(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s Democratic leaders have vowed to reverse Act 10 and other policies if elected.
Now that the party will have majorities in both branches of the legislature and governor’s office, the question is how they intend to pay for the estimated $2 billion in added costs if they remove the measure, which prevents some public employee unions from collectively negotiating non-wage items, caps wage increases at inflation and allows public employees to opt out of union affiliation.
While the state is currently sitting on a $3 billion surplus, those are one-time funds that would mean additional taxpayer funding would be needed in future budgets.
If the projected cost increases were passed on to taxpayers, it would cost them an estimated $624 per year if they owned a $300,000 home, according to research from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. The group created a calculator in 2025 for taxpayers to estimate what an Act 10 reversal would cost.
“I think it will lead to some dramatic negative consequences for Wisconsin education and for taxpayers,” WILL Research Director Will Flanders told The Center Square.
Rep. Shae Sortwell, R-Two Rivers, who has a unique perspective as a Manitowoc County supervisor, said that county governments and municipalities are scrambling to figure out how they would cover the added costs of not just increased employee salaries but also healthcare and retirement costs if the law is overturned.
Manitowoc County passed its budget on Thursday night and discussions included a rough estimate of $5 million in added costs if Act 10 is overturned for the county alone, something that could go beyond the county’s levy increase limit. That means the county would have to have layoffs, a referendum or increased shared revenue from the state to pay for the increases.
Sortwell said that, ultimately, those costs will be sent to taxpayers and estimated that an average homeowner could see $1,000 in additional property taxes statewide in a post-Act 10 reality.
He said that, without Act 10, labor disputes often go to forced arbitration where the municipality almost always loses, meaning the cost increases are forced rather than being the result of negotiations.
“The union pretty much gets what it asks for,” Sortwell told The Center Square. “That’s just what history shows us. That was why it was so expensive.”
Future Senate Majority Leader Dianne Hesselbein did not respond to questions from The Center Square regarding her plan and Crowley's campaign did not speak in specifics.
"Governor-Elect Crowley is focused on assembling an experienced transition team so his administration can be ready on day one to deliver results for working families across the Badger State," spokesperson Jonathan Fera told The Center Square. "He will have more to share about his agenda following his inauguration as Wisconsin's 47th governor."
Crowley said during the campaign that he planned to overturn the law and also wanted to increase shared revenue that is sent to municipalities and counties across the state, something that he repeated during the lone governor debate.
“As a county executive, we have had to figure out year after year, like all municipalities, how to pay for mandated services because the state of Wisconsin broke their promise,” Crowley said. “Because under Tom Tiffany, when he was in the state legislature, they voted to slash shared revenue coming to local communities all across the state.”
The Wisconsin Education Association Council noted after the election that educators have been preparing for this opportunity after feeling shut out since Act 10 was implemented in 2011 under Gov. Scott Walker.
“We are ready to reclaim our rightful place at the bargaining table, where we will negotiate fair pay and working conditions, defend academic freedom and help shape the schools our students deserve,” the WEAC said in a statement. “Respect for educators is a voice in the decisions that shape our work.
“The road to undo Walker’s failed policies is long. The path ahead must put students first.”
The WEAC did not respond to questions about its future plans and Act 10 preferences from The Center Square.
Before Act 10 was put in place, school levies were escalating far faster than inflation with the levies rising 72% in the 12 years before the law compared to 31% in the 12 years after it with, adjusted for inflation, a 2.15% average per year, according to research from the Badger Institute.
Badger Institute Executive Editor Patrick McIlheran, former deputy chief of staff, communications director and policy adviser for U.S. Sen Ron Johnson, said that one thing that is overlooked in the Act 10 discussions is the massive costs related to paying for teacher health insurance statewide through WEA Trust, an insurer owned by the WEAC. That created a monopoly where the WEA Trust could charge taxpayers higher rates than other insurers.
“After Act 10, they actually provided better health insurance for employees for less cost because it was no longer forced on them that they had to go with a certain company,” Sortwell said.
Sortwell said that the state will need to spend down the $3 billion surplus and nearly $2 billion rainy day fund and that will just be the start if all of the Democrats’ election promises are followed.
McIlheran said that it is telling that WEA Trust no longer exists, though it could be restarted if Act 10 is eliminated, because the insurer didn’t work in a free market.
“Repealing Act 10 makes property taxes much worse and would do so almost immediately,” McIlheran said.
McIlheran believes that, rather than simply getting rid of Act 10, the new legislature should think hard about other ways to change policy that wouldn’t make budgeting so difficult for local school districts and municipalities.