, 2014. It's .
-
Introduced, passed
Jan 22, 2014
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Senate vote, passed
Passed Mar 11, 2014
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed Mar 20, 2014
-
Governor, passed
Signed
-
Law, here now
2013 Wisconsin Act 377
Latest entry in the official record, Apr 24, 2014: “Published 4-24-2014”
Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.
Terms on this page
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
What it does
Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.
Definition of implement of husbandry Current law includes various provisions relating to the operation on highways of implements of husbandry and farm tractors. An "implement of husbandry" is generally defined as a vehicle or piece of equipment or machinery designed for agricultural purposes, used exclusively in the conduct of agricultural operations, and used principally off the highway, or a trailer-mounted bulk liquid fertilizer container. However, an "implement of husbandry" does not include certain vehicles, such as motor trucks or farm trucks, with or without a trailer attached, when operated as a commercial motor vehicle on a highway. A "farm tractor" is defined as a motor vehicle designed and used primarily as a farm implement for drawing plows, mowing machines, and other implements of husbandry.
This bill modifies the definition of implement of husbandry. Under the bill, an implement of husbandry is a self-propelled or towed vehicle that is manufactured, designed, or reconstructed to be used and that is exclusively used in the conduct of agricultural operations. An implement of husbandry includes a combination of vehicles in which each vehicle in the combination is an implement of husbandry. An implement of husbandry may include a farm tractor, a farm trailer, a self-propelled combine, or other vehicles.
Read the full summary Show less
Definition and registration of agricultural commercial motor vehicles The bill creates a definition of an agricultural commercial motor vehicle. An agricultural commercial motor vehicle (agricultural CMV) is defined as a commercial motor vehicle to which all of the following apply: 1) the vehicle is substantially designed or equipped, or materially altered from its original construction, for the purpose of agricultural use; 2) the vehicle was designed and manufactured primarily for highway use and, with limited exceptions, was manufactured to meet federal motor vehicle highway safety standards; 3) the vehicle is used exclusively in the conduct of agricultural operations; and 4) the vehicle is directly engaged in harvesting farm products, directly applies fertilizer, spray, or seeds to a farm field, or distributes feed to livestock. An agricultural CMV is not an implement of husbandry.
Under the bill, an agricultural CMV is exempt from motor vehicle registration with the Department of Transportation (DOT).
Under the bill, the owner or operator of an agricultural CMV may certify, on a form prescribed by DOT, that the vehicle and its operation satisfy all requirements to be an agricultural CMV. This certification may be offered to DOT or any traffic officer as evidence of the truth of the matters asserted in the certification, but the certification is not conclusive of these matters.
Vehicle size and weight limitations Under current law, with limited exceptions, no person may operate on a highway any vehicle or combination of vehicles that exceeds certain statutory limits on size, weight, or load unless that person obtains a permit issued by DOT or a local highway authority. Current law imposes certain weight limitations on vehicles and vehicle combinations, including limitations based on the number and spacing of axles. Certain exceptions allow vehicles or vehicle combinations to operate without a permit at weights higher than the general statutory weight limitations. For example, from September 1 to December 31, a person may, without a permit, exceed the general statutory weight limitations by not more than 15 percent in certain vehicles or vehicle combinations that are: 1) transporting corn, soybeans, potatoes, vegetables, or cranberries from the field to storage or processing; or 2) transporting manure to or from a farm.
Also under current law, DOT or a local highway authority may impose special weight limits on highways that, because of weakness of the roadbed due to deterioration or climatic conditions or other special or temporary conditions, would likely be seriously damaged or destroyed in the absence of the special limits. If special weight limits are imposed, the limits must be posted by highway signs along the affected highways. The special weight limits apply regardless of whether a vehicle is being operated under an overweight permit unless the permit expressly authorizes the special weight limits to be exceeded.
Current law authorizes local authorities to designate highways under their jurisdiction as class "B" highways. With limited exceptions, the maximum gross weight and per-axle vehicle weight permitted for vehicles on a class "B" highway is 60 percent of the weight allowed by statute if the vehicle were operating on a highway that is not designated as a class "B" highway.
This bill creates an increased weight limit for all implements of husbandry and agricultural CMVs that is approximately 15 percent higher than the general statutory weight limit. For implements of husbandry, this increased weight allowance generally applies in lieu of, not in addition to, any other increased weight allowance for implements of husbandry. With this increased allowance, the maximum gross weight for an implement of husbandry or agricultural CMV operated on a highway without a permit may not exceed 92,000 pounds, although the increased weight allowance does not apply on interstate highways and there are limited exceptions (discussed below) to this 92,000 pound limit. If an implement of husbandry or agricultural CMV exceeds the increased weight allowance created under the bill, the amount of the overweight violation is computed based on the general statutory weight limitations, not on the weight allowance that is approximately 15 percent higher. If the implement of husbandry is an empty potato harvester and, if traveling on the highway for more than 0.25 miles, is accompanied by one or more escort vehicles operating with hazard lights activated, there is no per-axle weight limit for the potato harvester, but the potato harvester is subject to posted special weight limits and is subject to the maximum gross weight limitation of 92,000 pounds. In addition, a potato harvester is exempt from the reduction of permissible vehicle weight when operating on a highway designated by local authorities as a class "B" highway. Under the limited exceptions, there is no per-axle or gross weight limit, except on interstate highways and highways posted with special weight limits, for the following: 1) an implement of husbandry or agricultural CMV being operated or transported by a person engaged in the business of delivering, repairing, or servicing implements of husbandry or agricultural CMVs (implement dealer) or farmer for purposes of delivery, repair, or servicing and being operated or transported directly between a farmer's owned or leased land and the business of an implement dealer located within 75 miles; and 2) certain self-propelled implements of husbandry, such as combines, forage harvesters, and fertilizer or pesticide application equipment, traveling between fields and operated on the highway for a distance of 0.25 miles or less.
Under current law, unless an exception applies, a person may not, without a permit, operate on a highway any vehicle having a total width in excess of 8 feet 6 inches. Under one exception, there is no width limitation for an implement of husbandry temporarily operated on a highway in the course of performance of its work. Under another exception, a farm tractor may have a total outside width of up to 12 feet or, if operated on most parts of the interstate highway system, 9 feet. Under yet another exception, a farm tractor exceeding 12 feet in width, and an implement of husbandry not being operated in the course of performance of its work and exceeding 8 feet 6 inches in width, may be moved, towed, or hauled over the highways, without a permit, between one-half hour before sunrise and sunset on Mondays to Thursdays and from one-half hour before sunrise to 2 p.m. on Fridays, but this exception generally does not apply on the interstate highway system. DOT may issue annual or consecutive month permits (farm machinery permits) for the movement, towing, or hauling of farm tractors exceeding 12 feet in width, and of implements of husbandry not being operated in the course of performance of their work and exceeding 8 feet 6 inches in width, on the interstate highway system.
Under this bill, there is generally no width limitation for implements of husbandry operated on a highway. However, certain wide implements of husbandry are subject to lighting and marking requirements (discussed below). There is also no width limitation if the implement of husbandry is being operated or transported by an implement dealer or farmer for purposes of delivery, repair, or servicing and being operated or transported directly between a farmer's owned or leased land and the business of an implement dealer located within 75 miles, but, if applicable, the lighting and marking requirements for wide implements of husbandry (discussed below) apply. If the implement of husbandry is being transported rather than operated, certain provisions of current law relating to side projections of loads do not apply. The bill establishes a general total width limitation for agricultural commercial motor vehicles, operated without a permit, of 10 feet, but provides a total width limitation of 12 feet for agricultural CMVs operated for the purpose of spreading lime or fertilizer and having extending tires, fenders, or fender flares.
The bill also eliminates DOT's issuance of farm machinery permits, repeals the general width limitation of 12 feet for farm tractors, and repeals the exception under current law authorizing the operation of certain farm tractors and implements of husbandry that would otherwise not be authorized on the highway between one-half hour before sunrise and sunset on Mondays to Thursdays and from one-half hour before sunrise to 2 p.m. on Fridays.
Under current law, unless an exception applies, a person may not, without a permit, operate on a highway any single vehicle with an overall length in excess of 45 feet or any combination of two vehicles with an overall length in excess of 70 feet.
Under one exception, there is no length limitation for implements of husbandry temporarily operated on a highway.
Also under current law, unless an exception applies, a person may not, without a permit, operate on a highway any vehicle towing, or having attached to it, two or more other vehicles. Under one exception, two trailers used primarily as implements of husbandry in connection with seasonal agricultural activities or one such trailer and any other implement of husbandry may be towed by a farm tractor if the operation of the vehicle combination (implement of husbandry train) is exclusively a farming operation and not for the transportation of property for hire and if the overall length of the vehicle combination does not exceed 60 feet. Under another exception, two trailers transporting empty tanks used for hauling or storing liquid agricultural fertilizer or two implements of husbandry, including two empty trailers used primarily as implements of husbandry in connection with seasonal agricultural activities, may be towed by a motor truck or truck tractor if the overall length of the vehicle combination (truck-drawn agricultural train) does not exceed 60 feet.
This bill creates length limitations for implements of husbandry operated on a highway without a permit based in part on the number of vehicles being operated.
Under the bill, if the implement of husbandry is a single vehicle, it may not exceed 60 feet in length. If the implement of husbandry is a two-vehicle combination, it may not exceed 100 feet in length. If the vehicle combination is an implement of husbandry train or a truck-drawn agricultural train, its length may not exceed 70 feet or, if it is traveling at a speed of 20 miles per hour or less, 100 feet. The bill also modifies the statutory description of an implement of husbandry train to specify that it consists of three implements of husbandry. The same length limitation that applies to a one-vehicle or two-vehicle implement of husbandry also applies if the one-vehicle or two-vehicle implement of husbandry is being operated or transported by an implement dealer or farmer for purposes of delivery, repair, or servicing and being operated or transported directly between a farmer's owned or leased land and the business of an implement dealer located within 75 miles.
Under current law, unless an exception applies, a person may not, without a permit, operate on a highway any vehicle having an overall height in excess of 13.5 feet. Under one exception, there is no height limitation for implements of husbandry temporarily operated on a highway.
Under this bill, there is no height limitation for implements of husbandry operated on a highway. The bill also specifies that the operator of the implement of husbandry is responsible for ensuring that there is adequate height clearance between the implement of husbandry and any overhead structure or obstruction.
The bill creates a new annual or consecutive month permit, referred to as a "no-fee permit," issued by DOT and local authorities for implements of husbandry and agricultural CMVs that exceed statutory length or weight limitations. For purposes of this no-fee permit, the bill defines a "maintaining authority" of a highway as: 1) DOT or its designee, with respect to a state trunk highway; or 2) the municipality or county responsible for maintenance of the highway or its designee (local authority), with respect to a highway that is not a state trunk highway. A maintaining authority may issue no-fee permits authorizing operation on highways under its jurisdiction of implements of husbandry and agricultural CMVs that exceed statutory length or weight limitations. A no-fee permit is not valid on interstate highways. With an exception, an application for a no-fee permit must be accompanied by a listing or map of the highways that may potentially be traveled under authorization of the permit. Under this exception, a municipality may, by resolution or ordinance, authorize operation of implements of husbandry and agricultural CMVs exceeding statutory length or weight limitations on any or all highways under the municipality's jurisdiction and issue a form letter and copy of the resolution or ordinance to serve as the approved permit. In such a municipality, a no-fee permit application is not required to be accompanied by a listing or map of the highways to be traveled under the permit and is not required to be made on a form prescribed by DOT for the application. Upon application, a no-fee permit may be amended by the maintaining authority to reflect changes in the applicant's circumstances, including a change in the highways to be traveled.
Under the bill, no fee may be charged for issuance or amendment of a no-fee permit or for any study or investigation in connection with the permit application.
If a maintaining authority denies an application for a no-fee permit, it must notify the applicant in writing of the denial and the notice must include a reasonable and structurally based explanation of the denial that relates to the preservation of the roadway. If the application is made with respect to certain self-propelled implements of husbandry, including combines, forage harvesters, and fertilizer or pesticide application equipment, the denial must also include an approved alternate route or map of highways for operation of the implement of husbandry.
Under current law, if any bill introduced in either house of the legislature directly or indirectly establishes an exception to vehicle weight limitations, DOT must prepare a report, containing specified information, relating to the bill within six weeks after the bill is introduced and before any vote is taken on the bill. This bill directs DOT not to prepare such a report on this bill because DOT recently completed the Implements of Husbandry Study, which contained the same or similar information that would be contained in a report on this bill.
Vehicle lighting and marking requirements Current law imposes various equipment requirements for vehicles operated on highways, including certain lighting and marking requirements. Although these requirements are generally inapplicable to implements of husbandry, farm tractors, and self-propelled farm implements, current law does impose various specific requirements with respect to lighting and marking of implements of husbandry and other agricultural vehicles.
Under current law, during hours of darkness, the following requirements apply with respect to each described vehicle operated on the highway:
1. A farm tractor or self-propelled farm implement must carry the lighted headlamps and tail lamps that would be required of other vehicles and the only color of light that may show to the rear is red.
2. An implement of husbandry must generally be equipped with at least two lighted lamps or lanterns exhibiting a white light to the front and either two lighted lamps or lanterns exhibiting a red light to the rear or two red reflectors mounted on the rear. Also, if the implement of husbandry extends at least four feet to the left of the center line of a towing vehicle, it must be equipped with an amber reflector mounted on the left side, facing forward, to mark the extreme width of the implement of husbandry to drivers of oncoming vehicles.
3. A truck-drawn agricultural train must have mounted on each side of every vehicle in the train at least one lamp emitting red light visible to the side or at least one red reflector or one slow moving vehicle (SMV) emblem visible from the side.
4. An implement of husbandry train must have mounted on each side of every vehicle in the train at least one lamp emitting a red light visible to the side or at least one red reflector visible from the side.
Certain requirements also apply to a farm tractor, implement of husbandry, or self-propelled farm implement, whether attended or unattended, parked, or left standing on the roadway or shoulder of a highway during hours of darkness.
Under current law, at times other than hours of darkness, an implement of husbandry train operated on a highway must display a red flag at least 12 inches square on each rear corner of the rearmost vehicle in the train.
Under current law, a person may not operate on a highway, day or night, any vehicle that usually travels at speeds of less than 25 miles per hour unless an SMV emblem is displayed on the most practicable visible rear area. However, instead of the SMV emblem, a vehicle may be equipped with a yellow or amber flashing light at least four inches in diameter attached to the left rear. The SMV emblem is also not required if the vehicle is only moving directly across the highway. A towed vehicle is exempt from this requirement if an SMV emblem on the towing vehicle is visible from the rear. The SMV emblem must meet standards and specifications for design and mounting established by rule by DOT, but this rule must conform to standards and specifications approved by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
In addition to the lighting and marking requirements described above, this bill creates new lighting and marking requirements for implements of husbandry operated on the highway that exceed 15 feet in total width or that extend over the center of the roadway into a lane intended for the opposite direction of travel (wide implements of husbandry). A person may not operate on a highway a wide implement of husbandry manufactured before January 1, 2014, unless it is equipped with all of the following: 1) at least two amber flashing warning lamps, visible from both the front and rear; 2) red retroreflective conspicuity material, visible to the rear;
3) at least two strips of yellow retroreflective conspicuity material, visible to the front; and 4) at least two red tail lamps. Any lamp or light required above must be lighted and visible when the wide implement of husbandry is operated on a highway and the lamps or lights, devices, and material described above must generally be mounted so as to indicate the lateral extremities of the implement of husbandry. A wide implement of husbandry manufactured before January 1, 2014, must also display an SMV emblem. An implement of husbandry manufactured on or after January 1, 2014, may not be operated on a highway unless it is equipped with all lighting and marking devices with which the implement of husbandry was originally equipped by the manufacturer and all such lighting and marking devices are in good working order and visible at the time of operation.
Under the bill, a person may not operate on a highway any self-propelled implement of husbandry manufactured before January 1, 2014, that exceeds 12 feet in total width, unless it is equipped with a yellow or amber rotating strobe or beacon light mounted at the highest practicable point, or two flashing amber lights visible to the front and rear, and the light or lights are activated. If an implement of husbandry exceeds 20 feet in total width, in addition to the applicable foregoing requirements, it must be accompanied by an escort vehicle operating with hazard lights activated unless it is traveling between fields and operated on the highway for a distance of 0.25 miles or less.
The bill also eliminates the requirement that an implement of husbandry train operated on a highway during the day must display a red flag on each rear corner of the rearmost vehicle in the train.
Rules of the road relating to implements of husbandry Under current law, on all roadways of sufficient width, the operator of a vehicle must generally drive on the right half of the roadway and in the right-hand lane of a three-lane highway, subject to various exceptions, such as when the operator is making a left turn or U-turn or is overtaking and passing another vehicle. A vehicle operator must also drive as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and, on a three-lane highway, may not drive in the center lane, subject to exceptions like those discussed above. With an exception, a vehicle operator may not drive in a lane when signs or signals indicate that the lane is allocated exclusively to vehicles moving in the opposite direction.
Also under current law, on a two-way roadway: 1) operators of vehicles proceeding in opposite directions must pass each other to the right and give to the other at least one-half of the main traveled portion of the roadway as nearly as possible; and 2) a vehicle operator may not drive on the left side of the center of the roadway on a grade or curve where the operator's view is obstructed or, with an exception, in an area designated by signs or pavement marking it as a no-passing zone. In general, a person may not drive a motor vehicle so slowly as to impede the normal movement of traffic and the operator of a slow-moving vehicle must, if practicable, yield the roadway to an overtaking vehicle.
This bill creates an exception allowing a wide implement of husbandry that satisfies applicable lighting and marking requirements and that is operated as much as practicable on the right half of the roadway and within a single lane to: 1) extend over the center of the roadway into a lane intended for travel in the opposite direction; 2) extend into the passing lane of a three-lane highway; and 3) extend into another lane intended for travel in the same direction if it does not impede other vehicles approaching from the rear. However, this exception does not exempt the operator of the wide implement of husbandry from the requirements and prohibitions above, specifying that a vehicle operator must pass a vehicle proceeding in the opposite direction on the right and yield half of the roadway if possible; a vehicle operator may not drive on the left side of the roadway on a grade or curve where the operator's view is obstructed or in an area designated as a no-passing zone; and a vehicle operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal movement of traffic and must, if practicable, yield the roadway to an overtaking vehicle.
Under current law, a vehicle operator may not drive on the left side of the center of a roadway designated, by signs or a solid yellow line, as a no-passing zone.
Who's behind it
7 senators are its . All 7 are Republicans.
15 more lawmakers .
See all 22 names Hide the names
Authors (7)
- Rob Cowles · Republican, Senate
- Glenn Grothman · Republican, Senate
- Richard Gudex · Republican, Senate
- Sheila Harsdorf · Republican, Senate
- Terry Moulton · Republican, Senate
- Luther S. Olsen · Republican, Senate
- Jerry Petrowski · Republican, Senate
Signed on in support (15)
- Alvin Ott · Republican, Assembly
- Garey Bies · Republican, Assembly
- Mark Born · Republican, Assembly
- Edward Brooks · Republican, Assembly
- Mary Czaja · Republican, Assembly
- Chris Danou · Democrat, Assembly
- Mike Endsley · Republican, Assembly
- John Jagler · Republican, Senate
- Robb Kahl · Democrat, Assembly
- Scott Krug · Republican, Assembly
- Bob Kulp · Republican, Assembly
- Dave Murphy · Republican, Assembly
- Jeff Mursau · Republican, Assembly
- Keith Ripp · Republican, Assembly
- Thomas Larson · Republican, Assembly
What it would cost
State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.
Versions and amendments
Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.
How lawmakers voted
There were 5 votes on this bill.
Senate Committee on Transportation vote on an amendment
Passed, 5 to 0 · Mar 7, 2014
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by Committee on Transportation, Public Safety, and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate Committee on Transportation vote to recommend it
Passed, 5 to 0 · Mar 7, 2014
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Transportation, Public Safety, and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly vote to pass it
Passed, 82 to 11 · Mar 20, 2014 · 6 didn't vote
See how each of the 99 representatives voted Hide the names
D: Democrat, R: Republican
Yes (82)
- Adam Neylon (R, 15)
- Alvin Ott (R, 3)
- Amy Loudenbeck (R, 31)
- André Jacque (R, 1)
- Andy Jorgensen (D, 43)
- Bob Kulp (R, 69)
- Brett Hulsey (D, 78)
- Chad Weininger (R, 4)
- Chris Danou (D, 92)
- Chris Kapenga (R, 33)
- Chris Taylor (D, 76)
- Christine Sinicki (D, 20)
- Cory Mason (D, 66)
- Dan Knodl (R, 24)
- Dana Wachs (D, 91)
- Daniel LeMahieu (R, 59)
- Dave Murphy (R, 56)
- David Craig (R, 28)
- Dean Kaufert (R, 53)
- Dean Knudson (R, 30)
- Debra Kolste (D, 44)
- Don Pridemore (R, 22)
- Duey Stroebel (R, 20)
- Edward Brooks (R, 50)
- Eric Genrich (D, 90)
- Fred Clark (D, 81)
- Frederick Kessler (D, 12)
- Garey Bies (R, 1)
- Gary Hebl (D, 46)
- Gary Tauchen (R, 6)
- Gordon Hintz (D, 54)
- Howard Marklein (R, 17)
- Janet Bewley (D, 25)
- Janis Ringhand (D, 15)
- Jeff Mursau (R, 36)
- Jeremy Thiesfeldt (R, 52)
- Jessie Rodriguez (R, 21)
- Jill Billings (D, 95)
- Jim Ott (R, 23)
- Jim Steineke (R, 5)
- JoCasta Zamarripa (D, 8)
- Joe Sanfelippo (R, 15)
- Joel Kleefisch (R, 38)
- John Jagler (R, 13)
- John Murtha (R, 29)
- John Nygren (R, 89)
- John Spiros (R, 86)
- Jon Richards (D, 19)
- Kathleen Bernier (R, 23)
- Katrina Shankland (D, 71)
- Keith Ripp (R, 42)
- Ken Skowronski (R, 82)
- Kevin Petersen (R, 57)
- Lee Nerison (R, 96)
- Leon Young (D, 16)
- Mandy Wright (D, 85)
- Mark Born (R, 37)
- Mary Czaja (R, 35)
- Mary Williams (R, 87)
- Melissa Sargent (D, 48)
- Michael Schraa (R, 53)
- Mike Endsley (R, 26)
- Mike Kuglitsch (R, 84)
- Pat Strachota (R, 58)
- Paul Tittl (R, 25)
- Penny Bernard Schaber (D, 57)
- Peter Barca (D, 64)
- Rob Hutton (R, 5)
- Rob Swearingen (R, 34)
- Robb Kahl (D, 47)
- Robin Vos (R, 33)
- Samantha Kerkman (R, 61)
- Sandy Pasch (D, 10)
- Scott Krug (R, 72)
- Stephen Smith (D, 75)
- Steve Doyle (D, 94)
- Steve Kestell (R, 27)
- Terese Berceau (D, 77)
- Thomas Larson (R, 67)
- Tod Ohnstad (D, 65)
- Tyler August (R, 31)
- Warren Petryk (R, 93)
No (11)
- Amy Sue Vruwink (D, 70)
- Erik Severson (R, 28)
- Evan Goyke (D, 18)
- Joan Ballweg (R, 14)
- Josh Zepnick (D, 9)
- LaTonya Johnson (D, 6)
- Mandela Barnes (D, 11)
- Nick Milroy (D, 73)
- Sondy Pope (D, 80)
- Steve Nass (R, 11)
- Travis Tranel (R, 49)
Didn't vote (6)
- Bill Kramer (R, 97)
- Dale Kooyenga (R, 5)
- Daniel Riemer (D, 7)
- Dianne Hesselbein (D, 27)
- John Klenke (R, 88)
- Thomas Weatherston (R, 62)
Official motion: “Read a third time and concurred in as amended, Ayes 82, Noes 11”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly vote on an amendment
Passed, 56 to 37 · Mar 20, 2014
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Assembly Amendment 1 to Assembly Amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 56, Noes 37”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly vote on an amendment
Passed, 57 to 36 · Mar 20, 2014
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Assembly Amendment 2 laid on table, Ayes 57, Noes 36”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
Apr 24, 2014
The new law was published.
-
Apr 24, 2014
The governor signed it. It became 2013 Wisconsin Act 377.
-
Apr 22, 2014
Sent to the governor.
-
Apr 1, 2014
“Action ordered immediately messaged” (the official wording)
-
Mar 21, 2014
The Senate adopted it.
-
Mar 20, 2014
The Assembly passed it too, 82 to 11.
-
Mar 20, 2014
The Assembly adopted it.
-
Mar 18, 2014
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Mar 12, 2014
“Printed engrossed by the direction of the Assembly Chief Clerk” (the official wording)
-
Mar 12, 2014
The Assembly received it.
-
Mar 11, 2014
The Senate passed it.
-
Mar 11, 2014
The Senate adopted it.
-
Mar 7, 2014
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 5 to 0.
-
Mar 7, 2014
“Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by Committee on Transportation, Public Safety, and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 5, Noes 0” (the official wording)
-
Jan 30, 2014
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Jan 28, 2014
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Jan 22, 2014
Sent to the Senate Committee on Transportation, Public Safety, and Veterans and Military Affairs.
-
Jan 22, 2014
Introduced in the Senate.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Jan 22, 2014 · Senate
Introduced by Senators Petrowski, Cowles, Grothman, Gudex, Harsdorf, Moulton and Olsen; cosponsored by Representatives Ripp, Bies, Born, Brooks, Czaja, Danou, Endsley, Jagler, Kahl, Krug, Kulp, T. Larson, Murphy, Mursau and A. Ott
- Jan 22, 2014 · Senate
Read first time and referred to Committee on Transportation, Public Safety, and Veterans and Military Affairs
- Jan 28, 2014 · Senate
Public hearing held
- Jan 30, 2014 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- Mar 5, 2014 · Senate
Senate Amendment 1 offered by Senator Petrowski
- Mar 6, 2014 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Mar 7, 2014 · Senate
Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by Committee on Transportation, Public Safety, and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 5, Noes 0
- Mar 7, 2014 · Senate
Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Transportation, Public Safety, and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 5, Noes 0
- Mar 7, 2014 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Mar 7, 2014 · Senate
Placed on calendar 3-11-2014 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Mar 11, 2014 · Senate
Read a second time
- Mar 11, 2014 · Senate
Senate Amendment 1 adopted
- Mar 11, 2014 · Senate
Ordered to a third reading
- Mar 11, 2014 · Senate
Rules suspended
- Mar 11, 2014 · Senate
Read a third time and passed
- Mar 11, 2014 · Senate
Ordered immediately messaged
- Mar 12, 2014 · Assembly
Received from Senate
- Mar 12, 2014 · Assembly
Printed engrossed by the direction of the Assembly Chief Clerk
- Mar 18, 2014 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Rules
- Mar 18, 2014 · Assembly
Made a special order of business at 10:39 AM on 3-20-2014 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 28
- Mar 20, 2014 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Mar 20, 2014 · Assembly
Assembly Amendment 1 to Assembly Amendment 1 offered by Representative Vruwink
- Mar 20, 2014 · Assembly
Assembly Amendment 1 to Assembly Amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 56, Noes 37
- Mar 20, 2014 · Assembly
Assembly Amendment 1 offered by Representatives Ripp, Tauchen and Nerison
- Mar 20, 2014 · Assembly
Assembly Amendment 1 adopted
- Mar 20, 2014 · Assembly
Assembly Amendment 2 offered by Representative Vruwink
- Mar 20, 2014 · Assembly
Assembly Amendment 2 laid on table, Ayes 57, Noes 36
- Mar 20, 2014 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Mar 20, 2014 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Mar 20, 2014 · Assembly
Read a third time and concurred in as amended, Ayes 82, Noes 11
- Mar 20, 2014 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Mar 21, 2014 · Senate
Received from Assembly amended and concurred in as amended, Assembly Amendment 1 adopted
- Mar 21, 2014 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Mar 31, 2014 · Senate
Placed on calendar 4-1-2014 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Apr 1, 2014 · Senate
Assembly Amendment 1 concurred in
- Apr 1, 2014 · Senate
Action ordered immediately messaged
- Apr 7, 2014 · Senate
Report correctly enrolled
- Apr 7, 2014 · Senate
LRB correction (Assembly Amendment 1)
- Apr 22, 2014 · Senate
Presented to the Governor on 4-22-2014
- Apr 24, 2014 · Senate
Report approved by the Governor on 4-23-2014. 2013 Wisconsin Act 377
- Apr 24, 2014 · Senate
Published 4-24-2014
Terms on this page
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote