State Senate: Republican majority
State House: Republican majority
Governor: Tony Evers (D)
Attorney General: Josh Kaul (D)
Summary:
The partisan balance of Wisconsin’s government in 2024 reflects the state’s highly competitive political landscape. The state is divided with a Republican-controlled legislature and a Democratic governor and Attorney General. In the State Senate, Republicans hold a majority with 22 seats, while Democrats have 11. The State Assembly is also controlled by Republicans, who have 64 seats compared to the Democrats’ 35. Despite the Republican legislative dominance, Wisconsin is known for its close elections, with narrow margins often deciding key races. The state’s political dynamics are also influenced by recent legislative and judicial actions, including debates over voter ID laws, absentee ballot regulations, and constitutional amendments that could limit the governor’s powers.
Recent speech-related legislation include measures to limit social media censorship, protect free speech on public college campuses, limit the ability of minors to access social media, and limit the use of generative-AI in elections and instant messaging “chatbots” unless disclosures are used, the former of which became law.
A particularly strong bill introduced but not yet passed is AB 894, which prohibits state agency employees and elected officials from influencing or attempting to influence a social media Internet site to censor, deplatform, or shadow ban users on the social media Internet site. The prohibition also applies to a U.S. senator or representative in congress elected to his or her office in this state and to federal government agency employees present in this state.
Key Policymakers:
- Rep. Shae Sortwell [R],Rep. Elijah Behnke [R], Rep. Joy Goeben [R], Rep. David Murphy [R], Rep. Peter Schmidt [R], Rep. Adam Neylon [R], Rep. Clinton Anderson [D], and Rep. Michael Schraa [R]
- Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara [R], Sen. Cory Tomczyk [R], Sen. Mark Spreitzer [D], and Sen. Romaine Quinn [R]
Legislative Activity:
AB 893: Prohibits social media sites with more than 150 million users from censoring, de-platforming or shadow-banning journalistic enterprises. Republican-only bill introduced by Rep. Shae Sortwell [R],Rep. Elijah Behnke [R], Rep. Joy Goeben [R], Rep. David Murphy [R], Rep. Peter Schmidt [R], and Rep. Michael Schraa [R] in Jan. 2024 but did not progress.
AB 895: This bill creates a civil cause of action against the owner or operator of a social media website that is available to the public and that has more than 150 million users, if the owner or operator of the website intentionally censors, de-platforms, shadow-bans, or fails to disclose certain policies. Republican-only bill introduced by Rep. Shae Sortwell [R],Rep. Elijah Behnke [R], Rep. Joy Goeben [R], Rep. David Murphy [R], Rep. Peter Schmidt [R], and Rep. Michael Schraa [R] in Jan. 2024 but did not progress.
SB 575/ AB 553: This bill establishes certain standards related to free speech and academic freedom at University of Wisconsin System institutions and technical colleges. For violation of these standards, the Board of Regents of the UW System or technical college district board may be subject to a civil cause of action and must provide certain public notice of the violation. The bill also establishes certain due process standards in disciplinary proceedings at UW System institutions and technical colleges. For violation of these standards, a UW institution or technical college may become ineligible for Wisconsin grant funding allocation. Republican-only bill introduced by Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara [R], Rep. Amanda Nedweski [R], and Sen. Cory Tomczyk [R] in Oct. 2023, passed the House on a party-line vote but died in the Senate in April 2024.
SB 571/ AB 551: This bill affords certain rights and protections to student journalists who are public school pupils or students enrolled in a University of Wisconsin System institution or technical college. Bipartisan bill introduced by Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara [R], Sen. Mark Spreitzer [D], Rep. Tom Michalski [R], and Sen. Cory Tomczyk [R] in Oct. 2023, passed the House unanimously but died in the Senate in April 2024.
AB 894: This bill prohibits state agency employees and state elected officials from influencing or attempting to influence a social media Internet site to censor, deplatform, or shadow ban users on the social media Internet site. The prohibition also applies to a U.S. senator or representative in congress elected to his or her office in this state and to federal government agency employees present in this state. The bill defines “deplatforming” as deleting or banning a user from a social media Internet site for more than 60 days, and defines “shadow banning” as limiting or eliminating the exposure of a user, or content posted by or about a user, to other users. The penalty for each violation of the bill’s prohibitions is a forfeiture between $1,000 and $10,000. Republican-only bill introduced by Rep. Shae Sortwell [R], Rep. Elijah Behnke [R], Rep. Joy Goeben [R], Rep. Nate Gustafson [R], Rep. David Murphy [R], and Rep. Peter Schmidt [R] in Jan. 2024 but has not progressed.
SB 385/ AB 373: This bill creates requirements related to social media companies’ and social media platforms’ treatment of account holders under age 18. Under the bill, social media companies must ensure that all accounts are designated as youth accounts that comply with the youth account requirements of the bill. A social media company may remove the youth account designation from an account if 1) the social media company estimates that the account holder is not a minor through employment of a process or program that provides a 95 percent accuracy rate of estimating age within 24 months of actual age; 2) the social media company verifies that the account holder is not a minor; or 3) a parent or guardian of a minor account holder requests for the youth account designation to be removed from the minor’s account. Under the bill, a social media company shall do all of the following in regards to a youth account: 1) prevent direct messaging between the account holder and other account holders or users with whom the youth account holder is not connected; 2) refrain from showing information about the youth account to any person not connected to the youth account holder; 3) prevent advertising from being shown to the youth account holder; 4) refrain from collecting or using personal information from the youth account; 5) refrain from the use of targeted or suggested groups or content on the youth account; and 6) ensure that the youth account cannot be used between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Bipartisan bill introduced by Sen. Robert Cowles [R], Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara [R], and Rep. David Steffen [R] in August 2023 but did not progress.
SB 644/ AB 664: (Signed into Law). This bill requires that any audio or video communication that is paid for by a candidate committee, legislative campaign committee, political action committee, independent expenditure committee, political party, recall committee, or referendum committee with a contribution or disbursement make certain disclosures if the communication contains synthetic media. The bill defines “synthetic media” as audio or video content substantially produced by means of generative artificial intelligence. Under the bill, every audio communication paid for with a contribution or disbursement that contains synthetic media must include at both the beginning and the end of the communication the words “Contains content generated by AI.” Bipartisan bill introduced by Rep. Adam Neylon [R], Rep. Clinton Anderson [D], Sen. Romaine Quinn [R], and Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara [R]. Passed both chambers via voice vote and signed into law on March 21, 2024.
SB 1072/ HB 1158: This bill prohibits a person from hosting or using on the person’s digital platform, product, service, application, or web page generative artificial intelligence that simulates a conversation with or an instant message from a human being unless the person first provides to the user, in the same location as the conversation or instant message, a prominent and legible disclaimer that the generative artificial intelligence is not a human being. Bipartisan bill introduced by Sen. Mark Spreitzer [D], Sen. Christopher Larson [D], Rep. Elijah Behnke [R], and Rep. Nate Gustafson [R] in Feb. 2024 but has not progressed.
AJR 32 (2021): A resolution declaring April to be Freedom of Expression Month across Wisconsin. Introduced by Rep. David Murphy [R] and Sen. Andre Jacque [R] and passed both chambers via voice vote on June 11, 2021.
Legal Actions:
Wisconsin DOJ Joins Supreme Court Brief in Support of Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Law. On Aug 19 2022, the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) joined a coalition in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court defending the constitutionality of Colorado’s public accommodations law. The brief argues that a business owner’s religious beliefs do not give a business open to the public the right to discriminate against customers. The brief filed in the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, in which a website design business and its owner, looking to deny services to gay couples, claim Colorado’s public accommodations law violates the First Amendment’s protection for freedom of speech. The states’ brief is in support of the respondents, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and other Colorado civil rights enforcement officials, who are defending the constitutionality of Colorado’s public accommodations law. Joining Wisconsin in filing this brief are California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
AG Kaul Joins Bipartisan Coalition Filing a Federal Lawsuit Against Meta for Harming Youth Mental Health. On Oct 24 2023, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul joined a coalition of 42 attorneys general throughout the country in suing Meta in federal and state courts. The lawsuit alleges that the company knowingly designed and deployed harmful features on Instagram and its other social media platforms that purposefully addict children and teens, while falsely assuring the public that these features are safe and suitable for young users. The attorneys general assert that Meta’s business practices violate state consumer protection laws and the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
The federal complaint, joined by 33 states and filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Meta knew of the harmful impact of its platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, on young people. Instead of taking steps to mitigate these harms, it misled the public about the harms associated with the use of its platform, concealing the extent of the psychological and health harms suffered by young users addicted to the use of its platforms. The complaint further alleges that Meta knew that young users, including those under 13, were active on the platforms, and knowingly collected data from these users without parental consent. It targeted these young users, noting, as reported in a 2021 Wall Street Journal article, that such a user base was “valuable, but untapped.”
The multistate coalition that brought this complaint is also investigating TikTok’s conduct on a similar set of concerns. That investigation remains ongoing, and states have pushed for adequate disclosure of information and documents in litigation related to TikTok’s failure to provide adequate discovery in response to requests by the Tennessee Attorney General’s office.
Wisconsin is joining the federal lawsuit along with Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. Florida is filing its own federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Filing lawsuits in their own state courts are Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Idaho, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Vermont.