August 13th Ballot: Understanding the Proposed Amendments to the Wisconsin Constitution in a Christian Context
Wisconsin voters who cast ballots in the statewide Partisan Primary Election on August 13 will be confronted with two questions on their ballot that, if they receive a majority of “yes” votes, will amend the Wisconsin Constitution. It is important for all Wisconsin voters to understand these questions and what they will mean for our state if they receive a majority of “yes” votes. And it is important for all of us who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ to consider the impact of these proposed amendments in the context of our shared faith.
A Christian faith contextual perspective on governmental power, its legitimacy, and how we respond
Scripture has much to say about civic governments and how the People of God respond to them, depending on whether they act to do God’s justice. The thread running through the Bible—Old and New Testaments alike—is that rulers who govern justly and care for the people are blessed, and both the rulers and the people prosper. As is most notable in the writings of the Old Testament Prophets, however, rulers who are unjust and seek to wield their power not to benefit the people, but for the purpose of enhancing their own control, are condemned and bring ruin on themselves and the people. The prophet Jeremiah provides a good example. God commands Jeremiah: “Go down to the house of the king of Judah, and speak there this word, and say: Hear the word of the Lord, O King of Judah sitting on the throne of David—you, and your servants, and your people who enter these gates. Thus says the Lord: Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place. For if you will indeed obey this word, then through the gates of this house shall enter kings who sit on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they, and their servants, and their people. But if you will not heed these words, I swear by myself, says the Lord, that this house shall become a desolation.” (Jeremiah 22:1-5)
The New Testament continues this theme, with Jesus’ insistence that the kingdom of God he champions and insists is coming into being right here, right now (Luke 17:21), is fundamentally different than the kingdoms and cultures over which the political rulers of the day presided. It is a kingdom that has at its core love for one another (John 13:34), humility and service to others (Matthew chs. 5-7), and mutual caretaking and caregiving (Matthew 25:34-40). Jesus’s singular focus on the kingdom of God leads him, where necessary, to challenge the rulers of the day and to disobey their laws, where those laws would result in injustice. So, for example, Jesus repeatedly performed acts of healing on the Sabbath, despite the insistence of the religious and legal authorities that it was forbidden. (Mark 3:1-5; Matthew 12:1-13; Luke 13:10-17; John 7:22-24; 9:1-16) In his final days with his disciples, Jesus reassures them that following the way of his teachings is the only way for God’s kingdom to come into being. Jesus gives them his peace, observing that this gift of his peace is different than how the world gives (John 14:27), and further contrasts the way of the world with his way—the way of the kingdom of God—noting that the disciples will receive the “Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him” (John 14:17). And indeed, as we see from the very outset after Jesus’ death early in the Book of Acts, the disciples did just that, following Jesus’ command to love and serve others, even where their acts of mercy and justice directly challenged the religious and political authorities. (Acts chs. 3-4)
So, as we approach our opportunity to vote on proposed amendments to the Wisconsin Constitution, I encourage you to question how the decisions you make in casting your ballot reflect how you are called by God to discipleship in Jesus Christ, not only in serving your faith community, but in our shared public life as well.
The questions that will appear on the August 13 ballot
There are two ballot questions that will appear on the August 13 Wisconsin Partisan Primary Election ballot. The two questions are intertwined and seek to create a new provision in the Wisconsin Constitution that has never existed since our state adopted its constitution in 1849.
Question 1
The first question, which will appear on the August 13 ballot as Question 1, reads as follows:
Question 1: “Delegation of appropriation power. Shall section 35 (1) of article IV of the constitution be created to provide that the legislature may not delegate its sole power to determine how moneys shall be appropriated?"
Further information on the first ballot question and proposed constitutional amendment may be found here.
Question 2
The second question, which will appear on the August 13 ballot as Question 2, reads as follows:
Question 2: “Allocation of federal moneys. Shall section 35 (2) of article IV of the constitution be created to prohibit the governor from allocating any federal moneys the governor accepts on behalf of the state without the approval of the legislature by joint resolution or as provided by legislative rule?”
Further information on the second ballot question and proposed constitutional amendment may be found here.
The background for both questions is the same: Under current Wisconsin law, the Governor has authority to accept federal moneys on behalf of the state and to allocate those funds in emergency situations without the specific approval or participation of the legislature. For example, the Wisconsin Statutes currently empower the Governor to “[a]ccept from any source gifts and grants including services for emergency management purposes and … authorize the state and local units of government to receive such gifts and grants.” During emergencies, our laws also empower the Governor to use funds received from the federal government to “[c]ontract on behalf of the state with any person to provide, on a cost basis, equipment and services to be used to respond to a disaster or the imminent threat of a disaster” and, where necessary, to “[s]uspend the provisions of any administrative rule if the strict compliance with that rule would prevent, hinder, or delay necessary actions to respond to the disaster.” This law applies to the Governor, regardless of political party; it is not specific to Wisconsin’s current Governor, Tony Evers, and it would apply equally to any Republican Governor.
Wisconsin Emergency Management, or “WEM,” is the lead state agency for mitigating and responding to hazards in Wisconsin. Created in 1951, it is an agency of the Executive Branch of Wisconsin state government, meaning that its Director is appointed by the Wisconsin Governor. WEM works and coordinates with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Weather Service on emergency preparedness and response. In particular, WEM has worked with these state and federal agencies to develop a State of Wisconsin Hard Mitigation Plan. As part of that plan, WEM has determined that since 1971, there have been 42 disaster declarations by U.S. Presidents at the request of Wisconsin’s Governors that have resulted in federal funds being granted to Wisconsin for disaster response. For more than 50 years, Wisconsin Governors –Democrats and Republicans alike – acting through Executive agencies, have used federal funds to help local communities recover from flooding, tornadoes, high wind events, severe storms, and other disasters. Funds have been distributed to provide relief to individuals, farmers, and municipalities in every single one of Wisconsin’s 72 counties to pay for agricultural losses, repair and replacement of private homes and public buildings, including schools, debris removal and cleanup, and other emergency assistance.
These two questions, if answered “yes,” would create an entirely new provision of the Wisconsin Constitution that would fundamentally change how federal funds are distributed in Wisconsin in response to emergencies. They would replace the system that has existed for more than 50 years and would, instead, grant to the Wisconsin State Legislature the “sole power” to determine how funds are appropriated, and remove the Governor’s current authority to allocate federal funds accepted on behalf of the state without the approval of the Legislature.
Support for the proposed constitutional amendments has been voiced by some Republican members of the Wisconsin State Assembly and Senate. Many groups have taken a position opposing the proposed amendments, including the Wisconsin Education Association Council, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments & Boards, Wisconsin Conservation Voters, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, and Wisconsin Public Health Association.
It is difficult not to see the proposed constitutional amendments—which were passed solely by the Wisconsin State Legislature and are not subject to a gubernatorial veto—as an attempt by the Legislature to grab for itself power that it does not now and never has had. This appears to be another attempt by the Legislature to vastly expand its own power and to take away power that has been used by Republican and Democratic Governors alike for decades to ensure that federal funds are quickly distributed to those in need in times of emergency. This attempt to seize control over spending is reminiscent of the Legislature’s recent attempts to unilaterally block the distribution of funds for environmental programs that the Legislature and the Governor already had approved during the biennial budget process. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in a 6-1 decision on July 5 held that the Legislature’s claims to authority to block the distribution of these funds violated the Wisconsin Constitution by intruding on the Governor’s core powers.
In considering how to vote on August 13, we, as Christians, should consider the justness of the existing laws and government structures that ensure our neighbors will receive emergency assistance in times of disaster, and we should consider how an attempt by one political body to seize power solely for itself and its own control will impede the swift distribution of relief to our neighbors in need of times of emergency. Just as Jesus opposed and challenged the unjust laws in his day to ensure that God’s justice and mercy were done, and the earliest disciples similarly challenged prohibitions by the authorities on their acts of mercy and healing, we as followers of Jesus Christ have an obligation to engage in our civic lives in a way that most actively promotes mercy, compassion, and healing, and that resists efforts to seize power and control that serve no just purpose.
