TABOR or TPA Dead for 2006

On May 4th, the Senate failed to pass the Taxpayer Protection Amendment (TPA, formerly known as TABOR, or the Taxpayer Bill of Rights) by a vote of 11-21. The Assembly approved an amended version of this much-discussed measure in the early hours of April 28th by a vote of 50-48. Before this vote, a much more restrictive version of the TPA failed by a wide margin of 32 in favor to 66 opposed.

The proposed constitutional amendment to limit state taxing and spending, formally known as Assembly Joint Resolution (AJR) 77, was approved by the Assembly in late April. AJR 77 was introduced in February by Representative Jeff Woods (R-Chippewa Falls) and Senator Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), and received several public hearings between February and April. Representative Woods offered a substitute amendment on April 11th, and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means recommended the measure for passage on April 12th by a vote of 7-6. The measure the full Assembly ultimately approved was actually the 5th substitute amendment to Assembly Joint Resolution 77.

If the Senate had approved the identical version of TPA, it would have required action, on second consideration, by the 2007-08 Legislature. If the identical proposal had again received legislative approval, it could have then gone to a statewide referendum. Since the full Legislature failed to approve TPA, though, the process will now have to start over next session, if the sponsors wish to pursue this type of measure.

The Assembly substitute measure had differed from earlier versions of TPA and TABOR in that it applied only to state government. Local governments would have been exempt from the revenue controls. This scaled-back version of the amendment did not ultimately have enough support to go forward in the Senate.

About TABOR

Some highlights of the original version of AJR 77 include:

  • Imposing a revenue limit on state government, counties and technical colleges equal to the combination of inflation, as measured by a three-year average of changes in the Consumer Price Index, and population growth.
  • Imposing a revenue limit on Wisconsin's 426 school districts equal to increases in enrollment and the three-year change in inflation. School districts that are losing students would have their revenue limits determined by inflation only.
  • Imposing a revenue limit equal to the three-year change in inflation and 60% of the value of new local construction on most villages, cities and towns. But towns whose revenues are less than $1 million a year would be exempt from revenue limits.
  • Specifying how taxes and fees that exceed revenue limits must be handled. State government, for example, would have to put extra revenue into an emergency fund until that fund equals 8% of state spending. If the 8% limit is reached, the Legislature and governor would have to find some way to return the extra tax funds. Local governments also would have to find some ways to return excess revenue.
  • Allowing voters at every level of government to exceed the revenue limits by passing referendums.

Other Links to Various TABOR Information