Historical Background
In Kukor v. Grover, 436 N.W.2d 568 (1989), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the then-current state education finance system did not violate the uniform education or equal protection provisions of the state constitution. The court observed that plaintiffs complained of inequities among school districts in the state’s system of school aid distribution but had not alleged that this system caused their districts to fall short of state educational standards.
In Vincent v. Voight, 614 N.W.2d 388 (2000), the state supreme court held that Wisconsin students have the right to “an equal opportunity for a sound basic education [which] will equip students for their roles as citizens and enable them to succeed economically and personally” and defined that right to include “the opportunity for students to be proficient in mathematics, science, reading and writing, geography, and history, and . . . receive instruction in the arts and music, vocational training, social sciences, health, physical education and foreign language.” However, the court also concluded that the plaintiffs had not presented evidence that students were being denied this opportunity.
Recent Events
The Wisconsin Supreme Court announced in June, 2024 that it will hear a challenge to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ partial veto that locked in a school funding increase for the next 400 years.
The Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Litigation Center filed a lawsuit in April arguing the governor exceeded his authority. The group asked the high court to strike down the veto without waiting for the case to go through lower courts.
At issue is a partial veto Evers made in the state budget in July, 2023 that increased the revenue public schools can raise per student by $325 annually until 2425. Evers took language that originally applied the $325 increase for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years and vetoed the “20” and the hyphen to make the end date 2425, more than four centuries from now.
Wisconsin governors, both Republican and Democratic, have long used the broad partial veto power to reshape the state budget. It’s an act of gamesmanship between the governor and Legislature, as lawmakers try to craft bills in a way that are largely immune from creative vetoes. The lawsuit contends that Evers exceeded his veto authority and his action was unconstitutional.
Evers, a former public school educator who served as the state superintendent before becoming governor in 2018, told reporters at a press conference his action would “provide school districts with predictable long-term increases for the foreseeable future.”
In February 2026, a coalition of individual plaintiffs, school boards, teachers unions, and a state-wide advocacy association filed a complaint, Wisconsin PTA v. Wisconsin State Assembly, in the Eau Claire County circuit court, alleging that the state’s school finance system is denying students a sound basic education. The complaint is based a variety of constitutional provisions that, they argue, guarantee all students a uniform education, equal protection of the laws and a free government. They also claim that students with high needs, including students with disabilities, English learners, and students with economic disadvantages, have a constitutional right to additional supports that are necessary for them to have an equal opportunity for a sound basic education.
The Plaintiffs assert that adjusted for inflation, in the 2023–24 school year, Wisconsin spent $800 less per public school pupil in state aid than it did in the 2009-10 school year, and that the State underfunded the education of students with disabilities by $1.29 billion, even though at the end of fiscal year 2025, the State had a $4.6 billion surplus. The complaint also states that Wisconsin’s extensive voucher program is costing taxpayers nearly $700 million in the 2025–26 school year alone and that this expenditure violates the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling in Davis v. Grover, 480 N.W.2d 460 (1992), that private school vouchers are constitutionally permitted, so long as the State is already meeting its obligations to provide for public schools.
Plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment and an order that will enable the Court—in the absence of a superseding state law—to adopt and implement a new school finance system that meets all relevant state constitutional guarantees.