Wisconsin Senate adopts constitutional amendment to require photo ID to vote
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Wisconsin State Senate on the floor adopted Senate Joint Resolution 2, a proposed constitutional amendment that would require voters to present photographic identification to vote.
Senate Joint Resolution 2 passed on a roll-call vote after more than two hours of debate that split the chamber along partisan lines. Supporters urged the measure as a way to lock an existing voter ID requirement into the state constitution; opponents criticized the timing and said the change would make it harder for some residents to vote.
The sponsor identified in debate as the senator from the 21st, who said he brought the amendment to ensure that a future state or federal court could not undo the voter-ID requirement, argued that the requirement is widely popular. “This is the one bill that’s been introduced,” the senator from the 21st said on the floor, and he cited turnout figures he said showed voting remained robust: “More than 85% of the registered voters in Milwaukee voted in November,” and “73% of the registered voters voted statewide in November 2024,” which he described as “the largest raw total in state history.” He also disputed estimates that large numbers of people were prevented from voting by the law, summarizing committee testimony that he said showed only a handful of documented polling incidents.
Opponents on the floor pressed different points. The senator from the 26th — speaking after a fatal school shooting in her district — said the chamber should prioritize issues such as gun safety, childcare affordability and PFAS contamination instead of moving immediately to amend the constitution. “But rather than tackle any of these important issues… the first thing that we’re going to do is go back to the old tired Republican playbook of power grabs, cynical partisan ploys to try to rig the system so that Republicans can maintain their political power,” the senator from the 26th said. She added, “There is no more fundamental right in a democracy than the freedom to vote.”
Other critics said the move risks disenfranchising specific groups. The senator from the 6th highlighted access barriers, including transportation or caregiving responsibilities that can prevent a person from obtaining required identification, and noted committee testimony about limited Americans with Disabilities Act–accessible DMV locations. The senator from the 15th and others said the vote was rushed, citing a public hearing notice the prior evening and arguing that the schedule gave the public little opportunity to testify.
Supporters rejected claims of widespread disenfranchisement, saying the law has been in place for years and that safeguards exist. The sponsor noted the amendment would still allow the legislature to adjust which forms of identification qualify and said the measure would go before voters if approved by both houses.
On the roll call the clerk read on the Senate floor, the presiding officer recorded the final vote as 17 ayes and 15 noes and announced that the joint resolution was adopted. The Senate immediately ordered that its action be messaged to the Assembly.
Votes at a glance
Senate Joint Resolution 2 — constitutional amendment to require photographic identification to vote: adopted by the Senate (roll-call recorded as 17 ayes, 15 noes). The resolution will be transmitted to the Assembly for further consideration.
Context
Senate Joint Resolution 2 would place the voter-ID requirement into the Wisconsin Constitution if it is approved by both legislative chambers in successive sessions and then by a statewide vote. Debate on the floor referenced prior litigation over Wisconsin’s statutory voter-ID law (passed in 2011) and recent academic, media and advocacy material presented to the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. Members on both sides cited studies and turnout data in support of their positions; proponents argued turnout has been strong while opponents focused on documented instances where individuals said they were unable to vote because their identification did not match the law’s narrow list.
What’s next
Per statements on the floor, the Senate’s action will be messaged to the Assembly. If the Assembly approves the same language in this and the next legislative session, the proposal would then appear on a future statewide ballot for voter approval.
Senate Joint Resolution 2 passed on a roll-call vote after more than two hours of debate that split the chamber along partisan lines. Supporters urged the measure as a way to lock an existing voter ID requirement into the state constitution; opponents criticized the timing and said the change would make it harder for some residents to vote.
The sponsor identified in debate as the senator from the 21st, who said he brought the amendment to ensure that a future state or federal court could not undo the voter-ID requirement, argued that the requirement is widely popular. “This is the one bill that’s been introduced,” the senator from the 21st said on the floor, and he cited turnout figures he said showed voting remained robust: “More than 85% of the registered voters in Milwaukee voted in November,” and “73% of the registered voters voted statewide in November 2024,” which he described as “the largest raw total in state history.” He also disputed estimates that large numbers of people were prevented from voting by the law, summarizing committee testimony that he said showed only a handful of documented polling incidents.
Opponents on the floor pressed different points. The senator from the 26th — speaking after a fatal school shooting in her district — said the chamber should prioritize issues such as gun safety, childcare affordability and PFAS contamination instead of moving immediately to amend the constitution. “But rather than tackle any of these important issues… the first thing that we’re going to do is go back to the old tired Republican playbook of power grabs, cynical partisan ploys to try to rig the system so that Republicans can maintain their political power,” the senator from the 26th said. She added, “There is no more fundamental right in a democracy than the freedom to vote.”
Other critics said the move risks disenfranchising specific groups. The senator from the 6th highlighted access barriers, including transportation or caregiving responsibilities that can prevent a person from obtaining required identification, and noted committee testimony about limited Americans with Disabilities Act–accessible DMV locations. The senator from the 15th and others said the vote was rushed, citing a public hearing notice the prior evening and arguing that the schedule gave the public little opportunity to testify.
Supporters rejected claims of widespread disenfranchisement, saying the law has been in place for years and that safeguards exist. The sponsor noted the amendment would still allow the legislature to adjust which forms of identification qualify and said the measure would go before voters if approved by both houses.
On the roll call the clerk read on the Senate floor, the presiding officer recorded the final vote as 17 ayes and 15 noes and announced that the joint resolution was adopted. The Senate immediately ordered that its action be messaged to the Assembly.
Votes at a glance
Senate Joint Resolution 2 — constitutional amendment to require photographic identification to vote: adopted by the Senate (roll-call recorded as 17 ayes, 15 noes). The resolution will be transmitted to the Assembly for further consideration.
Context
Senate Joint Resolution 2 would place the voter-ID requirement into the Wisconsin Constitution if it is approved by both legislative chambers in successive sessions and then by a statewide vote. Debate on the floor referenced prior litigation over Wisconsin’s statutory voter-ID law (passed in 2011) and recent academic, media and advocacy material presented to the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. Members on both sides cited studies and turnout data in support of their positions; proponents argued turnout has been strong while opponents focused on documented instances where individuals said they were unable to vote because their identification did not match the law’s narrow list.
What’s next
Per statements on the floor, the Senate’s action will be messaged to the Assembly. If the Assembly approves the same language in this and the next legislative session, the proposal would then appear on a future statewide ballot for voter approval.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting