The Wisconsin legislative drafting process involves several stages, from bill introduction to enactment. A key aspect of this process, particularly for ensuring the clarity and legality of proposed legislation, is the role of the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB). The LRB is responsible for reviewing bills for form and style, ensuring they conform to established drafting standards and do not conflict with existing statutes. This review process is crucial for identifying potential ambiguities, unconstitutional provisions, or drafting errors that could lead to legal challenges or implementation difficulties. When a bill is introduced, it is assigned to a committee, which may hold public hearings and propose amendments. The LRB’s input is vital at this stage to ensure any amendments are correctly drafted and integrated. The final version of a bill, after passing both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature, is then presented to the Governor for signature or veto. The LRB’s expertise is consulted throughout this entire journey to maintain the integrity and efficacy of the legislative output. Understanding the LRB’s specific functions, such as providing non-partisan legal and technical assistance in bill drafting and ensuring consistency with Wisconsin’s constitutional framework and statutory law, is paramount for anyone involved in legislative drafting in Wisconsin. The bureau’s role is not to advocate for or against a bill’s policy, but to ensure its legal and structural soundness.

The Wisconsin Legislature uses a system of statutory numbering and referencing to ensure clarity and consistency in its laws. When amending existing statutes, drafters must accurately identify the specific section being altered. Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 990, “Statutes,” and particularly § 990.001, “Construction of statutes,” provides guidance on statutory interpretation. Furthermore, the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) Drafting Manual outlines the precise conventions for citing and amending statutes. When a bill proposes to amend a specific statute, the bill text must clearly indicate the statute number and the precise language to be added, deleted, or modified. For instance, if a bill aims to change a provision within Wisconsin Statutes § 70.11, the drafting would involve identifying that specific section and detailing the proposed alteration. The concept of “enacting clause” is fundamental to all legislative bills, signifying the legislative intent to create or amend law. However, the question focuses on the *method* of referencing an existing statute for amendment, not the initial act of creating law. Therefore, the correct citation format, which is a core drafting skill, is the focus. The LRB Drafting Manual emphasizes that amendments should clearly state the section being amended and the exact changes. This aligns with the principle of providing clear notice of the proposed legal alteration.

The Wisconsin Legislature operates under a bicameral system, consisting of the Senate and the Assembly. Bills must pass both houses in identical form before being presented to the Governor for approval or veto. The legislative drafting process in Wisconsin, as in many states, involves careful consideration of existing statutes, constitutional provisions, and legal precedent. When drafting a bill, drafters must ensure clarity, precision, and consistency with the body of Wisconsin law. This includes understanding the structure of Wisconsin Statutes, the process of bill introduction and amendment, and the governor’s role in the legislative process. For instance, if a bill proposes to amend a specific section of Wisconsin Statutes, the drafter must locate that section, understand its current meaning and application, and then craft language that accurately reflects the intended change without creating unintended consequences or conflicts with other laws. The Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) plays a crucial role in providing non-partisan drafting services, legal research, and bill preparation for legislators. The process of engrossing a bill, which involves incorporating all adopted amendments into the bill text, is a critical step before it moves to the next stage of legislative consideration. Understanding the nuances of statutory construction, such as the principles of plain meaning, legislative intent, and the avoidance of surplusage, is paramount for effective drafting.

The core principle being tested here is the Wisconsin Legislature’s adherence to the single-subject rule, as codified in Article IV, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution. This rule mandates that every law shall embrace but one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. When a bill contains provisions that are unrelated to each other or to the stated subject in the title, those provisions may be deemed unconstitutional. The scenario describes a bill titled “An Act Relating to Local Government Property Tax Relief and School District Funding.” However, the bill’s content includes provisions that mandate specific curriculum changes in all public schools across Wisconsin, a topic distinct from property tax relief or school funding mechanisms. Such a provision would likely be challenged as violating the single-subject rule because the curriculum mandate is not germane to or necessarily connected with the subject expressed in the title. The unrelated nature of curriculum mandates to property tax relief and the general funding of school districts means this provision exceeds the scope defined by the title, making it vulnerable to a constitutional challenge. The purpose of the single-subject rule is to prevent “logrolling” (combining unrelated measures to gain support) and to ensure that legislators and the public are aware of the true scope of proposed legislation. Therefore, a provision concerning curriculum changes would be severed from the rest of the act if found to be in violation.

The Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) Drafting Manual, specifically Section 3.03, addresses the proper use of “shall” and “may” in legislative drafting. “Shall” is mandatory, imposing a duty or obligation, while “may” indicates discretion or permission. When drafting a bill that requires a state agency to perform a specific action without any alternative, the drafter must use “shall.” For instance, if a bill mandates that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources must implement a new water quality monitoring program by a certain date, the language would be “The department shall implement…” This ensures clarity and enforceability. Conversely, if the department has the option to adopt certain guidelines but is not compelled to, “may” would be used, such as “The department may adopt rules…” The distinction is crucial for legal interpretation and the effective implementation of legislative intent. Misusing these terms can lead to ambiguity, unintended consequences, and potential legal challenges regarding the enforceability of the statute.

Wisconsin Statutes Section 13.93(1)(a) outlines the duties of the Legislative Reference Bureau, including the drafting of all bills, resolutions, and amendments for introduction in the Wisconsin Legislature. This statute emphasizes the bureau’s role in ensuring that legislative proposals conform to the constitution and are clearly and concisely written. When drafting legislation, a primary consideration is the principle of clarity and the avoidance of ambiguity. This involves using precise language, defining terms where necessary, and structuring the bill logically to facilitate understanding by legislators, legal professionals, and the public. The process also involves ensuring that the proposed legislation does not conflict with existing statutes or constitutional provisions, and that it achieves the intended policy objectives without unintended consequences. A key aspect of this is the careful consideration of statutory construction rules, such as the rule of lenity or the presumption against implied repeal, to ensure that the drafted language will be interpreted as intended. The Legislative Reference Bureau must also adhere to the style and format conventions established for Wisconsin legislation. The goal is to produce a bill that is legally sound, constitutionally permissible, and effectively communicates the legislative intent.

The Wisconsin Legislature uses a system of bill drafting that requires adherence to specific numbering and codification conventions. When a bill proposing to amend an existing statute is drafted, the drafter must identify the exact section of the Wisconsin Statutes that is to be altered. Wisconsin Statutes are organized into chapters, and within chapters, into sections and subsections. For instance, if a bill aims to modify the requirements for obtaining a driver’s license, the drafter would need to locate the specific statute governing driver’s licenses, such as a section within Chapter 343. The process of amending a statute involves referencing the current language and then clearly stating the proposed changes. This ensures that the legislative intent is accurately reflected and that the codified law remains coherent. The question tests the understanding of how legislative proposals to change existing law are formally linked to the current statutory framework in Wisconsin. The correct approach involves identifying the specific statute number that is being amended.

Wisconsin Statute 13.92(1)(a) grants the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) the authority to prepare legislative measures. This includes drafting bills, resolutions, and amendments. The bureau is also responsible for providing research and analysis to the legislature. When drafting a bill, a drafter must consider the intent of the legislator requesting the bill, ensure it conforms to constitutional requirements, and adhere to established drafting conventions and principles to promote clarity, precision, and enforceability. The process involves multiple reviews and consultations to refine the language and legal effect of the proposed legislation. A key aspect of this is ensuring that the bill does not conflict with existing statutes or create unintended consequences, which requires a thorough understanding of Wisconsin’s statutory framework and legal precedent. The LRB’s role is to facilitate the legislative process by providing expert drafting services that uphold the integrity and effectiveness of the laws enacted by the Wisconsin Legislature. The bureau’s commitment to neutrality and accuracy is paramount in serving all members of the legislature, regardless of party affiliation.

The Wisconsin Legislature operates under a bicameral system, with bills needing to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in identical form before being presented to the Governor. The legislative drafting process involves numerous steps, including introduction, committee review, floor debate, and potential amendments. A bill may be amended at various stages, and the process of reconciling differences between versions passed by each house is crucial. When a bill passes one house and is sent to the other, the receiving house can either pass it as is, amend it, or reject it. If amendments are made, the bill must typically return to the originating house for concurrence in those amendments. If the originating house does not concur, a conference committee may be appointed to resolve the differences. The final version of the bill, agreed upon by both houses, is then sent to the Governor. In Wisconsin, specific rules govern the process of amending and concurring, ensuring that both legislative chambers have the opportunity to review and approve any changes. The concept of “concurrence” specifically refers to the act of the originating house agreeing to the amendments made by the second house. Without concurrence or a successful conference committee report, a bill cannot advance to the Governor’s desk in its amended form. Therefore, the most appropriate action for the Assembly to take when receiving a Senate-amended bill, and desiring to accept those amendments, is to concur in the Senate amendments. This action signifies agreement with the changes made by the Senate, allowing the bill to proceed.

The Wisconsin Legislative Drafting Manual, specifically section 3.06(1)(a), addresses the structure and numbering of legislative acts. It states that a bill that proposes to amend or repeal existing statutes must clearly identify the affected sections. When a bill introduces entirely new provisions or modifies existing ones in a way that necessitates renumbering or extensive reorganization, the drafting practice is to assign a new section number to the new or substantially altered material. This ensures clarity and avoids confusion with previously codified law. For instance, if a bill repeals and recreates a section of Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 180, but the new version significantly alters its scope and purpose, it might be assigned a new section number, such as 180.1234, even if a section 180.1234 did not previously exist. This practice is distinct from simply amending an existing section, where the original section number is retained and the changes are described within that existing structure. The principle is to maintain a logical and consistent flow within the Wisconsin Statutes, ensuring that each section number corresponds to a coherent body of law. The manual emphasizes that clarity and precision are paramount in legislative drafting to prevent ambiguity in interpretation and application.

The Wisconsin Legislative Drafting Manual, specifically Section 2.04, addresses the appropriate use of the word “shall” in legislative drafting. “Shall” is a mandatory verb, indicating a duty or obligation that must be performed. In drafting, its use signifies a requirement that, if not met, can lead to legal consequences or a failure to comply with the statute. For instance, if a statute states that a state agency “shall” submit a report by a specific date, failure to do so would constitute a breach of that statutory duty. The manual emphasizes that “shall” should not be used to express a mere possibility or a permissive action; for those, “may” or “is authorized to” are the appropriate terms. The question probes the understanding of this precise meaning and its application in differentiating mandatory actions from discretionary ones, a core skill for legislative drafters in Wisconsin to ensure clarity and enforceability of statutes.

The Wisconsin Legislature’s Office of Legal Counsel plays a crucial role in advising legislators on the constitutionality and legal sufficiency of proposed legislation. When drafting a bill, a legislative drafter must consider various constitutional limitations, including those found in the Wisconsin Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. For instance, the Wisconsin Constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, contains provisions regarding due process, equal protection, and the separation of powers. A drafter must ensure that a proposed bill does not infringe upon these fundamental rights or disrupt the established governmental framework. Furthermore, specific Wisconsin constitutional articles, such as Article IV, which outlines the powers and duties of the legislature, and Article VIII, concerning state finances, impose direct constraints on legislative action. A drafter must be adept at identifying potential conflicts between a proposed bill and these constitutional mandates, which may involve intricate legal analysis of case law and established legal principles. The goal is to produce legislation that is both effective in achieving its policy objectives and legally sound, thereby minimizing the risk of judicial challenge. Understanding the interplay between statutory language and constitutional interpretation is paramount.

The Wisconsin Legislative Drafting Bureau operates under specific procedural guidelines to ensure the clarity, consistency, and legality of proposed legislation. When drafting a bill that amends existing Wisconsin Statutes, a core principle is to clearly indicate what is being changed. This involves explicitly stating which sections are being repealed, created, or modified. Furthermore, the drafting process must adhere to the structural conventions of Wisconsin Statutes, such as the use of chapter and section numbering. A bill that proposes to repeal and recreate a statute section must clearly identify the existing section number being affected and then present the new language in its entirety. This ensures that legislators and the public can readily understand the substance of the proposed amendment and its impact on the current legal framework. The process is designed to prevent ambiguity and to facilitate efficient legislative review. For instance, if a section within Chapter 70 of the Wisconsin Statutes (Property Taxation) is to be substantially altered, the draft would typically show the existing language to be struck through and the new language to be inserted, or in the case of a complete rewrite, it would state the repeal of the old section and the creation of a new section with the revised text. This meticulous approach is fundamental to the integrity of the legislative process in Wisconsin.

In Wisconsin legislative drafting, the principle of “germane” or “relatedness” is crucial when amending existing statutes. When a bill proposes to amend a statute, the amendments must be relevant to the subject matter of the original statute being amended. This ensures that a single bill addresses a single subject, preventing logrolling and surprise legislation. For instance, if a bill seeks to amend a section of Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 70, relating to property taxes, an amendment that introduces provisions for regulating commercial fishing in Lake Michigan would likely be considered not germane, as it introduces a new and unrelated subject. The Wisconsin Constitution, specifically Article IV, Section 18, mandates that no bill shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. While this applies to the bill’s initial introduction, the germane requirement for amendments is a judicial and drafting convention that upholds this constitutional principle. A drafting error would occur if an amendment, by its nature, expanded the scope of the original statute to encompass entirely new policy areas that were not contemplated by the existing law. The focus is on whether the amendment is logically connected to the purpose and subject of the statute it seeks to modify.

The Wisconsin Legislature’s process for amending existing statutes involves several stages, each with specific procedural requirements. When a bill proposes to amend a statute, it must clearly identify the section(s) to be changed. This is typically done by referencing the Wisconsin Statutes by chapter and section number. The amendment itself is then presented in a specific format: existing language to be deleted is enclosed in double parentheses `(( ))`, and new language to be inserted is underlined. If a section is to be repealed and recreated, the entire text of the new section is underlined. The process ensures clarity and precision in legislative changes, allowing other legislators and the public to understand exactly what modifications are being proposed to the existing law. For instance, if a bill aims to alter a provision within Chapter 70 of the Wisconsin Statutes concerning property taxation, the drafting would explicitly state the section number, such as “70.11.” The amendment would then follow the prescribed format for deletions and additions. This meticulous approach is fundamental to maintaining the integrity and accessibility of Wisconsin’s statutory code.

The core of legislative drafting in Wisconsin, particularly concerning statutory interpretation and the structure of the Wisconsin Statutes, involves understanding the hierarchy and relationship between different statutory components. When drafting a bill that amends an existing section of the Wisconsin Statutes, the drafter must clearly identify the specific statute to be modified. Wisconsin Statutes are organized into chapters, and within chapters, into sections. A bill’s enacting clause will typically state “The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:”. Following this, the bill will contain specific provisions detailing the amendments. For instance, if a bill intends to modify a specific subsection within a chapter, the drafting must precisely reference that subsection. The principle of legislative intent guides the interpretation of these amendments, ensuring that the changes align with the stated purpose of the bill. The Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau plays a crucial role in ensuring that all drafted legislation conforms to established drafting conventions and legal principles, promoting clarity and consistency within the state’s codified laws. Understanding how to properly cite and amend existing statutory language is fundamental to preventing ambiguity and ensuring the enforceability of new legislation.

The Wisconsin Legislature’s Committee on Review of Administrative Rules (CRAR) plays a crucial role in the administrative rulemaking process. When an agency proposes a rule, it must submit the proposed rule and a statement of fiscal impact to the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) for review. The LRB then forwards the proposed rule to the relevant standing committees of the legislature. If a standing committee finds the proposed rule to be objectionable, it can recommend that the rule be disapproved. The CRAR then reviews the standing committee’s recommendation. If the CRAR agrees with the standing committee that the rule is objectionable, it can then direct the agency to withdraw or amend the rule. If the CRAR does not agree with the standing committee, or if no standing committee recommends disapproval, the rule can proceed. The CRAR has the authority to review rules for various reasons, including whether the rule exceeds the statutory authority of the agency, whether it conflicts with other statutes, or whether it imposes an undue burden on the public. The process is designed to ensure legislative oversight of agency rulemaking.

The Wisconsin Legislative Drafting Manual, specifically Chapter 7 concerning the “Form and Structure of Bills,” outlines the process for amending existing statutes. Section 7.03 discusses the treatment of repealed or renumbered sections. When a bill proposes to repeal a section of the Wisconsin Statutes and replace it with a new section, the drafting convention is to indicate the repeal and then present the new text. The repeal is typically shown by striking through the existing text of the section being repealed. The new text is then presented as an addition, often with underlining to signify new material. If a section is to be renumbered, the bill must clearly state the old number and the new number, and then present the text under the new designation. The question probes the understanding of how to properly indicate the repeal and substitution of a statutory section within a legislative bill, a core skill for legislative drafters in Wisconsin. The correct approach involves clearly marking the repeal of the existing statutory language and then introducing the new language that will replace it, ensuring clarity and precision in the amendment process. This process is crucial for maintaining the integrity and accessibility of the Wisconsin Statutes.

The Wisconsin Legislature’s statutory drafting process is governed by specific rules and conventions to ensure clarity, consistency, and legal efficacy. When drafting legislation, particularly amendments, drafters must adhere to established principles for referencing existing statutes. Wisconsin Statutes Section 990.001(7) provides guidance on how to cite and incorporate statutory provisions. Specifically, when an amendment proposes to repeal and recreate a section, the new language must be clearly indicated, and any existing language being removed should be appropriately marked, often with strikethrough. Conversely, if the intent is to insert new material without deleting existing text, that insertion point must be unambiguous. The question tests the understanding of how to properly indicate a legislative intent to add entirely new text to an existing statute without modifying the surrounding provisions, a common task in legislative drafting. This involves presenting the new text in a manner that clearly signifies its addition, distinct from the existing, unchanged language. The correct approach is to introduce the new text directly, implying its insertion into the current statutory framework without necessitating explicit marking of the existing text as being retained, as that is the default assumption when no repeal or amendment is indicated for that specific portion.

The Wisconsin Legislature, when enacting statutes, must adhere to specific drafting principles to ensure clarity, consistency, and legal efficacy. One crucial aspect is the proper use of cross-references to other statutes or administrative rules. When a statute is amended, any cross-references within that statute to the amended provision must also be reviewed and potentially updated. If a cross-reference is not updated to reflect the new numbering or designation of a statute that has been renumbered or repealed and recreated, it can lead to ambiguity or misinterpretation of the law. For instance, if Statute A refers to Statute B, and Statute B is subsequently repealed and recreated as Statute C under a new section number, a failure to update the cross-reference in Statute A to point to Statute C would render the reference to Statute B legally ineffective. The Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) plays a vital role in ensuring that such cross-references are accurate and that amendments are properly integrated into the body of Wisconsin Statutes. This process is essential for maintaining the integrity and usability of the state’s legal code, preventing confusion for legal practitioners, government officials, and the public. The principle is that legislative intent must be clearly ascertainable, and outdated or incorrect references hinder this objective. The Wisconsin Constitution, Article IV, Section 17, requires that laws be passed by a majority of members elected to each house, and while not directly dictating cross-reference mechanics, it underpins the need for clarity and precision in legislative enactments.

In Wisconsin, the legislative drafting process involves several stages, including the preparation of a bill, its introduction, committee review, floor debate, and potential enactment. A crucial aspect of this process is ensuring that proposed legislation aligns with existing statutory law and constitutional provisions. When drafting a bill that proposes to amend or repeal existing Wisconsin statutes, drafters must precisely identify the affected sections. Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 35, specifically concerning the publication of statutes, and the administrative rules promulgated by the Revisor of Statutes, provide guidance on the style, form, and numbering of legislative acts. Consider the scenario where a legislator wishes to amend Section 13.09 of the Wisconsin Statutes, which deals with the legislative audit bureau. The legislator’s intent is to modify the reporting requirements of the bureau. A properly drafted amendment would explicitly state the section being amended and then detail the specific changes to the text of that section. For instance, if the intent is to add a new subsection (3) to Section 13.09, the drafting would involve language like “Section 13.09 (3) is created to read:”. If the intent is to strike certain language within an existing subsection, the drafting would specify the subsection and the precise text to be removed, often using strikeout formatting in draft versions and clear deletion in enacted law. The goal is to provide unambiguous guidance to the legislature and the public about which parts of the statute are being altered.

The Wisconsin Legislature operates under a bicameral system, meaning bills must pass both the Assembly and the Senate. A bill introduced in the Assembly must go through committee review, floor debate, and a vote. If it passes the Assembly, it then proceeds to the Senate for a similar process. If the Senate amends the bill, it must then return to the Assembly for concurrence on the Senate’s amendments. If the Assembly does not concur, a conference committee, composed of members from both houses, can be appointed to reconcile the differences. The conference committee’s report must then be approved by both houses. If the bill passes both houses in identical form, it is then sent to the Governor for approval or veto. The Governor has 6 days (excluding Sundays) to act on a bill. If the Governor signs it, it becomes law. If the Governor vetoes it, the Legislature can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in each house. If the Governor takes no action within the 6-day period and the Legislature is still in session, the bill becomes law without the Governor’s signature. However, if the Legislature adjourns during this 6-day period, the bill does not become law, which is known as a “pocket veto.” In this scenario, the bill passed the Assembly and was sent to the Senate. The Senate amended it, and the Assembly refused to concur. A conference committee was appointed, and its report was approved by the Senate. The Assembly then also approved the conference committee report. The bill was then sent to the Governor. The Governor vetoed the bill. The Legislature was in session when the veto occurred. To override the veto, both the Assembly and the Senate must vote to approve the bill as vetoed by the Governor, with each house requiring a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting.

The Wisconsin Legislative Drafting Manual, specifically Chapter 3, “Bill Drafting Procedures,” outlines the process for handling amendments. When an amendment is proposed to a bill that has already been introduced, the drafting process involves identifying the specific sections of the existing bill that the amendment intends to alter. The manual emphasizes clarity and precision in amending language. Section 3.04(2) of the manual details the procedure for drafting amendments to existing statutes. It requires that an amendment clearly state the bill number to which it applies and the specific section of the bill being amended. If the amendment seeks to change a portion of the statute that is not currently present in the bill but is being added by the bill, the amendment must reference the proposed new language. Furthermore, amendments should not introduce entirely new subject matter unrelated to the original bill’s purpose, adhering to the principle of germaneness. The correct drafting practice involves ensuring the amendment’s text precisely reflects the intended changes to the bill’s language, whether it’s adding, deleting, or modifying existing or proposed statutory text. This meticulous approach prevents ambiguity and ensures that the legislative intent is accurately captured. The process requires a thorough understanding of the bill’s current text and the proposed changes, ensuring consistency with existing Wisconsin statutes and constitutional provisions.

The Wisconsin Legislative Drafting Bureau operates under specific guidelines for bill drafting, particularly concerning the structure and content of proposed legislation. When drafting a bill that amends an existing statute, the bureau must clearly indicate which sections are being added, repealed, or modified. This is typically achieved through the use of specific typographical conventions. For instance, new material is often indicated by underlining, and repealed material is enclosed in brackets or struck through. The Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau’s (LRB) drafting manual provides detailed instructions on these conventions. The question asks about the proper method for indicating a repeal of a specific subsection within an existing Wisconsin statute. According to standard legislative drafting practices, especially as followed in Wisconsin, the repeal of a statutory provision is denoted by enclosing the text of the provision to be repealed within square brackets. This visually signals to readers that the material is intended for removal from the statute books. Other methods, such as underlining, are typically used to indicate new material being inserted, not material being removed. Therefore, to repeal a subsection, the entire text of that subsection would be enclosed in brackets.

The Wisconsin Legislature’s primary method for proposing amendments to the state constitution is through the passage of a joint resolution. This joint resolution must be adopted by a two-thirds majority vote in both the Wisconsin State Assembly and the Wisconsin State Senate. Following its adoption, the proposed amendment must be published in a manner prescribed by law, typically in newspapers of general circulation in each county of the state. After this publication, the proposed amendment is then submitted to the electorate for approval at the next general election. If a majority of the voters approve the amendment, it becomes part of the Wisconsin Constitution. This process ensures that constitutional changes are deliberated extensively and have broad public support, reflecting the foundational nature of constitutional law. The requirement for two legislative sessions to approve the same amendment, with publication and public vote in between, is a safeguard against hasty or ill-considered alterations to the state’s fundamental governing document. The publication requirement ensures that the public is informed of the proposed changes well in advance of the vote.

The scenario describes a situation where a bill is introduced in the Wisconsin State Assembly and referred to a standing committee. The committee then holds a public hearing and votes on the bill. If the committee votes to recommend passage, the bill is reported to the Assembly floor for further consideration. This process aligns with the standard legislative procedure in Wisconsin for bills originating in the Assembly. Specifically, after a bill is introduced and assigned to a committee, the committee’s action of holding a hearing and voting to recommend passage is a crucial step before it reaches the floor. The subsequent steps of engrossment, third reading, and passage by the Assembly are the natural progression of a bill that has successfully cleared committee. Therefore, the described sequence accurately reflects the path of a bill from committee recommendation to Assembly passage.

The Wisconsin Legislature’s Committee on Administrative Rules (CAR) plays a crucial role in the legislative oversight of administrative agencies. When an agency proposes a new administrative rule or an amendment to an existing one, it must submit the proposed rule to the CAR for review. This review process is governed by Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 227, specifically concerning administrative procedure and review. The CAR has the authority to review proposed rules for various factors, including their legality, necessity, and the extent to which they will affect the public and the regulated entities. If the CAR finds a proposed rule to be objectionable, it can recommend that the agency revise or withdraw the rule. If the agency does not comply with the CAR’s recommendations, the CAR can then introduce a joint resolution in the legislature to suspend or invalidate the rule. This legislative intervention is a key mechanism for ensuring that administrative rules align with legislative intent and public policy. The CAR’s ability to suspend a rule requires a joint resolution, which must be adopted by both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature. This process is distinct from the governor’s veto power over legislation. The CAR’s review is a proactive step in the rule-making process, aiming to prevent problematic rules from taking effect.

Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 77 governs forest croplands and the property tax implications for landowners participating in this program. Specifically, Section 77.06 addresses the procedure for withdrawal from the forest croplands program. If a landowner wishes to withdraw their land, they must file a written application with the county clerk. The county clerk then notifies the town or city clerk and the department of natural resources. A crucial element of this process, as outlined in the statutes, is the imposition of a withdrawal tax. This tax is calculated based on the assessed value of the land at the time it was entered into the program, multiplied by the current mill rate of the taxing district, and then multiplied by the number of years the land has been enrolled, not to exceed ten years. However, the statute also specifies a minimum withdrawal tax. If the calculated tax is less than a certain amount, the minimum tax applies. For lands entered into the program before January 1, 1986, the minimum withdrawal tax is \$6 per acre. For lands entered on or after January 1, 1986, the minimum withdrawal tax is \$10 per acre. This minimum tax is intended to ensure a baseline revenue for the state and local governments when land is removed from the program, regardless of the original assessed value or the duration of enrollment. The question tests the understanding of this minimum withdrawal tax threshold, differentiating based on the entry date into the program, a key detail in legislative drafting that requires precise application of statutory provisions.

The core principle guiding the structure of Wisconsin statutes is the concept of statutory construction, particularly as it pertains to amendments. When a bill is introduced to amend an existing statute, the drafting process must ensure clarity regarding which provisions are being altered, added, or repealed. Wisconsin Statute § 990.001(7) provides guidance on the interpretation of statutes, emphasizing that the primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. When amending a statute, the legislature’s intent is typically expressed through explicit language in the bill. This often involves using specific phrases like “amends,” “repeals and recreates,” or “adds” to clearly delineate the changes. A bill that proposes to repeal and recreate a section of law implies a more comprehensive revision than a simple amendment. It suggests that the existing section is being entirely replaced with new language, effectively creating a new statutory provision while maintaining the original section number for continuity. This contrasts with a mere amendment, which might alter specific words, phrases, or subsections within the existing structure without wholesale replacement. Therefore, a bill that explicitly states it “repeals and recreates” a statute signifies a complete overhaul of that particular statutory provision, not just a modification of its existing text. This distinction is crucial for drafters to accurately reflect the legislative intent and ensure the codified law is precise and unambiguous.

The Wisconsin Legislature operates under a bicameral system, with bills introduced in either the Assembly or the Senate. A bill must pass both houses in identical form before it can be presented to the Governor for signature. If a bill is amended in one house, the other house must concur in the amendments. If concurrence fails, a conference committee is typically appointed to reconcile the differences. The conference committee’s report, which contains the agreed-upon language, must then be approved by both houses. Failure to achieve agreement at any stage, or to concur in amendments, means the bill does not advance. In this scenario, the Assembly passes a bill, and the Senate amends it. The Assembly then refuses to concur in the Senate’s amendments. This triggers the process for a conference committee. If the conference committee’s report is then rejected by the Senate, the bill effectively dies, as there is no further legislative mechanism to resolve the disagreement and send an identical version to the Governor. The Senate’s rejection of the conference report means the chamber that proposed the amendment (the Senate) has not agreed to the compromise, and the chamber that refused concurrence (the Assembly) has also not agreed to the Senate’s original amendment. Therefore, the bill cannot proceed.