Wisconsin 2025 Regular Session Status: To Executive 9 R cosponsors

SB 289 — Relating to: requirements for proposed administrative rules that impose any costs.

Last action — Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been sent to the executive. Introduced May 30, 2025. It awaits signature.

Vetoed by Governor Tony Evers (Democratic) on March 20, 2026.

Next likely step: the executive signs it into law or issues a veto.

Odds of enactment

Low chance

Based on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a low chance of becoming law.

Upgrade to see the exact probability and what's driving it.

A statistical estimate from our own model of past outcomes — an insight, not a guarantee. Policymaking is volatile.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 74% · moderate confidence

  • To Executive

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 39 sponsors

    1 primary, 38 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (9 R).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 3 recorded votes so far.

Based on stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes, and cross-state momentum — a description of the observable signals, not a prediction.

Summary

An Act to consolidate, renumber and amend 227.137 (3) (b) (intro.) and 1.; to amend 227.137 (3) (c), 227.137 (4m) (b) 2. a., 227.137 (4m) (b) 2. b., 227.137 (4m) (c) 1., 227.139 (1), 227.139 (2) (b), 227.19 (5) (b) 3. a. and 227.19 (5) (b) 3. b.; to create 227.137 (3m) and 227.139 (2) (c) of the statutes;

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

104 added · 182 removed

Plain-language change summary

The new version of Senate Bill 289 simplifies the requirements for analyzing proposed administrative rules that may impose costs. Key changes include repealing the previous provision dealing with economic impact analyses and clarifying that agencies must provide a clearer explanation if their estimates differ from independent analyses. This matters because it aims to ensure that the potential financial impacts on businesses and local governments are more transparently evaluated, which can help stakeholders better understand the implications of new regulations.

→
Previous
Latest
- 2026 LEGISLATURE LRB-2514/1 MED:cdc SENATE BILL 289 May 30, 2025 - Introduced by Senators B RADLEY, C ABRAL-GUEVARA , FEYEN, H UTTON, KAPENGA , ASS, QUINN, STAFSHOLT and TOMCZYK , cosponsored by Representatives GUSTAFSON , NEDWESKI , ARMSTRONG , BEHNKE , BROOKS , C ALLAHAN, DALLMAN , DITTRIC, DONOVAN , GOEBEN , REEN , GUNDRUM , B.
Date of enactment:
JACOBSON , KAUFERT, KNODL , KREIBICH, RUG , MAXEY, MELOTIK, MURPHY , M URSAU , NEYLON, O'CONNOR, PENTERMAN , PIWOWARCZYK , TITTL, RANEL , TUSLER , WICHGERS and W ITTKE.
Senate Bill 289 Date of publication*:
Referred to Committee on Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs.
WISCONSIN ACT A N A CT to repeal 227.137 (3) (b) 2.;
A N A CT to consolidate, renumber and amend 227.137 (3) (b) (intro.) and 1.;
to consolidate, renumber and amend 227.137 (3) (b) (intro.) and 1.;
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau Under current law, if a proposed administrative rule is reasonably expected to pass along $10,000,000 or more in implementation and compliance costs to businesses, local governmental units, and individuals over any two-year period, the agency proposing the rule must stop working on the proposed rule until 1) the agency modifies the proposed rule to reduce the expected costs or 2) a bill is enacted that allows the agency to promulgate the proposed rule.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in sen- ure.
These requirements do not apply to emergency rules or to certain rules proposed by the Department of Natural Resources that relate to air quality and that are required under federal law.
With respect to an independent economic impact ate and assembly, do enact as follows:
This bill changes those requirements so that the requirements apply when a proposed rule is reasonably expected to pass along any amount of implementation and compliance costs to businesses, local governmental units, and individuals over any two-year period.
analysis prepared under sub.
Under the bill, the agency proposing such a rule must stop - 2026 Legislature - 2 - LRB-2514/1 MED:cdc SENATE BILL 289 SECTION 1 working on the proposed rule until 1) the agency modifies the proposed rule to eliminate the expected costs;
(4m) or s.
2) a bill is enacted that allows the agency to promulgate the proposed rule;
227.19 (5) (b) 3., SECTION 1.
or 3) the agency promulgates or has promulgated a different rule, in the same calendar year as proposing the rule at issue, that is reasonably expected to reduce implementation and compliance costs to businesses, local governmental units, and individuals over any two-year period, in an amount that will offset the amount of costs resulting from the proposed rule at issue.
The bill also requires an agency, in the economic impact analysis of a proposed rule that the agency is required to prepare, to include an estimate of the total implementation and compliance cost savings that are reasonably expected to be realized by businesses, local governmental units, and individuals as a result of the proposed rule, expressed as a single dollar figure.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
of the statutes are consolidated, renumbered 227.137 (3) (b) and amended to read:
of the the person preparing the analysis shall provide a de- statutes are consolidated, renumbered 227.137 (3) (b) tailed explanation of any variance from the agency’s es- and amended to read:
227.137 (3) (b) An analysis and detailed quantification of the economic impact of the proposed rule, prepared in accordance with sub.
timate under this subdivision paragraph.
(3m), including the implementation and compliance costs that are reasonably expected to be incurred by or passed along to the businesses, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule, specifically including all of the following:
227.137 (3) (b) An analysis and detailed quantifica- SECTION 1m.
227.137 (3) (b) 2.
of the statutes is repealed.
tion of the economic impact of the proposed rule, pre- pared in accordance with sub.
(3m), including the im- SECTION 2.
227.137 (3) (c) of the statutes is plementation and compliance costs that are reasonably amended to read:
expected to be incurred by or passed along to the busi- 227.137 (3) (c) An analysis of the actual and quan- nesses, local governmental units, and individuals that tifiable benefits of the proposed rule not otherwise de- may be affected by the proposed rule, specifically in- scribed under par.
(b), including an assessment of how effective the proposed rule will be in addressing the pol- cluding all of the following:
An estimate of the total implementation and compliance costs that are reasonably expected to be incurred by or passed along to businesses, local governmental units, and individuals as a result of the proposed rule, expressed as well as any cost savings that are reasonably expected to be realized by those businesses, local governmental units, and individuals.
An estimate of the total implementation and compliance costs that are reason- icy problem that the rule is intended to address.
The agency shall list out the costs and cost savings as they pertain to each affected type of business, local governmental unit, and individual.
ably expected to be incurred by or passed along to busi- SECTION 3.
The agency shall also compile the total net costs and cost savings for all affected businesses, local governmental units, and individuals and shall - 2026 Legislature - 3 - LRB-2514/1 MED:cdc SENATE BILL 289 SECTION 1 express the result as a single dollar figuWith respect to an independent economic impact analysis prepared under sub.
227.137 (3m) of the statutes is created nesses, local governmental units, and individuals as a re- to read:
(4m) or s.
sult of the proposed rule, expressed as well as any cost 227.137 (3m) For purposes of sub.
227.19 (5) (b) 3., the person preparing the analysis shall provide a detailed explanation of any variance from the agency’s estimate under this subdivision paragraph.
(3) (b), the esti- savings that are reasonably expected to be realized by mate of the implementation and compliance costs that those businesses, local governmental units, and individ- are reasonably expected to be incurred by or passed uals.
S ECTION 2.
The agency shall list out the costs and cost savings along to the businesses, local governmental units, and as they pertain to each affected type of business, local individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule, as governmental unit, and individual.
227.137 (3) (c) of the statutes is amended to read:
The agency shall well as any cost savings that are reasonably expected to also compile the total net costs and cost savings for all be realized by those businesses, local governmental affected businesses, local governmental units, and indi- units, and individuals, shall be attributed to the pro- viduals and shall express the result as a single dollar fig- posed rule regardless of the level or extent of discretion ernor's partial veto which does not expressly prescribe the time when it takes effect shall take effect on the day after its date of publication.” Wisconsin Act - 2 - 2025 Senate Bill 289 afforded to the agency in determining the policies of the year period as a result of the proposed rule, the agency proposed rule and regardless of whether those costs and proposing the rule shall stop work on the proposed rule cost savings are attributable to any of the following:
227.137 (3) (c) An analysis of the actual and quantifiable benefits of the proposed rule not otherwise described under par.
and may not continue promulgating the proposed rule (a) The underlying statutory directives or objectives notwithstanding any provision authorizing or requiring that are the basis for the proposed rule or that determine the agency to promulgate the proposed rule, except as or otherwise impact the policies proposed to be included authorized under sub.
(b), including an assessment of how effective the proposed rule will be in addressing the policy problem that the rule is intended to address.
(2).
S ECTION 3.
in the rule.
227.137 (3m) of the statutes is created to read:
S ECTION 8.
227.137 (3m) For purposes of sub.
227.139 (2) (b) of the statutes is (b) Any other statutory directives or objectives that amended to read:
(3) (b), the estimate of the implementation and compliance costs that are reasonably expected to be incurred by or passed along to the businesses, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule, as well as any cost savings that are reasonably expected to be realized by those businesses, local governmental units, and individuals, shall be attributed to the proposed rule regardless of the level or extent of discretion afforded to the agency in determining the policies of the proposed rule and regardless of whether those costs and cost savings are attributable to any of the following:
impact the proposed rule or that determine or otherwise 227.139 (2) (b) If an agency is prohibited from pro- impact the policies proposed to be included in the rule.
(a) The underlying statutory directives or objectives that are the basis for the proposed rule or that determine or otherwise impact the policies proposed to be included in the rule.
mulgating a rule under sub.
(b) Any other statutory directives or objectives that impact the proposed rule - 2026 Legislature - 4 - LRB-2514/1 MED:cdc SENATE BILL 289 SECTION 3 or that determine or otherwise impact the policies proposed to be included in the rule.
(1), the agency may modify (c) Requirements, limitations, or other constraints the proposed rule, if the modification is germane to the imposed under federal law.
(c) Requirements, limitations, or other constraints imposed under federal law.
subject matter of the proposed rule, to address the im- (d) Other factors that bear on the necessity of the plementation and compliance costs of the proposed rule.
(d) Other factors that bear on the necessity of the policies of the proposed rule.
policies of the proposed rule.
Show all 112 changed rows (72 more)
Previous
Latest
S ECTION 4.
If the agency modifies a proposed rule under this para- SECTION 4.
of the statutes is amended to read:
of the statutes is graph, the agency shall prepare a revised economic im- amended to read:
227.137 (4m) (b) 2.
pact analysis under s.
227.137 (4).
Following the modi- 227.137 (4m) (b) 2.
If the estimate in the independent economic impact analysis of total implementation and compliance costs under sub.
If the estimate in the inde- fication, the agency may continue with the rule-making pendent economic impact analysis of total implementa- process as provided in this subchapter if the revised eco- tion and compliance costs under sub.
varies from the agency’s estimate by 15 percent or more or varies from the agency’s determination that there will be no implementation or compliance costs, the cochairperson shall assess the agency that is proposing the proposed rule for the costs of completing the independent economic impact analysis.
varies nomic impact analysis prepared by the agency indicates, from the agency’s estimate by 15 percent or more or and any independent economic impact analysis prepared varies from the agency’s determination that there will be under s.
S ECTION 5.
227.137 (4m) or 227.19 (5) (b) 3.
subsequent to no implementation or compliance costs, the cochairper- the agency’s modification also indicates, that son shall assess the agency that is proposing the pro- $10,000,000 or more in no net implementation and posed rule for the costs of completing the independent compliance costs are not reasonably expected to be in- economic impact analysis.
curred by or passed along to businesses, local govern- SECTION 5.
of the statutes is amended to read:
of the statutes is mental units, and individuals over any 2-year period as a amended to read:
result of the proposed rule.
If the estimate in the independent economic impact analysis of total implementation and compliance costs under sub.
If the estimate in the inde- S ECTION 9.
227.139 (2) (c) of the statutes is created pendent economic impact analysis of total implementa- to read:
tion and compliance costs under sub.
does not vary from the agency’s estimate by 15 percent or more or is in accord with the agency’s determination that there will be no implementation and compliance costs, the costs of completing the independent economic impact analysis shall be paid from the appropriation account that corresponds to his or her house of the legislature under s.
does not 227.139 (2) (c) If an agency is prohibited from pro- vary from the agency’s estimate by 15 percent or more mulgating a rule under sub.
(1), the agency may promul- or is in accord with the agency’s determination that gate a separate rule or use a previously promulgated rule there will be no implementation and compliance costs, to fully offset the implementation and compliance costs the costs of completing the independent economic im- of the proposed rule, if the other rule is promulgated in pact analysis shall be paid from the appropriation ac- the same calendar year as the proposed rule and has not count that corresponds to his or her house of the legisla- previously been used to offset costs under this para- ture under s.
S ECTION 6.
graph.
If the agency promulgates or uses a rule as pro- SECTION 6.
of the statutes is amended to read:
of the statutes is vided under this paragraph, the agency shall prepare a amended to read:
revised economic impact analysis under s.
227.137 (4).
Include in the analysis the information that is required under sub.
Include in the analysis the infor- The agency may continue with the rule-making process mation that is required under sub.
(3), prepared in accordance with sub.
(3), prepared in accor- as provided in this subchapter if the revised economic dance with sub.
S ECTION 7.
impact analysis prepared by the agency indicates, and SECTION 7.
227.139 (1) of the statutes is amended to read:
227.139 (1) of the statutes is amended any independent economic impact analysis prepared un- to read:
227.139 (1) If an economic impact analysis prepared under s.
der s.
227.137 (2), a - 2026 Legislature - 5 - LRB-2514/1 MED:cdc SENATE BILL 289 SECTION 7 revised economic impact analysis prepared under s.
227.137 (4), or an independent economic impact analysis prepared under s.
indicates that $10,000,000 or more in there are any net implementation and compliance costs that are are reasonably expected to be incurred by or passed along to businesses, local governmental units, and individuals over any 2-year period as a result of the proposed rule, the agency proposing the rule shall stop work on the proposed rule and may not continue promulgating the proposed rule notwithstanding any provision authorizing or requiring the agency to promulgate the proposed rule, except as authorized under sub.
subsequent to 227.139 (1) If an economic impact analysis pre- the agency’s modification also indicates, that another pared under s.
(2).
227.137 (2), a revised economic impact rule promulgated by the agency fully offsets any imple- analysis prepared under s.
SECTION 8.
227.137 (4), or an indepen- mentation and compliance costs that are reasonably ex- dent economic impact analysis prepared under s.
227.139 (2) (b) of the statutes is amended to read:
pected to be incurred by or passed along to businesses, 227.137 (4m) or 227.19 (5) (b) 3.
227.139 (2) (b) If an agency is prohibited from promulgating a rule under sub.
indicates that local governmental units, and individuals over any 2- $10,000,000 or more in there are any net implementa- year period as a result of the proposed rule.
(1), the agency may modify the proposed rule, if the modification is germane to the subject matter of the proposed rule, to address the implementation and compliance costs of the proposed rule.
tion and compliance costs that are are reasonably ex- S ECTION 10.
If the agency modifies a proposed rule under this paragraph, the agency shall prepare a revised economic impact analysis under s.
227.137 (4).
Following the modification, the agency may continue with the rule- making process as provided in this subchapter if the revised economic impact analysis prepared by the agency indicates, and any independent economic impact analysis prepared under s.
227.137 (4m) or 227.19 (5) (b) 3.
subsequent to the agency’s modification also indicates, that $10,000,000 or more in no net implementation and compliance costs are not reasonably expected to be incurred by or passed along to businesses, local governmental units, and individuals over any 2- year period as a result of the proposed rule.
- 2026 Legislature - 6 - LRB-2514/1 MED:cdc SENATE BILL 289 SECTION 9 S ECTION 9.
227.139 (2) (c) of the statutes is created to read:
227.139 (2) (c) If an agency is prohibited from promulgating a rule under sub.
(1), the agency may promulgate a separate rule or use a previously promulgated rule to fully offset the implementation and compliance costs of the proposed rule, if the other rule is promulgated in the same calendar year as the proposed rule and has not previously been used to offset costs under this paragraph.
If the agency promulgates or uses a rule as provided under this paragraph, the agency shall prepare a revised economic impact analysis under s.
227.137 (4).
The agency may continue with the rule-making process as provided in this subchapter if the revised economic impact analysis prepared by the agency indicates, and any independent economic impact analysis prepared under s.
227.137 (4m) or 227.19 (5) (b) 3.
subsequent to the agency’s modification also indicates, that another rule promulgated by the agency fully offsets any implementation and compliance costs that are reasonably expected to be incurred by or passed along to businesses, local governmental units, and individuals over any 2-year period as a result of the proposed rule.
S ECTION 10.
of the statutes is amended to read:
of the statutes is pected to be incurred by or passed along to businesses, amended to read:
227.19 (5) (b) 3.
local governmental units, and individuals over any 2- 227.19 (5) (b) 3.
a.If the estimate in the independent economic impact analysis of total implementation and compliance costs under s.
a.
If the estimate in the indepen- Senate Bill 289 - 3 - 2025 Wisconsin Act dent economic impact analysis of total implementation and compliance costs under s.
varies from the agency’s estimate by 15 percent or more or varies from the agency’s determination that there will be no implementation or compliance costs, the committee shall assess the agency that is proposing the proposed rule for the costs of completing the independent economic impact analysis.
does and compliance costs under s.
- 2026 Legislature - 7 - LRB-2514/1 MED:cdc SENATE BILL 289 S ECTION 11 S ECTION 11.
227.19 (5) (b) 3.
b.
of the statutes is amended to read:
227.19 (5) (b) 3.
b.If the estimate in the independent economic impact analysis of total implementation and compliance costs under s.
does not vary from the agency’s estimate by 15 percent or more or is in accord with the agency’s determination that there will be no implementation and compliance costs, the costs of completing the independent economic impact analysis shall be paid in equal parts from the appropriation accounts under s.
varies not vary from the agency’s estimate by 15 percent or from the agency’s estimate by 15 percent or more or more or is in accord with the agency’s determination varies from the agency’s determination that there will be that there will be no implementation and compliance no implementation or compliance costs, the committee costs, the costs of completing the independent economic shall assess the agency that is proposing the proposed impact analysis shall be paid in equal parts from the ap- rule for the costs of completing the independent eco- nomic impact analysis.
propriation accounts under s.
S ECTION 12.
SECTION 11.
227.19 (5) (b) 3.
b.
of the statutes is SECTION 12.
(1) This act first applies to a proposed rule whose statement of scope is presented for approval under s.
(1) This act first applies to a proposed rule whose amended to read:
227.135 (2) on the effective date of this subsection.
227.19 (5) (b) 3.
(END)
b.
If the estimate in the indepen- statement of scope is presented for approval under s.
dent economic impact analysis of total implementation 227.135 (2) on the effective date of this subsection.
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82

  2. Placed on calendar 5-12-2026 pursuant to Joint Rule 82 (2)(a)

  3. Report vetoed by the Governor on 3-20-2026

  4. Presented to the Governor on 3-18-2026

  5. Report correctly enrolled

  6. LRB correction

  7. Received from Assembly concurred in

  8. Ordered immediately messaged

  9. Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 53, Noes 45

  10. Rules suspended

  11. Ordered to a third reading

  12. Read a second time

  13. Rules suspended to withdraw from Senate message and take up

  14. Read

  15. Received from Senate

  16. Ordered immediately messaged

  17. Read a third time and passed, Ayes 18, Noes 15

  18. Rules suspended to give bill its third reading

  19. Ordered to a third reading

  20. Read a second time

  21. Placed on calendar 2-11-2026 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)

  22. Available for scheduling

  23. Report passage recommended by Committee on Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs, Ayes 3, Noes 2

  24. Executive action taken

  25. Public hearing held

  26. Read first time and referred to Committee on Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs

  27. Introduced by Senators Bradley, Cabral-Guevara, Feyen, Hutton, Kapenga, Nass, Quinn, Stafsholt and Tomczyk; cosponsored by Representatives Gustafson, Nedweski, Armstrong, Behnke, Brooks, Callahan, Dallman, Dittrich, Donovan, Goeben, Green, Gundrum, B. Jacobson, Kaufert, Knodl, Kreibich, Krug, Maxey, Melotik, Murphy, Mursau, Neylon, O'Connor, Penterman, Piwowarczyk, Tittl, Tranel, Tusler, Wichgers and Wittke

Sponsors

  • Gustafson · Cosponsor
  • Nedweski · Cosponsor
  • Armstrong · Cosponsor
  • Behnke · Cosponsor
  • Brooks · Cosponsor
  • Callahan · Cosponsor
  • Dallman · Cosponsor
  • Dittrich · Cosponsor
  • Donovan · Cosponsor
  • Goeben · Cosponsor
  • Green · Cosponsor
  • Gundrum · Cosponsor
  • B. Jacobson · Cosponsor
  • Kaufert · Cosponsor
  • Knodl · Cosponsor
  • Kreibich · Cosponsor
  • Rob Stafsholt · Cosponsor
  • Romaine Quinn · Cosponsor
  • Steve Nass · Cosponsor
  • Rachael Cabral-Guevara · Cosponsor
  • Julian Bradley · Primary
  • Krug · Cosponsor
  • Maxey · Cosponsor
  • Melotik · Cosponsor
  • Murphy · Cosponsor
  • Mursau · Cosponsor
  • Neylon · Cosponsor
  • O'Connor · Cosponsor
  • Penterman · Cosponsor
  • Piwowarczyk · Cosponsor
  • Tittl · Cosponsor
  • Tranel · Cosponsor
  • Tusler · Cosponsor
  • Wichgers · Cosponsor
  • Wittke · Cosponsor
  • Cory Tomczyk · Cosponsor
  • Chris Kapenga · Cosponsor
  • Rob Hutton · Cosponsor
  • Dan Feyen · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 38 co-sponsors · 93 not signed on · 55 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (38)

Not signed on (93)

93 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 93 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Read a third time and concurred in

Passed 53 Yea · 45 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 52001
Democrat 04300
Unaffiliated 1200
Total 534501
% of votes cast 54%45%0%1%
How each member voted (99)
Member Party Vote
JOHNSON — Nay
MOORE OMOKUNDE — Nay
SPEAKER — Yea
Anderson, Clinton Democrat Nay
Andraca, Deb Democrat Nay
Arney, Margaret Democrat Nay
Bare, Mike Democrat Nay
Billings, Jill Democrat Nay
Brown, Brienne Democrat Nay
Clancy, Ryan Democrat Nay
Cruz, Angelina Democrat Nay
DeSanto, Karen Democrat Nay
DeSmidt, Ben Democrat Nay
Doyle, Steve Democrat Nay
Emerson, Jodi Democrat Nay
Fitzgerald, Joan Democrat Nay
Goodwin, Russell Democrat Nay
Haywood, Kalan Democrat Nay
Hong, Francesca Democrat Nay
Hysell, Andrew Democrat Nay
Jacobson, Jenna Democrat Nay
Joers, Alex Democrat Nay
Kirsch, Karen Democrat Nay
Madison, Darrin Democrat Nay
Mayadev, Renuka Democrat Nay
McCarville, Maureen Democrat Nay
McGuire, Tip Democrat Nay
Miresse, Vincent Democrat Nay
Neubauer, Greta Democrat Nay
Ortiz-Velez, Sylvia Democrat Nay
Palmeri, Lori Democrat Nay
Phelps, Christian Democrat Nay
Prado, Priscilla Democrat Nay
Rivera-Wagner, Amaad Democrat Nay
Roe, Ann Democrat Nay
Sheehan, Joe Democrat Nay
Sinicki, Christine Democrat Nay
Snodgrass, Lee Democrat Nay
Spaude, Ryan Democrat Nay
Stroud, Angela Democrat Nay
Stubbs, Shelia Democrat Nay
Subeck, Lisa Democrat Nay
Taylor, Sequanna Democrat Nay
Tenorio, Angelito Democrat Nay
Udell, Randy Democrat Nay
Vining, Robyn Democrat Nay
Allen, Scott Republican Yea
Armstrong, David Republican Yea
August, Tyler Republican Yea
Behnke, Elijah Republican Yea
Born, Mark Republican Yea
Brill, Lindee Republican Yea
Brooks, Robert Republican Yea
Callahan, Calvin Republican Yea
Dallman, Alex Republican Yea
Dittrich, Barbara Republican Yea
Donovan, Bob Republican Yea
Duchow, Cindi Republican Yea
Franklin, Benjamin Republican Yea
Goeben, Joy Republican Yea
Green, Chanz Republican Yea
Gundrum, Rick Republican Yea
Gustafson, Nate Republican Yea
Hurd, Karen Republican Yea
Jacobson, Brent Republican Yea
Kaufert, Dean Republican Yea
Kitchens, Joel Republican Yea
Knodl, Daniel Republican Yea
Kreibich, Rob Republican Yea
Krug, Scott Republican Yea
Kurtz, Tony Republican Yea
Maxey, Dave Republican Yea
Melotik, Paul Republican Yea
Moses, Clint Republican Yea
Murphy, David Republican Yea
Mursau, Jeffrey Republican Yea
Nedweski, Amanda Republican Yea
Neylon, Adam Republican Yea
Novak, Todd Republican Yea
O'Connor, Jerry Republican Yea
Penterman, William Republican Yea
Petersen, Kevin Republican Yea
Piwowarczyk, Jim Republican Yea
Pronschinske, Treig Republican Yea
Rodriguez, Jessie Republican Yea
Snyder, Patrick Republican Yea
Sortwell, Shae Republican Yea
Spiros, John Republican Yea
Steffen, David Republican Yea
Summerfield, Rob Republican Yea
Swearingen, Rob Republican Yea
Tittl, Paul Republican Yea
Tranel, Travis Republican Yea
Tucker, Duke Republican Yea
Tusler, Ron Republican Yea
VanderMeer, Nancy Republican Yea
Wichgers, Chuck Republican Yea
Wittke, Robert Republican Yea
Zimmerman, Shannon Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Read a third time and passed

Passed 18 Yea · 15 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 18000
Democrat 01200
Unaffiliated 0300
Total 181500
% of votes cast 55%45%0%0%
How each member voted (33)
Member Party Vote
JOHNSON — Nay
DASSLER-ALFHEI — Nay
HABUSH SINYKIN — Nay
Carpenter, Tim Democrat Nay
Drake, Dora Democrat Nay
Hesselbein, Dianne Democrat Nay
Keyeski, Sarah Democrat Nay
Larson, Chris Democrat Nay
Pfaff, Brad Democrat Nay
Ratcliff, Melissa Democrat Nay
Roys, Kelda Democrat Nay
Smith, Jeff Democrat Nay
Spreitzer, Mark Democrat Nay
Wall, Jamie Democrat Nay
Wirch, Robert Democrat Nay
Bradley, Julian Republican Yea
Cabral-Guevara, Rachael Republican Yea
Felzkowski, Mary Republican Yea
Feyen, Dan Republican Yea
Hutton, Rob Republican Yea
Jacque, André Republican Yea
Jagler, John Republican Yea
James, Jesse Republican Yea
Kapenga, Chris Republican Yea
LeMahieu, Devin Republican Yea
Marklein, Howard Republican Yea
Nass, Steve Republican Yea
Quinn, Romaine Republican Yea
Stafsholt, Rob Republican Yea
Testin, Patrick Republican Yea
Tomczyk, Cory Republican Yea
Wanggaard, Van Republican Yea
Wimberger, Eric Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety labor technology
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 289 do?
An Act to consolidate, renumber and amend 227.137 (3) (b) (intro.) and 1.; to amend 227.137 (3) (c), 227.137 (4m) (b) 2. a., 227.137 (4m) (b) 2. b., 227.137 (4m) (c) 1., 227.139 (1), 227.139 (2) (b), 227.19 (5) (b) 3. a. and 227.19 (5) (b) 3. b.; to create 227.137 (3m) and 227.139 (2) (c) of the statutes;
Who sponsors SB 289?
SB 289 is sponsored by Gustafson, Nedweski, Armstrong, Behnke, Brooks, Callahan, Dallman, Dittrich, Donovan, Goeben, Green, Gundrum, B. Jacobson, Kaufert, Knodl, Kreibich, Stafsholt, Rob (Republican), Quinn, Romaine (Republican), Nass, Steve (Republican), Cabral-Guevara, Rachael (Republican), Bradley, Julian (Republican), Krug, Maxey, Melotik, Murphy, Mursau, Neylon, O'Connor, Penterman, Piwowarczyk, Tittl, Tranel, Tusler, Wichgers, Wittke, Tomczyk, Cory (Republican), Kapenga, Chris (Republican), Hutton, Rob (Republican), and Feyen, Dan (Republican).
What is the current status of SB 289?
This bill has been sent to the executive. Introduced May 30, 2025. It awaits signature.
Where can I track SB 289?
Track SB 289 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 289

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 289

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →