Legislative Control Shifts Impact State Constitutional Amendment Processes
New party majorities in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania face hurdles for pending constitutional proposals.
1Shifting Legislative Power Dynamics
Recent elections in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have fundamentally altered legislative control, ending long-standing Republican majorities or divided governance. These shifts create significant uncertainty for pending constitutional amendments. Because these states require approval across two successive legislative sessions, the incoming Democratic majorities now hold the power to advance or stall proposals.
2The Two-Session Approval Hurdle
In Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, constitutional amendments typically require approval in two consecutive sessions before reaching the ballot. Historically, this process serves as a barrier when party control flips. Data shows that between 2010 and 2026, 81% of amendments failed to advance during the second session following a change in legislative party control.
3Wisconsin's Pending Republican Proposal
The incoming Democratic-controlled Wisconsin legislature must decide the fate of a Republican-backed amendment approved in February. This proposal would grant the legislature authority to suspend executive agency rules indefinitely. Given the historical trend where 17 of 21 amendments failed after party shifts, the proposal faces a difficult path toward the 2027 or 2028 ballot.
4Reproductive Rights Legislative Strategy
Governor-elect David Crowley of Wisconsin and Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania have both prioritized enshrining reproductive rights into their state constitutions. To achieve this, Democrats must retain legislative control through the 2028 elections to secure the necessary second vote. Without bipartisan support, any loss of control would effectively block these specific constitutional initiatives.
5Pennsylvania's Stalled Amendment Landscape
Pennsylvania currently has no pending amendments that passed both chambers in the most recent session. Consequently, lawmakers must restart the entire two-session process for any new proposals. State Representative Danielle Friel Otten recently introduced an amendment to protect reproductive liberty, which would require successful passage in both the 2027-2028 and 2029-2030 legislative sessions.
6Emergency Amendment Provisions
Pennsylvania law allows for emergency amendments to bypass the two-session requirement if a major threat exists. This mechanism requires a two-thirds supermajority vote in both chambers, necessitating Republican cooperation. This process is rarely utilized, having last been invoked in 1977 to provide disaster relief following significant flooding events across the state.
7National Context of Amendment Rules
Nine states, including Indiana, Iowa, and New York, share the two-session requirement seen in Wisconsin. In states where party control remained stable, such as Indiana and Nevada, pending amendments continue their path toward potential 2027 or 2028 ballots. These proposals include administrative changes like renaming state auditors or establishing specialized business courts.
8One-Session State Policy Implications
States like Arizona and Minnesota allow amendments to reach the ballot in a single session, granting new Democratic majorities more immediate legislative leverage. However, states like Michigan require supermajorities for such referrals. These varying procedural rules dictate how quickly new political majorities can translate their policy agendas into permanent constitutional changes for voters.