Wausau election results: Voters reject $40M school district referendum
Wausau-area voters rejected a Wausau School District operational funding referendum on Tuesday.
Votes were counted in several contested races including the Wausau School District referendum, Wisconsin Supreme Court, state superintendent of public instruction and a statewide referendum on an amendment to Wisconsin's constitution.
Here are the results of those races.
'Shall the Wausau School District, Marathon County, Wisconsin, be authorized to exceed the revenue limit specified in Section 121.91, Wisconsin Statutes, by $8,000,000 per year for five years, beginning with the 2025-2026 school year and ending with the 2029-2030 school year, for non-recurring purposes consisting of operational expenses and capital maintenance and improvements?'
No: 10,051 (50.9%)
Yes: 9,701 (49.1%)
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is made up of seven justices. Justices serve 10-year terms. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley announced her retirement from the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April after serving three terms since 1995. These results were reported as of 10:32 p.m. Tuesday with 89% of precincts reporting.
Susan Crawford: 1,146,588 (54.5%)
Brad Schimel: 957,534 (45.5%)
MORE: Wisconsin Supreme Court election results: Susan Crawford defeats Brad Schimel in most expensive judicial race in US history
State superintendent serves a four-year term. Jill Underly has served in the position since 2021. These results were reported as of 10:32 p.m. Tuesday with 85% of precincts reporting.
Jill Underly (i): 1,005,631 (52.5%)
Brittany Kinser: 910,567 (47.5%)
MORE: Wisconsin superintendent election results: Incumbent Jill Underly defeats Brittany Kinser
"Photographic identification for voting. Shall section 1m of article III of the constitution be created to require that voters present valid photographic identification verifying their identity in order to vote in any election, subject to exceptions which may be established by law?" These results were reported as of 10:33 p.m. Tuesday, with 86% of precincts reporting.
Yes: 1,275,616 (63.1%)
No: 745,524 (36.9%)
MORE: Wisconsin voters approve referendum question, voter ID law now part of state constitution
Erik Pfantz covers local government and education in central Wisconsin for USA TODAY NETWORK - Wisconsin and values his background as a rural Wisconsinite. Contact him at epfantz@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on Wausau Daily Herald: Wausau election results: Voters reject $40M school district referendum
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court rules Wisconsin law makes Catholic Charities exempt from unemployment system
Unemployment benefits application (photo by Getty Images) This is a developing story and will be updated. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Catholic Charities organization in Wisconsin doesn't have to take part in the Wisconsin unemployment insurance (UI) system. The ruling overturns a 4-3 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision issued in March 2024 that declared the work of Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. of the Superior Diocese of the Catholic Church doesn't get a pass from Wisconsin's UI law on religious grounds. The Wisconsin ruling, written by Justice Anne Walsh Bradley, declared that the Catholic Charities work is 'secular in nature' and that the agency and its subsidiary organizations that took part in the case 'are not operated primarily for religious purposes' as defined in the UI law's religious exemption. In Thursday's ruling, Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote for the Court that arguments the Wisconsin high court majority made amounted to making preferences of one religious denomination over another. Her ruling noted that the church offers its own unemployment compensation program for laid-off workers and dismissed the suggestion that the organizations were 'more likely to leave their employees without unemployment benefits.' The Wisconsin ruling held that the agencies' work was not religious in nature because they didn't attempt to preach the Catholic faith to participants and did not serve only Catholics. 'Petitioners' Catholic faith, however, bars them from satisfying those criteria,' Sotomayor wrote. The ruling quoted from the dissent by Justice Rebecca Bradley in the Wisconsin decision. 'Wisconsin's exemption,' Sotomayor wrote, 'as interpreted by its Supreme Court, thus grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices. Indeed, petitioners' eligibility for the exemption ultimately turns on inherently religious choices (namely, whether to proselytize or serve only co-religionists).' The Wisconsin UI law exempts all churches, church conventions or church associations 'without differentiating between employees actually involved in religious works' and those who are not, Sotomayor wrote. Justice Clarence Thomas, while joining in the unanimous opinion, wrote a separate concurrence stating that because the Wisconsin ruling did not defer to the Bishop of Superior's assertion that Catholic Charities and its affiliates are 'an arm of the Diocese, the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the church autonomy doctrine.' In a separate concurrence Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson signaled how states could ensure that nonprofit employees of religiously associated organizations are covered by UI — by focusing on the work involved rather than its underlying motivations to determine who is and who is not exempt. When the federal law was revised in 1970 to include nonprofit employees in state UI programs, Congress exempted certain church-affiliated employees. The goal, Jackson wrote, was to avoid the state getting involved in a dispute 'over the sufficiency of a fired employee's prayers or the accuracy of their scriptural teaching.' The intent of Congress was to exempt 'a narrow category of church-affiliated entities' that could produce such an entanglement 'precisely because their work involves preparing individuals for religious life,' Jackson wrote. She concluded: 'It is perfectly consistent with the opinion the Court hands down today for States to align their [federally-based] religious-purposes exemptions with Congress's true focus.' 24-154_2b82 SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules that Catholic groups were unlawfully barred from a religious tax exemption
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of Catholic Church-affiliated charitable groups, saying they were wrongly denied religious exemptions from a Wisconsin tax that funds unemployment benefits. The justices ruled unanimously that the state's decision unlawfully discriminated against the groups on the basis of religion under the free exercise clause of the Constitution's First Amendment. The court rejected a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that said that the groups operating under the Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior were not sufficiently religious in purpose. The state already provided exemptions for religious institutions. The First Amendment has long been interpreted to exempt religious entities from taxation. Writing for the court, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted the importance of the government remaining neutral when it comes to different religions. "When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny," Sotomayor said. But Wisconsin had "transgressed that principle," she added. The groups involved in the case — Headwaters, Barron County Developmental Services, Diversified Services and Black River Industries — primarily serve developmentally disabled people. Their programs are open to non-Catholics. The Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission had concluded the charitable groups were not 'operated primarily for religious purposes' under state law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2024 upheld the state commission's finding, saying the groups' activities were mostly secular in nature and that they do not 'attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials.' The Wisconsin unemployment compensation system was set up in 1932 to provide a safety net for people who lose their jobs. Similar programs in other states and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act also include religious exemptions. The Catholic groups had strong backing at the Supreme Court from other Christian sects and different religious faiths. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charity in tax case
The Supreme Court sided with a Catholic charity in a legal dispute with Wisconsin state authorities over unemployment benefit taxes. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's opinion for the court cited the First Amendment's mandate of 'government neutrality between religions.' As framed by the charity, the legal question in the case was whether a state violates the First Amendment by 'denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior.' Catholic Charities Bureau argued that its exclusion by the state from a religious exemption was unconstitutional 'in at least three ways,' including for allegedly being discriminatory. A divided Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the state last year. The court's liberal majority concluded that the charity isn't 'operated primarily for religious purposes' under state law, over conservative dissent that said the majority 'rewrites the statute to deprive Catholic Charities of the tax exemption, rendering unto the state that which the law says belongs to the church.' Reversing the state court on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed this case an easy one, reasoning that the state court failed to apply the rigorous constitutional analysis required. 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny,' Sotomayor wrote for the court. 'Because Wisconsin has transgressed that principle without the tailoring necessary to survive such scrutiny, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion,' she wrote, referring to the process of a higher court sending a case back to a lower court. The March 31 oral argument reflected bipartisan concern among Supreme Court justices in the charity's favor. The state had argued that the group didn't engage in 'distinctively religious activities' and didn't assert 'a religious objection to contributing to unemployment insurance.' Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
