Good morning. Thank you all for being here today. It's been an exciting week in the Wisconsin State Capitol. As we watched new members join the legislature, I kind of had a discussion in our caucus, so it's really a great time for us to start our process, which is really what we're doing today. Almost every session, we try to focus on one bill at the beginning of the session to say this is the priorities. And today, we are here to announce that Assembly Joint Resolution one is going to come for a vote on Tuesday next week, after voter committee hearings this week. So we have the opportunity to go before the voters and ask them to amend the Wisconsin constitution to guarantee something that I think if you look at any poll says that's $10 to the sunshine. Okay, so we're gonna look at, we're gonna look at trying to look at trying to make sure that we win the Wisconsin constitution, so that the voters have an opportunity to give us their final say on something that is supported. If you look at any poll by 70 to 80% of the public, it's something that I think every one of us has done multiple times now since 2013 and I hope that finally, the folks on the other side, who had all kinds of arguments 10 years ago as to why they thought voter ID was bad for Wisconsin will realize that it's become an accepted practice as something that prevents fraud and certainly should never be overturned by anyone of the rule of the people. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Pat Schneider, who will explain what's in the bill. Scott crook will then talk about some of the details, and then we'll take questions.
Well, good morning everyone. AJR. AJR. One proposes an amendment to the state constitution requiring valid IDs when you're voting. And this is our second consideration. We passed it last session. And as you know, constitutional amendments need to pass in two consecutive sessions and then taken to the people for their vote on this. This will be on the April 2025, ballot. We already require voter ID. It is out there by law, and this bill doesn't make any changes to that. It's the same bill that we passed last session. It just simply enshrines in our state constitution that our state has a voter ID requirement with a photo. Now this joint resolution does not affect the legislature's ability to create exceptions to the requirement, nor does it change any of the exceptions that we now have under current law. So with that, I will turn it over to Representative crew. Thank you.
So I'm happy to be here today to help us get to the point we get this to the voters in the state of Wisconsin. This something we started last session campaigns and elections, and we had a really quick and honest debate on the merits of it, because this has been law for over 10 years. So it didn't take us very long in committee. Didn't take a very long time on the floor as we went through it, either. Voter ID is one of those things that helps us fill in the hole of trust that we've kind of seen happen in Wisconsin the last eight years. You gotta build a foundation on something this voter ID constitutional amendment helps us fill that void and make sure that we are making sure that people feel our elections are safe and secure. It promotes faith in our electoral process and ensures security integrity for all Wisconsin voters. The exceptions we've talked about are staying current in state law. Any legislature into the future can amend those as they see fit. This amendment does not limit them from doing so into the future. One of the things we talked about a lot is trying to follow the will of the people being the law of the land. To hear that in this building quite a bit, right? So last research that we see from Pew tells us that over 80% of folks, not only in Wisconsin, but nationwide, favor ID required to vote. Wisconsin is one of the top 10 states as far as our requirements for photo ID out of 36 states, we have one of the hardest ID systems that you can have to make sure that it is safe and secure for people to go to the ballots and present who they are, get their vote and get it cast and get it counted. So we're excited to have this amendment in front of us today. We're excited to have it in front of the voters in April. The voters in April. We'd be happy to take any questions back
in one for you or for the speaker you just mentioned that you're interested in, will the people be in the law of land? What about all the other issues that polls show voters care about that you're not taking up, and that's
why we're here. I mean, that is exactly what representative government is all about is people coming to their state representatives and asking them for anything that we do, on bills, resolutions, anything that we do. The best ideas are generated from home. Got ideas for us. We put in legislation, we have public hearings, bring it in front of our committees, discuss it, and we decide how we're going to
get things done. So why this idea, not others that people say they want.
Well, I think the difference too is if you look at let's take California or Colorado, some of the states that are the most aggressive users of the initiative process. First of all, they're almost always out of state organizers who are paid to collect the signatures. They are almost always a special interest who is trying to put something before the voters that they have been unsuccessful in getting through the legislation. I just don't believe in that process. Ours is actually much more open and transparent. They have to have committee hearings. People come and testify. They have to explain why they're for and against the bill, none of which is required by an initiative process. So what we're doing here today is going through the exact same format, right? We have here. The public can come and testify. They tell us why they're for or against it. They have the chance to go to legislators and say, vote yes or no. Ultimately, they can defeat that legislator if they don't like what they've done. But they also have this check where they get to go and amend the Constitution only by voting themselves. So I think our process is much more rigorous, it's much more thorough and it's much more transparent. So I don't want to go the way of having 50 or 60 amendments on a ballot, which is what happens in California, where people have no idea what they are voting for.
That is not representative democracy. So to the governor's proposal that he's going to put in his budget,
do a dead on arrival. It's never going to happen.
Mr. Speaker, any idea on what AB one might be. We're
still having those discussions. I mean, you know, there are so many issues that we've seen over the course of the fall. There's a lot of things people are concerned about. I mean, one of the things that has affected I think most Wisconsin families at the worst, is this idea of dumbing down our standards. When I saw that superintendent underly wants to make it harder for parents to understand when their school is succeeding or failing. She wants to make it easier for failing schools to somehow seem like they're succeeding. I think that's one of those areas where we even saw Governor Evers say he opposes that. So I hope that's one of the areas that we'll get some speedy discussion on, hopefully by part of some support, because I would hope that no one the most liberal person or the most conservative person, we want to dumb down our standards so kids aren't able to read and the parents are able to even know whether or not their kids are succeeding. Is this move strictly to ensure the courts can overturn or loosen the state's current that's one factor, but I'll tell you, when we took this amendment up a year and a half ago, we didn't know that Justice Bradley was retiring. We didn't know that the person who was running on the liberal side is the main, one of the main opponents of voter ID. So none of this was put into practice when we had the idea to do it a year and a half ago. It just so happens that the left has chosen one of the most extreme liberals to run for the state supreme court when 80% of the public in Wisconsin is in favor of an idea. I don't know who would be afraid of that except the person who's with the 20% is on the ballot. So I know Democrats want to make this seem like it's some kind of a nefarious plot, but maybe they knew justice brandy was retiring. I didn't. Maybe they knew that their opponent was going to be the lead opponent of voter ID. I didn't, so I don't think any of us thought that would be the case.
So you said, no budget
unless there's a tax cut and you want the tax cut done quickly.
And the federal areas, what leadership in the center has said, have you had an opportunity to meet with the governor and talk about that, and have you had an opportunity to meet with your caucus to talk about what does that tax cut look like? Is it a property tax is it bracket change? What do you want? Well, as I've said, all tax cuts are good. There's no There's no bad one that I don't think I can support. And I think most of us here would say all tax cuts are good. So the biggest thing that we are focusing on is making sure that we have one that is sustainable, that can be broadly supported by the public and then hopefully broadly supported by our friends on the other side of the aisle. I haven't really seen any details of what is being proposed from the Democrats. They really don't have any ideas that I've seen other than saying what they don't like. So again, I'm open to ideas that they have, we've talked about it. I think if you talk about assembly Republicans and the retreat that we had, I think it's fair to say and correct me if I'm wrong, but most people thought that the number one priority should be the retirement income tax cut so we keep more of our seniors and folks who are on fixed incomes dealing with inflation in Wisconsin. Of course, we would love to have an income tax cut, but we want to make sure he gets signed into law. We are going to focus also on property tax relief, because I think if you see around the state, far too many families saw increases that are way beyond the norm. Now, those of us who are in politics realize that the main culprit of that is Tony Evers and the vetoes that he put into effect at the last budget, but I think most taxpayers don't realize that he's the one primarily to blame for what happened with the property tax bill. So all those things will be on the table. I think our Senate colleagues are still also discussing where they're at, but I have no doubt that sometime, by about when Governor Evers gives his State of the State address, that we will probably have at least our priority. Have you met with
the governor yet
about tax
cuts? No, you mentioned that this the voter ID change. Excuse me, has a possibility for exceptions in the future. Are there any being considered? What might that look
like? So I know last session campaigning elections, we did not have any bills to expand exceptions for for the photo ID requirements. I imagine now that we're getting to the second consideration, I'm sure we'll see somebody make some proposals, but those will be vetted by the campaign Elections Committee and the chairperson, and we'll see how those shake out. But we know that after 10 years of this being in law, already in the most contentious election we've ever faced, most partisan election we ever faced. I know personally, I didn't have a constituent reach out to me saying I had a problem with the current law, the current exceptions after this
vote next week. Do you foresee yourself not coming back in and
so you have that tax cut bill? You mean as far as like, well, the next, the next session they were planning to begin, is when Governor,
the next vote on the floor. Do you foresee that being a tax cut bill in the assembly?
It's certainly possible, but we don't want to rush. We want to make sure we do it right. That is going to be one of our priorities. I don't know if it'll be 81 like, like
we've mentioned before, but it certainly could be. Do you think you'll meet with the governor before his State of the State Address? Is anyone holding that up, or is no one wanting
to be done either side? I mean, I've always opened the meeting, right? I mean, I did think it was kind of a stick in the eye that on the very opening day, when we are celebrating the opportunity to have all kinds of new people come to Madison. I mean, you know, a bunch of Democrats joining a bunch of Republicans, but the only thing governor wanted to talk about was taking legislative power away. He didn't say congratulations, looking forward to working with the legislature. He kind of picked a more partisan isan tone that's his right.
