Senate Bill 312
Programs and requirements to address perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances
Vetoed by the governor
Both chambers passed it, and the governor vetoed it on Apr 9, 2024. Lawmakers did not , so it stands.
-
Introduced, passed
May 24, 2023
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Senate vote, passed
Passed Nov 14, 2023
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed 62 to 35
-
Governor, stopped here
Vetoed Apr 9, 2024.
-
Law, not reached
Latest entry in the official record, May 15, 2024: “Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82”
Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.
Embed this on your site
Paste this code into your page. The card shows the latest record each time it loads. Preview the card
Terms on this page
Veto override
Lawmakers can still pass a bill the governor vetoed, but it takes two-thirds of each chamber.
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
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 would have done
Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.
This bill creates several new programs and requirements relating to PFAS, which is defined in the bill to mean perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), and any other perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance for which a standard has been promulgated under state or federal law.
Municipal PFAS grant program The bill requires the Department of Natural Resources to create a municipal PFAS grant program to provide all of the following grants:
Read the full summary Show less
1. Grants to municipalities (defined under current law as a city, town, village, county, county utility district, town sanitary district, public inland lake protection and rehabilitation district, or metropolitan sewage district), distributed in equal shares, for PFAS testing at municipal water systems and municipal wastewater treatment facilities, or for reimbursement for such testing.
2. Grants to nonmunicipal entities regulated as public water systems, distributed in equal shares up to $1,800, to test their drinking water supply for PFAS, if required to do so by DNR, or for reimbursement for such testing.
3. Grants to municipalities to test for PFAS levels at municipally owned or managed locations where PFAS may be present. These grants are not available to municipalities that receive a grant under this program to test for PFAS at municipal water systems and municipal wastewater treatment facilities. These grants require matching funds of up to 20 percent from the applicant.
4. Grants to municipalities to dispose of PFAS-containing biosolids at facilities that accept such biosolids. These grants require matching funds of up to 20 percent from the applicant.
5. Grants for capital costs or debt service, including for facility upgrades or new infrastructure, to municipalities that are small or disadvantaged or in which rates for water or wastewater utilities will increase by more than 20 percent as a direct result of steps taken to address PFAS contamination.
6. Grants to municipalities for capital costs or other costs related to PFAS that are not otherwise paid from the segregated environmental improvement fund, including costs for addressing applicant-owned contaminated lands or costs incurred by fire departments. These grants require matching funds of up to 20 percent from the applicant.
For all of the grants provided under the municipal PFAS grant program, DNR may not require a grant recipient to take any action to address PFAS unless PFAS levels exceed any existing standard under state or federal law or unless state or federal law otherwise allows DNR to require the grant recipient to take action. The bill also prohibits DNR from publicly disclosing the results of any PFAS testing conducted under this grant program unless DNR notifies the grant recipient at least 72 hours before publicly disclosing any test result.
Innocent landowner grant program The bill also requires DNR to provide grants to persons that own property with PFAS contamination that is not known to be the responsibility of the person. The total amount of grants awarded may not exceed $250,000 and DNR may require grant recipients to provide matching funds of not more than 20 percent of the grant amount.
Limitations on DNR actions relating to PFAS Under the bill, DNR may not require the owner of a brownfield property to test for PFAS unless DNR has information that the property previously had a substantial amount of uncontained PFAS. “Brownfield property” is defined to mean abandoned, idle, or underused industrial or commercial facilities or sites, the expansion or redevelopment of which is adversely affected by actual or perceived environmental contamination.
Under the bill, DNR may not prevent, delay, or otherwise impede any development project or project of public works based on a presence of PFAS contamination unless DNR determines that 1) the project poses a measurable risk to public health or welfare, 2) there is a substantial risk that the project would lead to worsening environmental conditions, or 3) the entity proposing to complete the project is, as a result of negligence, responsible for the original contamination.
“Public works” is defined to mean the physical structures and facilities developed or acquired by a local unit of government or a federally recognized American Indian tribe or band in this state to provide services and functions for the benefit and use of the public, including water, sewerage, waste disposal, utilities, and transportation.
In addition, under the bill, when testing for PFAS, DNR may not collect samples from lands not owned by the state without written permission from the landowner to collect samples, to test those samples, and to publicly disclose the results of that testing. DNR also may not publicly disclose such PFAS testing results unless it notifies the landowner of the test results at least 72 hours before publicly disclosing them. In addition, DNR may not take any enforcement action against a landowner based on the results of any PFAS testing conducted on samples taken from lands not owned by the state unless PFAS levels exceed any applicable limit under state or federal law or another applicable state or federal law requires DNR to take enforcement action. In addition, DNR must respond to requests from any person to conduct PFAS testing on samples taken from the person's property if funds are available to do so, if there is a reasonable belief that PFAS contamination may be present on the property, and if existing information such as public water supply testing data is not available.
The bill also requires DNR, in the 2023-25 fiscal biennium, to increase its PFAS testing activities.
Fire fighting foam The bill requires DNR to survey or resurvey local fire departments about their use and possession of PFAS-containing fire fighting foam, send communications and information, and contract with a third party to collect PFAS-containing firefighting foam.
Well compensation grant program Under current law, an individual owner or renter of a contaminated private well, subject to eligibility requirements, may apply for a grant from DNR to cover a portion of the costs to treat the water, reconstruct the well, construct a new well, connect to a public water supply, or fill and seal the well. The bill provides that a grant for costs to treat the water may be used to cover the cost of a filtration device and up to two replacement filters.
Portable water treatment system pilot project The bill requires DNR to contract with an entity to conduct a pilot project in which PFAS-contaminated surface water is partially or fully diverted to a portable treatment system and treated water is returned to the surface water. DNR and the entity must conduct tests to evaluate the success of the pilot project.
Remedial action at sites contaminates by PFAS The bill requires DNR to begin response and remedial actions at any PFAS-contaminated site where a responsible party has not been identified or the responsible party is unable to pay for remediation.
Reduction of PFAS testing costs The bill requires DNR and the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System to enter into a memorandum of understanding to ensure that the state laboratory of hygiene reduces the costs of conducting testing for PFAS by at least 10 percent within two years. The bill requires the state laboratory of hygiene to prepare a report on its efforts to reduce the cost of PFAS testing and the timeline for receiving testing results.
PFAS studies and reporting The bill requires DNR and the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System to enter into a memorandum of understanding to 1) study and analyze the cost, feasibility, and effectiveness of different methods of treating PFAS before they are released into a water system or water body; 2) conduct a cost-benefit analysis of different options for disposing of biosolids or sludge that contains or may contain PFAS; 3) study and analyze the cost, feasibility, and effectiveness of different destruction and disposal methods for PFAS; 4) study and analyze the migration of PFAS into the bay of Green Bay; and 5) create a comprehensive, interactive map showing all available PFAS testing data and, for each data point, whether it exceeds any applicable state or federal standard for PFAS. Such data may not contain any personally identifiable information unless the entity to which the data applies is required to test and disclose its results under state or federal law.
DNR reporting requirements The bill requires DNR to report to the legislature once every six months for a period of three-years to provide a detailed description of DNR's expenditures under the bill and a detailed description of DNR's progress in implementing the provisions of the bill.
Clean water fund program and safe drinking water loan program Under current law, the Department of Administration and DNR administer the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program (SDWLP), which provides financial assistance to municipalities, and to the private owners of community water systems that serve municipalities, for projects that will help the municipalities comply with federal drinking water standards. DNR establishes a funding priority list for SDWLP projects, and DOA allocates funding for those projects. Also under current law, DNR administers the Clean Water Fund Program (CWFP), which provides financial assistance to municipalities for projects to control water pollution, such as sewage treatment plants.
Under the bill, if DNR, when ranking SDWLP or CWFP projects or determining an applicant's eligibility for assistance under those programs, considers whether an applicant that intends to extend service outside of municipal boundaries because of water contamination is “small” or “disadvantaged,” DNR must determine the applicant to be small or disadvantaged if the area receiving the extended service would normally be determined to be small or disadvantaged, regardless of whether the existing service area would normally be determined to be small or disadvantaged.
Public water utility projects Under current law, a public utility may not engage in certain construction, expansion, or other projects unless the Public Service Commission grants a certificate of authority (CA) for the proposed project. Under the bill, if a water public utility or a combined water and sewer public utility (water utility) fails to obtain a CA before commencing a project for which one is required, PSC may not investigate, impose a penalty against, or bring an action to enjoin the water utility if 1) the water utility undertook the project in response to a public health concern caused by PFAS or an emerging contaminant, the presence of which was unknown to the water utility until shortly before it commenced the project, and, if there is an applicable state or federal standard for the contaminant, the contaminant exceeded or was close to exceeding that standard; 2) the water utility submits the appropriate application and supporting documentation to PSC no later than six months after commencing the project; and 3) the total cost of the project is not greater than $2,000,000 or 50 percent of the utility's operating expenses for the previous year, whichever is less.
Under current law, a water utility may not change the rates that it charges to customers without first applying to PSC for approval of the change. This bill requires PSC to authorize a separate rate class of customers if requested by a water utility under certain circumstances. Specifically, the bill requires this authorization with respect to those customers to whom water or combined water and sewer utility service was extended outside of the water utility's service territory in response to a public health concern caused by contamination. Under the bill, PSC must authorize higher rates for this class of customers for the purpose of financing the extension of service. The bill requires PSC to allow the class to remain in effect for 10 years or for the duration of any financing authorized to fund the extension of service, whichever is longer.
Limitations on annexation and use of revenue for PFAS source reduction measures Under the bill, no city or village may annex territory for which water or sewerage services have been extended beyond the city's or village's municipal boundaries due to an immediate public health concern from an emerging contaminant for at least three years following the completion of the extension of services unless two-thirds of the qualified electors residing in the affected territory vote to approve the annexation.
The bill also authorizes a municipal public utility or metropolitan sewerage district to use revenues from its water or sewerage services for up to half of the cost of pretreatment or other PFAS source reduction measures for an interconnected customer or other regular customer if the costs incurred are less than the costs of the upgrades otherwise required at the endpoint treatment facility and if the costs are approved by the governing body of the municipality or the metropolitan sewerage district.
Who's behind it
8 senators are its . All 8 are Republicans.
16 more lawmakers .
See all 24 names Hide the names
Authors (8)
- Joan Ballweg · Republican, Senate
- Rachael Cabral-Guevara · Republican, Senate
- Rob Cowles · Republican, Senate
- Mary Felzkowski · Republican, Senate
- Dan Feyen · Republican, Senate
- Steve Nass · Republican, Senate
- Romaine Quinn · Republican, Senate
- Eric Wimberger · Republican, Senate
Signed on in support (16)
- Elijah Behnke · Republican, Assembly
- Amy Binsfeld · Republican, Assembly
- Barbara Dittrich · Republican, Assembly
- Bob Donovan · Republican, Assembly
- Chanz Green · Republican, Assembly
- Joel Kitchens · Republican, Assembly
- Dan Knodl · Republican, Assembly
- Clint Moses · Republican, Assembly
- Jeff Mursau · Republican, Assembly
- Jerry O'Connor · Republican, Assembly
- Pat Snyder · Republican, Assembly
- John Spiros · Republican, Assembly
- David Steffen · Republican, Assembly
- Rob Summerfield · Republican, Assembly
- Rob Swearingen · Republican, Assembly
- Bob Wittke · Republican, Assembly
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 8 votes on this bill.
Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy vote on an amendment
Passed, 3 to 2 · Oct 12, 2023
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report adoption of Senate Substitute Amendment 2 recommended by Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, Ayes 3, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy vote to recommend it
Passed, 3 to 2 · Oct 12, 2023
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 Natural Resources and Energy, Ayes 3, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate vote on an amendment
Passed, 21 to 10 · Nov 14, 2023
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Senate Amendment 2 to Senate Substitute Amendment 2 rejected, Ayes 21, Noes 10”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate vote to pass it
Passed, 22 to 11 · Nov 14, 2023
See how each of the 33 senators voted Hide the names
D: Democrat, R: Republican
Yes (22)
- André Jacque (R, 1)
- Chris Kapenga (R, 33)
- Cory Tomczyk (R, 29)
- Dan Feyen (R, 20)
- Dan Knodl (R, 24)
- Devin LeMahieu (R, 9)
- Duey Stroebel (R, 20)
- Eric Wimberger (R, 2)
- Howard Marklein (R, 17)
- Jesse James (R, 23)
- Joan Ballweg (R, 14)
- John Jagler (R, 13)
- Julian Bradley (R, 28)
- Mary Felzkowski (R, 12)
- Patrick Testin (R, 24)
- Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R, 19)
- Rob Cowles (R, 2)
- Rob Hutton (R, 5)
- Rob Stafsholt (R, 10)
- Romaine Quinn (R, 25)
- Steve Nass (R, 11)
- Van Wanggaard (R, 21)
No (11)
- Bob Wirch (D, 22)
- Brad Pfaff (D, 32)
- Chris Larson (D, 7)
- Dianne Hesselbein (D, 27)
- Jeff Smith (D, 31)
- Kelda Roys (D, 26)
- LaTonya Johnson (D, 6)
- Lena Taylor (D, 4)
- Mark Spreitzer (D, 15)
- Melissa Agard (D, 16)
- Tim Carpenter (D, 3)
Official motion: “PASSAGE”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly vote to pass it
Passed, 62 to 35 · Feb 22, 2024 · 2 didn't vote
See how each of the 99 representatives voted Hide the names
D: Democrat, R: Republican
Yes (62)
- Adam Neylon (R, 15)
- Alex Dallman (R, 39)
- Amanda Nedweski (R, 32)
- Amy Binsfeld (R, 27)
- Barbara Dittrich (R, 99)
- Bob Donovan (R, 61)
- Bob Wittke (R, 63)
- Calvin Callahan (R, 35)
- Chanz Green (R, 74)
- Chuck Wichgers (R, 84)
- Cindi Duchow (R, 97)
- Clint Moses (R, 92)
- Dave Armstrong (R, 67)
- Dave Maxey (R, 83)
- Dave Murphy (R, 56)
- David Steffen (R, 4)
- Donna Rozar (R, 69)
- Elijah Behnke (R, 6)
- Ellen Schutt (R, 31)
- Gae Magnafici (R, 28)
- Gus Gustafson (R, 55)
- James Edming (R, 87)
- Janel Brandtjen (R, 22)
- Jeff Mursau (R, 36)
- Jerry O'Connor (R, 60)
- Jessie Rodriguez (R, 21)
- Joel Kitchens (R, 1)
- John Spiros (R, 86)
- Jon Plumer (R, 42)
- Joy Goeben (R, 5)
- Karen Hurd (R, 69)
- Kevin Petersen (R, 57)
- Loren Oldenburg (R, 96)
- Mark Born (R, 37)
- Michael Schraa (R, 53)
- Nancy VanderMeer (R, 70)
- Nik Rettinger (R, 83)
- Pat Snyder (R, 85)
- Paul Melotik (R, 22)
- Paul Tittl (R, 25)
- Peter Schmidt (R, 6)
- Rick Gundrum (R, 58)
- Rob Brooks (R, 59)
- Rob Summerfield (R, 68)
- Rob Swearingen (R, 34)
- Robin Vos (R, 33)
- Ron Tusler (R, 3)
- Scott Allen (R, 82)
- Scott Johnson (R, 33)
- Scott Krug (R, 72)
- Shae Sortwell (R, 2)
- Shannon Zimmerman (R, 30)
- Terry Katsma (R, 26)
- Todd Novak (R, 51)
- Tom Michalski (R, 13)
- Tony Kurtz (R, 41)
- Travis Tranel (R, 49)
- Treig Pronschinske (R, 29)
- Ty Bodden (R, 59)
- Tyler August (R, 31)
- Warren Petryk (R, 93)
- Will Penterman (R, 38)
No (35)
- Alex Joers (D, 81)
- Christine Sinicki (D, 20)
- Clint Anderson (D, 45)
- Daniel Riemer (D, 7)
- Darrin Madison (D, 10)
- Dave Considine (D, 81)
- Deb Andraca (D, 23)
- Dora Drake (D, 4)
- Evan Goyke (D, 18)
- Francesca Hong (D, 76)
- Greta Neubauer (D, 66)
- Jenna Jacobson (D, 50)
- Jill Billings (D, 95)
- Jimmy Anderson (D, 47)
- Jodi Emerson (D, 91)
- Kalan Haywood (D, 16)
- Katrina Shankland (D, 71)
- Kristina Shelton (D, 90)
- LaKeshia Myers (D, 12)
- Lee Snodgrass (D, 52)
- Lisa Subeck (D, 79)
- Lori Palmeri (D, 54)
- Marisabel Cabrera (D, 9)
- Melissa Ratcliff (D, 16)
- Mike Bare (D, 80)
- Robyn Vining (D, 13)
- Ryan Clancy (D, 19)
- Samba Baldeh (D, 48)
- Shelia Stubbs (D, 78)
- Steve Doyle (D, 94)
- Sue Conley (D, 44)
- Supreme Moore Omokunde (D, 17)
- Sylvia Ortiz-Velez (D, 8)
- Tip McGuire (D, 64)
- Tod Ohnstad (D, 65)
Didn't vote (2)
- Angie Sapik (R, 73)
- John Macco (R, 88)
Official motion: “CONCURRENCE”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly vote on an amendment
Passed, 61 to 35 · Feb 22, 2024
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 61, Noes 35”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly vote on an amendment
Passed, 61 to 35 · Feb 22, 2024
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 laid on table, Ayes 61, Noes 35”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate vote
Passed, 22 to 9 · May 14, 2024 · 1 didn't vote
See how each of the 32 senators voted Hide the names
D: Democrat, R: Republican
Yes (22)
- André Jacque (R, 1)
- Chris Kapenga (R, 33)
- Cory Tomczyk (R, 29)
- Dan Feyen (R, 20)
- Dan Knodl (R, 24)
- Devin LeMahieu (R, 9)
- Duey Stroebel (R, 20)
- Eric Wimberger (R, 2)
- Howard Marklein (R, 17)
- Jesse James (R, 23)
- Joan Ballweg (R, 14)
- John Jagler (R, 13)
- Julian Bradley (R, 28)
- Mary Felzkowski (R, 12)
- Patrick Testin (R, 24)
- Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R, 19)
- Rob Cowles (R, 2)
- Rob Hutton (R, 5)
- Rob Stafsholt (R, 10)
- Romaine Quinn (R, 25)
- Steve Nass (R, 11)
- Van Wanggaard (R, 21)
No (9)
- Bob Wirch (D, 22)
- Brad Pfaff (D, 32)
- Chris Larson (D, 7)
- Dianne Hesselbein (D, 27)
- Jeff Smith (D, 31)
- LaTonya Johnson (D, 6)
- Mark Spreitzer (D, 15)
- Melissa Agard (D, 16)
- Tim Carpenter (D, 3)
Didn't vote (1)
- Kelda Roys (D, 26)
Official motion: “PASS NOTWITHSTANDING OBJECTIONS OF GOVERNOR”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
May 15, 2024
The veto stood. Lawmakers didn't override it.
-
May 14, 2024
The Assembly voted to override the veto.
-
May 14, 2024
“Messaged” (the official wording)
-
May 14, 2024
The Senate voted to override the veto, 22 to 9.
-
Apr 9, 2024
The governor vetoed it.
-
Apr 4, 2024
Sent to the governor.
-
Feb 22, 2024
The Assembly passed it too, 62 to 35.
-
Feb 19, 2024
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Nov 14, 2023
The Assembly received it.
-
Nov 14, 2023
The Senate passed it, 22 to 11.
-
Nov 14, 2023
“Read a third time” (the official wording)
-
Nov 14, 2023
The Senate adopted it.
-
Nov 14, 2023
“Placed on the foot of the 14th order of business on the calendar of 11-14-2023” (the official wording)
-
Oct 12, 2023
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 3 to 2.
-
Oct 12, 2023
“Report adoption of Senate Substitute Amendment 2 recommended by Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, Ayes 3, Noes 2” (the official wording)
-
Jul 19, 2023
1 more senator signed on in support.
-
Jun 5, 2023
The committee held a public hearing.
-
May 24, 2023
Sent to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy.
-
May 24, 2023
Introduced in the Senate.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- May 24, 2023 · Senate
Introduced by Senators Wimberger, Cowles, Ballweg, Cabral-Guevara, Felzkowski, Feyen, Nass and Quinn; cosponsored by Representatives Mursau, Swearingen, Behnke, Binsfeld, Dittrich, Donovan, Green, Kitchens, Moses, O'Connor, Snyder, Spiros, Steffen, Summerfield and Wittke
- May 24, 2023 · Senate
Read first time and referred to Committee on Natural Resources and Energy
- Jun 5, 2023 · Senate
Public hearing held
- Jun 20, 2023 · Senate
Senate Substitute Amendment 1 offered by Senators Wimberger and Cowles
- Jul 19, 2023 · Senate
Senator Knodl added as a coauthor
- Oct 10, 2023 · Senate
Senate Substitute Amendment 2 offered by Senators Wimberger and Cowles
- Oct 11, 2023 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Oct 12, 2023 · Senate
Report adoption of Senate Substitute Amendment 2 recommended by Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, Ayes 3, Noes 2
- Oct 12, 2023 · Senate
Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, Ayes 3, Noes 2
- Oct 12, 2023 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Nov 9, 2023 · Senate
Senate Amendment 1 to Senate Substitute Amendment 2 offered by Senators Wimberger and Cowles
- Nov 13, 2023 · Senate
Placed on calendar 11-14-2023 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Nov 14, 2023 · Senate
Senate Substitute Amendment 3 offered by Senators Pfaff, Wirch, Hesselbein, Agard, Carpenter, L. Johnson, Larson, Smith, Spreitzer and Taylor
- Nov 14, 2023 · Senate
Placed on the foot of the 14th order of business on the calendar of 11-14-2023
- Nov 14, 2023 · Senate
Senate Amendment 2 to Senate Substitute Amendment 2 offered by Senators Pfaff, Wirch, Hesselbein, Agard, Carpenter, L. Johnson, Larson, Smith, Spreitzer and Taylor
- Nov 14, 2023 · Senate
Read a second time
- Nov 14, 2023 · Senate
Senate Amendment 1 to Senate Substitute Amendment 2 adopted
- Nov 14, 2023 · Senate
Senate Amendment 2 to Senate Substitute Amendment 2 rejected, Ayes 21, Noes 10
- Nov 14, 2023 · Senate
Senate Substitute Amendment 2 adopted
- Nov 14, 2023 · Senate
Ordered to a third reading
- Nov 14, 2023 · Senate
Rules suspended to give bill its third reading
- Nov 14, 2023 · Senate
Read a third time
- Nov 14, 2023 · Senate
Passed, Ayes 22, Noes 11
- Nov 14, 2023 · Senate
Ordered immediately messaged
- Nov 14, 2023 · Assembly
Received from Senate
- Jan 17, 2024 · Assembly
LRB correction
- Feb 19, 2024 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Rules
- Feb 20, 2024 · Assembly
Made a special order of business at 10:13 AM on 2-22-2024 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 28
- Feb 22, 2024 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Feb 22, 2024 · Assembly
Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 offered by Representatives Shankland and Billings
- Feb 22, 2024 · Assembly
Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 laid on table, Ayes 61, Noes 35
- Feb 22, 2024 · Assembly
Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 offered by Representatives Shankland and Billings
- Feb 22, 2024 · Assembly
Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 61, Noes 35
- Feb 22, 2024 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Feb 22, 2024 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Feb 22, 2024 · Assembly
Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 62, Noes 35
- Feb 22, 2024 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Feb 22, 2024 · Senate
Received from Assembly concurred in
- Mar 1, 2024 · Senate
Report correctly enrolled
- Apr 4, 2024 · Senate
Presented to the Governor on 4-4-2024
- Apr 9, 2024 · Senate
Report vetoed by the Governor on 4-9-2024
- May 13, 2024 · Senate
Placed on calendar 5-14-2024 pursuant to Joint Rule 82 (2)(a)
- May 14, 2024 · Senate
Rules suspended and taken up
- May 14, 2024 · Senate
Passed notwithstanding the objections of the Governor, Ayes 22, Noes 9
- May 14, 2024 · Senate
Messaged
- May 14, 2024 · Assembly
Received from Senate passed notwithstanding the objections of the Governor
- May 14, 2024 · Assembly
Placed on calendar 5-15-2024 pursuant to Joint Rule 82 (2)(a)
- May 15, 2024 · Assembly
Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82
Terms on this page
Veto override
Lawmakers can still pass a bill the governor vetoed, but it takes two-thirds of each chamber.
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
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
Veto override
Lawmakers can still pass a bill the governor vetoed, but it takes two-thirds of each chamber.
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
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote