AI for WisconsinPublic record · operated by Party Party

Reviewed polling evidence · starting profile

Use and timing of Wisconsin’s projected budget surplus

Baseline proposition: The Wisconsin Legislature should have passed the described $1.8 billion surplus package

Evidence outcome: Support

The deterministic population-consensus-without-cross-poll-averaging.v1 method classified the reviewed evidence as support for the stated baseline proposition. It did not average unlike polls or establish a campaign position.

What this does not mean

This profile reports reviewed public-opinion evidence for the exact proposition above. It is not factual proof that benefits or costs prevail, a participant mandate, a policy recommendation, or an official campaign position. Recommendation: none. Campaign position: not established.

Published exact Wisconsin registered-voter opinion context under the approved POLL-001 batch. Each proposition, population, uncertainty, wording limitation, missing voice, and no-position boundary remains separate.

Adults age 18 or older who were currently registered to vote in Wisconsin or planned to register.

On May 11, Democratic Governor Tony Evers and Republican legislative leaders announced an agreement on a bill that would have used $1.8 billion of the projected $2.5 billion state budget surplus to increase funding for special education, reduce school property taxes by about 5%, and send rebate checks of $300 to individuals, $600 to married couples, who paid state income taxes. It would also have eliminated taxes on tips and overtime. Do you think the state legislature should have passed the bill, or should it have defeated the bill?

Should have passed the bill
70%
Should have defeated the bill
14%
Don't know
16%

Source and fieldwork

Marquette Law School Poll registered-voter toplines, July 8-16, 2026. Marquette University Law School; sponsored by Marquette Law School. 838 respondents, fielded July 8, 2026 through July 16, 2026. Evidence is current.

Official toplines · Official methodology

Method boundary

Directions apply only to the exact baseline proposition and do not establish a candidate position.

Reported margin of error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points; sampling error is only one potential source of error.

Sampling, weighting, and limitations

Sampling: Full-probability hybrid Wisconsin registration-based sample and probability-based SSRS Opinion Panel, administered by web and live-interviewer telephone in English.

Weighting: Design weighting, source-specific nonresponse adjustment, compositing, and calibration to Wisconsin registered-voter demographic, 2020 presidential-result, and partisanship benchmarks.

  • Published percentages are rounded to whole numbers.
  • The survey was administered in English only by web and live-interviewer telephone.
  • Question wording, nonresponse, mode, order, measurement, and other unmeasured errors may affect the result.
  • Question evaluates a bundled, dated proposal rather than each component separately.
  • The statewide registered-voter result remains separate from affected-community evidence and member results.

Missing voices

  • Special-education students, families, and districts
  • Property and income taxpayers
  • Recipients of proposed rebates
  • Future-budget service users and taxpayers

Conflicts

No conflict exists within the single admitted item. That does not establish broader agreement or replace missing evidence.

Reproducibility record

Method
population-consensus-without-cross-poll-averaging.v1
As of
2026-08-25T18:50:25Z
Profile version
46c25c6c-85cb-58f6-a754-51fed9cab243
Profile digest
sha256:2e99697f2300b336ed30b979c8bca1f9538d6a4b9946fd7d28717d9c9d650385
Issue version digest
sha256:473be84a78d5b226ea85027c8786b59af29c7ea7e5868bacdf160d03b7f3222a
Published
2026-08-25T19:36:47.004886Z