Generated with AI assistance
On Feb. 13, the Wisconsin State Assembly approved a package of bills designed to increase legislative oversight over administrative rules created by state agencies. The measures, spearheaded by Republican Rep. Brent Jacobson of Mosinee, who chaired the Speaker’s Task Force on Rulemaking, include a proposed constitutional amendment and a statutory change intended to prevent agencies from exceeding their explicit legal mandates.
The vote took place in Madison amid sharp partisan divides, with Republicans arguing the bills restore accountability to elected officials, while Democrats expressed concerns over potential delays in essential regulations. This action comes in the wake of recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that limited previous legislative controls on agency actions, prompting lawmakers to seek new mechanisms for checks and balances.
Details of the legislation
The package stems from the findings of the Speaker’s Task Force on Rulemaking, established by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos. Jacobson, who authored two key bills, emphasized the need for greater transparency and accountability in a process currently dominated by unelected officials.
The first bill, Assembly Joint Resolution 133 (AJR 133), represents the initial step toward amending the Wisconsin Constitution. If approved by the Legislature in two consecutive sessions and ratified by voters, it would empower the Assembly and Senate to suspend administrative rules — either temporarily or permanently — through a joint resolution. Proponents argue this would enable lawmakers to address regulations imposing high costs or burdens on residents and businesses. The resolution passed the Assembly on a 52-45 vote, strictly along party lines, highlighting the contentious nature of the debate.
The second bill, Assembly Bill 955 (AB 955), repeals existing statutory language granting state agencies broad authority to interpret and enforce laws through rules, even without explicit legislative permission. Instead, it mandates that agencies must have “specific and explicit” statutory authorization to promulgate any rules. This change aims to align agency actions more closely with legislative intent and prevent overreach. AB 955 advanced on a voice vote, indicating less overt opposition but still within a Republican-led effort.
Jacobson framed the bills as nonpartisan reforms, stating that curbing “rogue bureaucrats” aligns with American principles of representative government. He expressed disappointment over the lack of Democratic support, suggesting the measures transcend party lines. However, the vote outcomes underscore ongoing political tensions in Wisconsin’s divided government, where Democratic Governor Tony Evers holds veto power.
“Keeping unelected bureaucrats in check should not be a partisan issue,” said Rep. Jacobson. “Rogue bureaucrats forcing regulations onto small businesses and taxpayers over the voters and their elected representatives is un-American, and I am disappointed by the absence of support these bills received from my Democrat colleagues.”
Context
Recent news coverage from various outlets provides additional context and contrasting perspectives on the bills, reflecting Wisconsin’s polarized political landscape. The Wisconsin Examiner, a progressive-leaning source, reported that the Assembly’s actions are part of a broader Republican strategy to reclaim control over administrative processes following Supreme Court rulings in 2025 that invalidated prior legislative veto mechanisms held by the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR). These rulings, including Evers v. Marklein II, deemed such vetoes unconstitutional for violating bicameralism and presentment requirements, shifting power toward executive agencies.
Wisconsin Public Radio (WPR), a neutral public broadcaster, noted that AJR 133 addresses judicial concerns by requiring a full legislative vote rather than committee-level decisions, potentially making oversight more democratic but also more cumbersome.
Conservative voices, such as those from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), a right-leaning legal group that supported the “Red Tape Reset” package encompassing these bills, argue that unchecked agency rulemaking has made Wisconsin the 13th most regulated state, imposing undue costs on businesses and taxpayers. WILL’s testimony emphasized that rules affecting daily life should originate from elected representatives, not bureaucrats.
Democratic responses, as covered in the Racine County Eye and Wisconsin Examiner, criticize the bills as a power grab that could hinder agencies’ ability to address pressing issues like water quality, public health, and environmental protections.
Assembly Democratic Leader Greta Neubauer accused Republicans of blocking Democratic amendments on unrelated priorities, such as affordability and education, during the session. Broader critiques from sources like the State Court Report and Marquette Law School Faculty Blog highlight ongoing controversies, warning that enhanced legislative interference might politicize technical rulemaking and lead to gridlock.
However, court analyses confirm that prior oversight mechanisms were deemed unconstitutional, corroborating the motivation for these new bills.
Broader implications
The passage of these bills marks another chapter in Wisconsin’s longstanding tug-of-war between the legislative and executive branches, intensified by a liberal-leaning Supreme Court that has curtailed GOP-led oversight in recent years. If advanced further, AJR 133 would require voter approval, potentially becoming a ballot issue in future elections. AB 955 and related measures now head to the Senate for concurrence or to Gov. Evers, who has vetoed similar Republican initiatives in the past and may do so again, citing threats to effective governance.
Ultimately, these reforms could reshape how Wisconsin addresses everyday challenges, from business regulations to environmental protections. As debates continue, they underscore the delicate balance between accountability and efficiency in a divided state government, with implications for residents’ daily lives and the broader economy.
