>> The Wisconsin Senate
wraps
up its regular
business for
2026. What
passed, what
didn't? And what can
we learn from
the way this
Senate voted?
This is
inside politics. I'm
Wprj Capitol
Bureau chief Shawn
Johnson here with
Wprj Capitol
reporter Wagtendonk
Wprj, political
reporter Rich Kramer
and PBS
Wisconsin senior political
reporter Schultz.
The Senate wraps up
its regular
business for 2026.
What past,
what didn't,
and what can we
learn from
the way
this Senate
voted? This
is inside
Wisconsin politics. Wprj
Capitol Bureau chief
Shawn Johnson
here Wprj
Capitol reporter
Anya van Wagtendonk Wprj,
political reporter
Rich Kramer
and PBS
Wisconsin reporterlitical
Zac Schultz. >> Perfect.
I think
you ahead.ust go
>> Okay. >> Can
you make give uso
a cue that mikes are closed at the
end, so can resume our chit
chat at the table look super
awkward in the Thanks.
you.
>> The wraps upin Senate
its regular
business for 2026. What
past? What
didn't? And
what from the way
this Senate
voted? This is
inside Wisconsin politics.
I'm Wprj
Capitol Bureau
chief Shawn
Johnson withe
Wprj Capitol
reporter Anna
Anya van Wagtendonk Wprj,
political reporter
Rich Kramer
and PBS
Wisconsin senior political
reporter Zac Schultz.
Hey, everyone.
Thanks for joining
us. So
we were all
set to
talk about
how this
session of the
Wisconsin different
than previous
sessions. And
the gavee
us lots to
talk about,
including as we're
getting ready to record news that the
Senate Majority leader,
Devin LeMahiue,
is not
going to seek
reelection, which in the world
of the state Capitol,
as you all know, that is a pretty
big deal. Zack, what
can we take
from given
the way that the
Senate has been acting this week? And
how deal a
is it in the Capitol?
>> Well, it certainly like a week
of voting where people
weren't worried thext election or
next term.
There were questions of
whether that
signaled LeMahiue knew
that majority
position atas
stake. As
Republicans the Demsied about
flip the Senate.
But I think
the bigger
picture to look
here is we're
going to have a new
majority leader Senate, a
new speaker in Assembly and a new
governor. And the last that happened was
2011 with Scott Walker
and the
Fitz's running the show.
Big changes
that time. We
might big
changes next
session, too.
>> A wave
election. And
there's people, of
course, every every
election is
nationalized right now.
And peoplealready been
talking about nationalized
democratic election.
Anya, you
know, know,
that Capitol
building and you
know how much
sway leaders
carry, how big of
a deal is it
to Devinat
LeMahiue, covered in that
that since you've been
here is >> Yeah. I mean,
as Zack votingon, the
session only
a few days
ago was that
two days I've
lost track of this week.
There were a few
bills that forward where there
was a Devin wouldon
let them get to the floor, because he
did And so thereublican
were kind of whatng floated about
that would mean for his leadership position.
those bills passed with necessary
Democratic votes order to
pass. And
so stepping
down, it really is
this kind of that he
whatever kind
of havesequences might
come in the
caucus, doesn't have to
worry about >> And Rich, you
were week, and thatession
question of Democratict
votes is something
that everyone
was about.
And, you know, the
Senate LeMahiue even had
some kind
of not so
veiled threats
thrown out from
a member of
his own caucus.
Don't do that.
Basically, how
unusual was this
session ink
terms of
bipartisanship? Frankly.
>> It was pretty unusual.
I mean,
to me,
someone who's
pretty new at
covering state
politics, it feels a
little strange when
getting Democratic
votes on a
Republican bill or
Republican votes on a
Democratic bill is a
big Itl.
seems like that
would be
normal. But
that's not the
case. And
that more
of a
sign of what all have been
talking about, things
are changing
there. It feels like areings
changing in the
Senate. supermajorityhave a
not that long
ago. Then we
got new
maps after the
Wisconsin Supreme Court's
Liberal majority
struck down, ones
that were drawn by
Republicans inack
2011. And then we
had an underon
those maps. downermajority went
to 18
Republican senators.
And that
threat goes to
this thing
called the
rule of 17. It's
an informal
rule, but
the isdea
that if you're in
the majority,
you pass
bills with
majority support. You
don't even
really them ifer
you don't
have 17se
votes. But we
saw examples
where Devin
LeMahiue went
ahead and
passed them anyway with
Democratic >> Andrt.
that's veryhat's a
informal rule as far
as the workings of Capitol go. I
mean, it's It's Senate rules.
certainly not in law, but it is an
internal Republican
caucus thing.
>> Shawn bring us
back to
Fitz. When Fitzgerald
ran Senate,
his p
hilosophy, I'm
sure you recall,
was don't go
to the floor you have the votes.
So clearly, LeMahiue g
that pattern, he was doing when
he came to the those bills.
>> He's on it too.ew times,
Senator LeMahiue has I mean, they did it
with the funding bill a
couple of Democrat support
to get budget was the
this last time, this very bipartisan deal
between Speaker
Vos and,
you know, Governor
Evers and that
needed Democratic
votes. So I
don't I seenen't
Devin LeMahiue
adhere to
that rule
that in the
way that
Scott Fitzgerald did
when Scott Fitzgerald,
you know, was leader
for a he was more like
Scott Fitzgerald was more of like a a
Robin Vos kind forever. Been there
Kind of ruled with an iron fist in
the Senate, tooshed around on
much when he did
go to Democrats for
votes, it was
sparingly. >> Well, and
that rule is a lot easier to maintain
if room.of wiggle
So if you have supermajority, as Rich
mentioned, you can lose some of your members
and big deal. But as
the margins have gotten smaller and smaller, and
now Democrats are talking about trying to flip
the stand athey I
pretty good chance doing so. Maybe they're
also kind of seeing writing on the
wall, that leader would be a
whole lot harder if have just a
very slim all majority of
at all. let's unpack a couple
of the bills where end updid
being a factor. This week you had online
sports legalize online sports
betting in Wisconsin. If the servers for
that betting are
located on
tribal lands.
Rich, what oneguments on that
in the Senate this week?
>> Well, so
generally, the Republican
opposition argument
was that we
shouldn't be
we shouldn't
be expanding
legalized gambling in
Wisconsin. It causes
addiction. It hurts
people. ET
cetera. That was
the bulk
of the GOP
argument. Democrats
were saying,
well, it's already
here. You know,
sports betting
online is happening
on the margins, on
the outside, on the
edges. this
way, the havete can
some regulations in
place. And
Democrats like
that, the the
tribes get to
play a
role in this
and tribesing toey
and also the state
rather than
major likepanies
DraftKings or FanDuel
that are out of
state. >> And
the the details
on this one
are pretty
significant, I think. I
mean, if
you've watched
sporting events,
you see
ads for
FanDuel or
DraftKings just
everywhere now, which
you did not
used see in the very
recent past.
Those companies don't
like this
bill, though, itause
would an
industry they wouldd that
have to
share 60% of
their revenue
with the
tribes and their, you
know, these companies are saying, we just won't
do if you donere in
it that way. That
is not an argument
that I opponents
making against
this, though. We
heard very
strong arguments
against Ana
from social
conservatives when it
comes gambling.
>> Yeah. So there's the
argument that, there's
kind of a
social problem
with gambling, but
then also
there's a real
kind of
messy legal
situation here where it's
a state,
federal and
tribal law,
all of which
is play, and
then some of has not been tested.
And so one of from, forbacks
example, the and Liberty,stitute
the that this createsfirm,
an unconstitutional kind of
ethnic monopoly, right?
Giving the tribes the
monopoly, even
though the
compacts with the tribe
says that they are
in state.ing in the
And so those
arguments are kind of
at play. And so I
think we're see quite a bit
of over how toull
implement >> Well, it's
still not Evers isrnor
going to sign this bill. That's right. His
statements just yesterday id
he wants all the tribes on board and
that so is not the case.
There are some tribes are out ahead
of the rest them when it comes
to And there ares and
some some of Wisconsinnorthern
where they have that they're not
profitable and not to the scale that
the rest of them maye. So it
take the tribes working together to actually get
Governor Evers to sign on this. So
all of this may go for a bill
that gets workneed toing
on it for next >> And, you
know, we're ande Senate here
how they were acting different with this, you
know, 2026 election on horizon. Toni Evers
is now because he knowsfferent
he's heun again. So
can basically look at every bill and say,
is this I want? If not,
let it go. Veto, move on.
You know, keeping
on that sports theme, we
had another big bill
this withk
name, image and
likeness or nil.
Tell us about that.
You're a huge sports
fan. I know. >>
I do that one. deeplye so
about college sports. care deeply
about political
policy as it
affects college
sports. sond
I got to learn
all about Sos.
Nil deals,
this out of a
2021 sort of
change in
how college athletes
are They're no
longer Theyteurs.
can get
paid for
their work and
they can
kind of wrangle
these deals
according to
how popular
their sport is they how good
are at their sports. And so what that
has led to athletes being able to
transfer schools in search of more lucrative deals
in as I understand
it, as someone who does
not closely, has notrs
been great for
Badgers football in
particular, and I might getting some
knowing glances from the
actual football
fans among us.
But what this
bill would do
is put
$14.5 million towards
UW-Madison for
athletic facilities
fees in order
for the school
to have a
pot of money
to make
these deals with players. So the idea is
that they'd to bring in top
football and basketball
talent in particular.
This of theout
Assembly almost
unanimously, then
it became this big
open question at the Senate
because it was a bill. But then
he was withinf support
his caucus. And so the question up until
it floor votethe day
was, will he his own bill in
order maintain the
rule of 17,
or will he go to
Democrats some pretty? And
dramatic stuff
on the floor that
happened. passed
very narrowly,
but it passed
because of
Democrats. >> Rich. That
was closery
one in the Senate,
as I recall, like
just vote margin.
So you talk
about needing
Democratic votes in
every sense
of the You.
know, Devin LeMahiue
needed that.
What was that
one like?
>> It it
was a voice
vote, essentially,
or I sayould
it wasn't It voice vote.
was a roll call But there wasn't
a lot of or any that I
remember in the Senate, just kind of
looking, pulling back
a little Ibit,
wanted to say that
it's interesting
to see Republicans,
any Republicans
send more money
to UW-Madison,
just basically
overall, they
have been
pretty distrustful of the
university on
all kinds
of fronts.
So to
see as many,
you know,
send them more
money as
there were,
was something.
>> Well, what's
interesting about
this bill and the
way that it
works is that
it allows for
that money to be
transferred into the university,
sold it as
we already
getting money for basketball
and football
players. But freeing up this money allows us
to oure it with
Olympian sports.
So the swimmers,
the rowers,
volleyball, very
successful hockey's
program saying may
have to shutter some
of flexibility this
for a little money. But what it
does is it solidifies
the lack of
transparency for all of
these contracts. I
interviewed UW athletic
director Chris
McIntosh couple
months ago, and I
asked him about,
you know,
why don't
we see more
of these people are
getting paid? Because they
are now
professionals. They signedacts that are
between the university
and their
agents. And he
said, well,
we can't, because
if our
competitors what we're
paying our potential
quarterback or can comethen they
in and more andhem
steal them away us. The question
becomes, there were
some Dems
who raised this during
the debate is , what
happens if
this lack of
transparency for the records
gets applied
to coaches
contracts? What
happens if there's
other deals
for outside
support all of a
sudden hidden
under this idea
of, well, we
anti-competitive. anyone know
how much we're
paying anyone.
And there's a
lot of concerns
out there. we saw, I
think, Senator Hesselbein, the
leader of minority
leader of the say if the Dems
have definitely come,
back and angle. So it's
definitely for howg to watch
it's applied. I
think most people
are supportive of
athletes getting
paid for work that they're
doing, but there's a
question where's this money
coming public knowat
about this, And public support?
full disclosure, we're UW employees,
right. >> And
and our salaries
are public.
And that is
an open record.
Are we getting nil? >> I'm
waiting for >> Yeah.
Me too.
>> So the
Senate
adjourned this
week. The
Assembly has been
done like
forever now
a month
ago, feels
a long time
in legislative
politics. They
like to do
this under Speaker
Vos or Speaker
Vos likes
to do
this. Get
done first,
set the agenda, you
know, make everybody
kind of
go on your
timeline. And so then
everything theyt
pass is either
going to get passed in
the Senate form,t
or it's dead.
And one of the
bills didat
die was
this Republican
data center
bill would regulate
data centers.
Speaker Vos very
helpfully had
a forum
on the last day
of Senate session
where he had some
opinions about
the Senate
not taking up
his data
center bill. Ana
what he have to say?
>> Yeah, I mean, basically the
closest that having anyature
type of billatory
for data centers,
which are kindse,
of exploding state.the
And the fact
that it is
that not did
reach the floor of the
Senate means that the session has passed without
basically any anyardrails,
new guardrails coming
on. But this was
a Republican bill
Vos championed it,
and essentially put
certain guardrails,
especially around
energy use of
data centers. So,
for example,
they would have to
recycle theyy use ifat
wanted to use renewable
energy sources,
they would have to
cite those
on the
properties of the data
centers. So couldn't
rely on
community solar
panels or whatever.
And the data
centers would
have to be responsible
for any
upgrades to
the energy
grid. So it was
just this ofd
intro attempt
at regulating
this. It was
primarily a
Republican Itill.
had a few votes in the
Assembly, but most
Democrats said this
is rushed. We
need to be more
thoughtful about how we
are regulating
data centers.
And then the Senate even bring it
to the floor. Vos talked about,
you know, that really
being hes
thought, an
issue Senate
Republicans, that they
don't kind of lead
on issue, that
it might cost them
votes in November.
>> Yeah. It's
rare to hear
a speaker
come out against
a majority
leader from his
own party the week
that sessionll in
with that
kind of criticism.
I think
sort of the
secret was
sort of out on
Tuesday. I mean,
we didn't
know know
that Devin
LeMahiue was not
going to
seek reelection,
but there was talk
about it. wase
speculation about it.
People are theoking at
Senate math and
they're thinking
about it.
>> Well, it
changes a lot
when no
one has to worry
about reelection next year.
Evers, Soros and
LeMahiue can
all speak in
ways that we have
not heard
or we have not heard them
speak off the recorde heard
or heard thinkfers. But I
this bill in stillular
has the
next election
cycle all over it,
as Vos pointed out,
because it's a
major issue in
the gubernatorial
campaign. There are different
Democrats running for
governor. talkedve
about freezes
and PSC
and rate commissions
and how
data centers work. I asked
all aboutndidates
this in December,viewed
and there were lot of like,
dainty footsteps about how
to approach this because they
knew it was a issue, butn
they were still to figure out how
far could they go, would the public
be ahead figuringy're still
this out because right now, it doesn't
fall on a clear Democratic divide, whi
ch why I think
the Senate donow what to
with it. I think LeMahiue had a
strong point broughtld have
up the floor and let Democrats help pass
it wayat was the
to go. But there's a clear advantage
at this governorfany, as
is clearly as well.sue on
So this is one for the fall.
>> Rich. I just wanted to
follow up on what Recent Marquette
University people are veryof
opposed to pollster Charles
Franklin itd
doesn't appear
that the
political parties
have picked their
lane on it,
really. So
it's it's kind
of up in the
air. >> Okay,
so this last the
regular session
day. They
adjourned pursuant
to RFK, Jr.
one. That's you know it's
real. But
they could,
in theory,
come back
on a couple
topics. There's still talk
about a taxerty
and education
special session.
Talk aabout
gerrymandering session
real quick.
Are these
things going to
happen? youc,
go first.
>> The only
reason stille's
a prayer
that this of
could happen is everyone's
leaving it's
legacy time
for three of
those people.
>> Rich. >> Ditto.
>> Predict a future for us.
What do you think? Okay,
Anya, how about
you? speciale ahere
session on gerrymandering, no
matter question
is just whether will
they gavel in
and gavel out in a
few actually take up
some kind >> Okay, I'm
going to say outvel in, gavel
on gerrymandering. firm take
on that
one. And
we can we can
replay this
later. >> Absolutely. I have
some >> I think,.
you know, it's bipartisannough a
enough session
on the other
stuff with
property taxes
and education
funding that they
may have
real incentives to
reach a
deal and not have
to be talking to about why didn't
you Soress these issues?
maybe that's enough
to get there.l
Thanks all
for for joining
us on this,
our first episode
of Inside
Wisconsin Politics. Be sure to follow us on
PBS Wisconsin on
YouTube or
wherever you get your
podcasts.
>> We could do
a couple hey. of
>> Hey, sure.
>> Yeah, you got
it. >> For
the for the
table. You see
this? >> Oh
yeah, I like
it. I
took a
picture earlier.
>> Oh, >> Don't you
mean. shoot.
>> No.
>> The Wisconsin Senate
wraps up
its regular business for
2026. What passed,
what didn't?
And can we
learn from the way
this Senate voted?
This is
inside politics. I'm
WPR capital
bureau chief Shawn
Johnson here with
WPR capital
reporter Wagtendonk
WPR, political
reporter Rich
Kramer and
PBS Wisconsin senior
political reporter
Zac Hey,tz.
everyone. >> Hey.
>> The Wisconsin Senate
wraps up its
regular business for
2026. What passed,
what didn't,
and can we
learn from the way
this Senate
voted? ishis
inside politics on
WPR Capital
Bureau Chief Shawn
Johnson here with
WPR capital
reporter Wagtendonk
WPR, political
reporter Rich
Kramer and
PBS Wisconsin senior
political reporter
Zac Hey,tz.
everyone. >> Hey, Shawn.
>> Hey. >> So how about
Devin >> Thate?
man. >> I
think he
retired. >> Oh,
man. So
soggy looking.
>> We're still
rolling. With or
without goatee.
What's our
vote? vote?