On May 2, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a ruling that upheld Governor Tony Evers’ partial veto, commonly referred to as the “400-year veto.” This decision allows public schools to increase per-student funding by $325 annually for the next 400 years, without requiring additional legislative approval. The ruling has far-reaching implications for Wisconsin’s education system, local governments, taxpayers, and homeowners, sparking debate about its benefits and challenges.
Background of the Veto
Governor Evers’ veto was part of a broader budget agreement, where he used his partial veto authority to extend a temporary school funding increase into a policy spanning four centuries. The veto adjusts the revenue limits for public schools, enabling them to collect an additional $325 per student each year. These revenue limits determine how much funding schools can raise through a combination of state aid and local property taxes. By locking in this increase, the veto ensures a steady funding stream for schools but removes the need for future legislative oversight, raising questions about adaptability to changing economic or demographic conditions.
Implications for Wisconsin Residents
Impact on Property Taxes
The $325 per-student increase will primarily be funded through local property taxes, as schools rely on these levies to meet their revenue limits. School boards, now authorized to raise levies to the new maximums, may increase property taxes to cover the additional funding. For homeowners, this could translate to higher annual tax bills, with the exact impact varying by district and enrollment numbers. Over time, these increases could accumulate, placing a growing financial burden on property owners.
Challenges for Retirees
For seniors living on fixed incomes, rising property taxes could pose significant challenges. Many retirees already face difficulties covering rising costs for healthcare, utilities, and other essentials. The additional tax burden, compounded over years, may make it harder for them to afford staying in their homes, potentially forcing some to relocate or sell properties they’ve lived in for decades.
Barriers to Homeownership
The veto’s impact extends to prospective homebuyers, particularly first-time buyers. Higher property taxes increase the overall cost of homeownership, as they are factored into mortgage affordability calculations. In communities with high-enrollment public schools, where the $325 per-student increase has a larger effect, rising taxes could price some families out of the housing market. This could exacerbate affordability challenges in a state where homeownership is already a significant hurdle for younger or lower-income households.
Long-Term Financial Commitment
The court’s decision to uphold the veto means the funding increase is effectively permanent unless future governors or legislatures take action to repeal it. However, reversing the policy could prove difficult once school districts adjust their budgets to rely on the additional revenue. This creates a long-term financial commitment that may limit the state’s flexibility to respond to economic downturns, demographic shifts, or changes in educational needs.
Broader Considerations
Proponents of the veto argue that it secures critical funding for public education, ensuring schools can maintain or improve programs, hire qualified staff, and address infrastructure needs. Stable, predictable funding could help districts plan effectively and avoid the uncertainty of annual budget negotiations. However, critics contend that the lack of legislative oversight raises concerns about accountability. Without mechanisms to adjust the funding increase based on inflation, enrollment changes, or economic conditions, the policy may lead to inefficiencies or unintended consequences.
Additionally, the veto shifts a significant portion of the funding responsibility to local property taxes, which could deepen inequities between wealthier and less affluent districts. While state aid helps balance disparities, districts with lower property values may struggle to raise sufficient funds, potentially widening gaps in educational quality.
Looking Ahead
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling marks a significant moment in the state’s education and fiscal policy landscape. For residents, the decision brings both opportunities and challenges. Schools may benefit from increased resources, but homeowners and taxpayers will need to navigate the financial implications. Policymakers and community leaders will likely face ongoing discussions about how to balance educational investments with economic fairness and long-term sustainability.
As Wisconsin moves forward, stakeholders—including school boards, local governments, and residents—will need to work collaboratively to address the ruling’s impacts. Monitoring property tax trends, advocating for equitable funding models, and exploring ways to support vulnerable populations, such as retirees, will be critical steps in ensuring the veto serves the state’s broader interests.
