Environmental groups in Wisconsin are urging voters to reject two proposed amendments to the state constitution in the upcoming Aug. 13 primary. The measures, if approved, would remove the governor from the process of allocating certain federal funds and instead place control in the hands of the legislature. Members of Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled legislature proposed the amendments in an attempt to rein in what they see as a series of oversteps by the state’s Democratic governor, Tony Evers.

In addition to the environmental groups, voters rights groups, the Wisconsin Democratic Party and other concerned citizens say the changes would introduce delays into federal disaster relief funding and generate uncertainties in the process through which the state allocates federal funding. The proposed changes come at a time when the state is poised to receive millions from the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for clean energy projects. 

“These amendments disallow the governor from doing the things necessary to protect human health and the environment in an expeditious way,” said Meleesa Johnson, executive director of Wisconsin’s Green Fire, a non-partisan conservation organization. 

Representative Robert Wittke, a Republican who wrote and sponsored the amendments, said the changes are a non-partisan move that would lead to better governance of federal funds within the state. The ballot measure stems from a disagreement between Republican state legislators and Evers regarding the state’s allotment from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Evers vetoed a bill that would give the legislature oversight on ARPA spending, saying that any disagreements or delays would prevent Wisconsinites from getting the aid they need. He ultimately ended up spending the money on assistance for small businesses, infrastructure upgrades, pandemic response and the tourism industry. 

The amendments are intended to apply to a small number of federal funds that do not have a specifically designated use, such as the $5 billion in ARPA funds. According to the state constitution, the governor can allocate those federal funds without the legislature’s approval. These dollars ultimately make up a small portion of the total federal money that enters the state each year.

After Evers vetoed the legislature’s attempts to exert more control over the ARPA funding in March of 2021, Republicans introduced these amendments to prevent a similar situation from occurring again.

Johnson sees these amendments as part of a sustained movement that undermines the checks and balances in the state’s constitution. In the past 15 years, a series of laws and court cases have slowly moved power to the legislative branch, thus limiting the executive branch’s ability to protect natural resources. Johnson believes these amendments on the August ballot are another step in this movement. 

“It’s very confusing language and we just don’t have any idea of what that could open the door to.”

To Jennifer Giegerich, the government affairs director for the Wisconsin Conservation Voters, the amendments are a dramatic change for a problem that doesn’t really exist. After all, most federal funds enter the state with a designated purpose. Those are line items in the state budget that’s approved by both houses of the legislature and the governor. Instead, what the amendments will do is create confusion among voters and, if approved, among the courts, administrative offices and officials that will have to negotiate how to interpret the broad language, she said.

“There’s a whole lot of concern about what [the changes] would actually mean,” Giegerich said. “It’s very confusing language and we just don’t have any idea of what that could open the door to.” 

According to an analysis from the University of Wisconsin Law School, it’s unclear if the passed amendments could impact the allocation of federal funds on a wider scale. It’s common for issues relating to new constitutional amendments to end up in the courts and it’s very possible the same could happen in this case. The courts could ultimately decide the exact limits of what federal funding is covered under these amendments.

Disaster Relief Funding

One of the main concerns for environmental groups is that the amendments, if approved, would tie up federal funding for disaster relief. The governor is responsible for declaring a state of emergency. This declaration begins a process of applying for and subsequently bringing funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency into the state and allocating them appropriately. 

This change is especially relevant as Wisconsin continues to see more flooding and extreme weather due to climate change. June was the state’s sixth wettest month on record, and heavy rains led to flooding and storm damage. This summer is a big flip from last year, which was the fifth driest June in Wisconsin’s history. 

Tony Wilkin Gibart, the executive director for the Midwest Environmental Advocates, said that even if the legislature doesn’t aim to be an obstacle in this process, their involvement would ultimately slow down the process. It’s possible that in the event of a natural disaster, such as a flood, tornado or drought, the legislature would need to be in session to allocate the money if the new amendments go into effect. 

“That’s antithetical to the whole purpose of disaster relief,” Gibart said. “Emergency assistance is the last type of funding we would want to be delayed for political reasons.”

Wittke said he and his colleagues considered this issue and, given the agencies through which the emergency relief funds move, it shouldn’t impact that kind of funding. 

But the Wisconsin Policy Forum, a non-partisan policy research group, said in a report that the changes could affect the deployment of emergency funds and, in the case of delays or extreme situations, cause the state to lose out on funding. 

Inflation Reduction Act Grants 

Grants from the IRA, including $3 million for the state’s Office of Sustainability and Clean Energy and $62 million for solar development, help the state work on climate projects without specific money from the legislature. Although Evers proposed money in the state budget for clean energy and other environmental projects, the Republican-controlled legislature historically has not approved money for climate related projects, making federal grants, especially the IRA, one of the only avenues for supporting these programs. 

At the moment, it’s difficult to predict how the amendments would impact the state’s ability to spend other types of federal funds. Given the vague language in the amendments, it’s possible Wisconsin would become less competitive for federal grants, including those under the Inflation Reduction Act, according to Wilkin Gibart. 

Tribes, municipalities and nonprofits within the state would not be affected by the amendments, as the constitutional changes only apply for money entering the state government. 

Nearby states, including Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, are doing their best to take advantage of IRA funding, according to Courtney Bourgoin, senior policy and advocacy manager at Evergreen Action, an environmental advocacy group. These states have passed laws that help align their policies to IRA funding opportunities. 

“It’s unfortunate to be in such a historic, opportune moment that you’d see [Wisconsin] Republicans racing to prevent investment in their own state,” Bourgoin said. 

Wittke said that if the federal government specifies the purpose of the funding, he doesn’t believe it would affect how that money is allocated in the state

In applications for these highly competitive federal grants, state agencies need to explain how they will use the federal dollars. The amendments could complicate the arguments these agencies can make in grant applications, Wilkin Gibart said. Additionally, delays in allocating the money could mean that the state could lose it. 

If the amendments are approved by voters, it’s up to the legislature to determine how the new rules will work, and so far, it’s not clear what that would look like, Hillary Vedvig, the director of government relations at the Nature Conservancy in Wisconsin, said. 

Because of this, it’s almost impossible to know the exact effect the amendments will have on the state’s ability to accept IRA funding or other federal funding for conservation projects in the state. 

“It’s just really hard to pinpoint exactly what’s on the line,” Vedvig said. “So we’re taking the position that everything is on the line, because it all could be.”