‘It was confusing’: Wisconsin voters question clarity of constitutional amendment questions on the ballot
MILWAUKEE (CBS 58) - Wisconsin voters did more than choose a governor on Election Day, they also weighed in on three proposed changes to the state constitution. Two passed, but some voters and experts say understanding what a "yes" or "no" vote meant, was not always easy.
Mordecai Lee, professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, says the wording of constitutional questions can leave voters confused about what their vote actually means.
“A lot of people get it reversed; they don’t understand the dynamic of ‘yes’ the amendment passes or ‘no’ the status quo remains,” Lee said.
The first question would limit the governor’s partial veto power over monetary issues. It passed with 51% voting yes and 49% voting no.
The second question would allow places of worship to remain open during a state of emergency. Voters rejected the proposal, with 49% voting yes and 51% voting no.
“Voters said no, they think houses of worship should be subject to any kind of shutdown or quarantine should it ever happen again. That religion is important but it’s not above everything else,” Lee said.
The third question would prohibit diversity, equity and inclusion programs in state government. It passed, with 56% voting yes and 44% voting no.
Voces de la Frontera said the result highlights a contradiction in the election results.
“To elect Wisconsin’s first Black governor and at the same time pass a referendum that may limit people of color from accessing higher education tells you a deep story about how confusing that question is,” Livia Rowell-Ortiz of Voces de la Frontera said.
Lee also questioned whether voters fully understood the third amendment before casting their ballots.
“Obviously it passed, but I’m not sure if it passed because people understood what it meant,” Lee said.
Lee said voters need a clearer explanation of constitutional questions so they can better understand both the proposals.
“I really wish there could be a way to present these questions in a way that would help a voter that didn’t go to law school understand what the question means and what the significance of what yes and no means,” Lee said.