Welcome to the Wednesday, April 23, 2025, Brew.
By: Lara Bonatesta
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- States have passed 15 bills either supporting or opposing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing in 2025
- How Wisconsin’s partial veto power has evolved through 95 years of ballot measures
- Denise Slipy and Keri Heintzeman are running in the special election for Minnesota Senate District 6
States have passed 15 bills either supporting or opposing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing in 2025
As part of Ballotpedia’s commitment to providing comprehensive, up-to-date political information beyond election coverage, today, we’re announcing the launch of our new Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Legislation Tracker.
In case you’re not familiar with the term, here’s a quick background on what ESG is. ESG investing is an asset management approach that considers environment, social issues, and corporate governance practices. It’s a type of stakeholder investing which says shareholder returns should not be the only goal. Stakeholder investing contrasts with traditional approaches that exclusively consider financial factors like balance sheets, income statements, and valuations to maximize risk-adjusted returns (also known as shareholder investing). To learn more about ESG and commonly considered investing factors, click here.
Among the thousands of bills that lawmakers consider every year, Ballotpedia highlights ESG legislation because it has become increasingly relevant to voters and policy discussions across the political spectrum.
So far this year, states have enacted 15 bills on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing. States approved 34 such laws in 2024, 45 in 2023, 17 in 2022, 13 in 2021, and three in 2020.
States with Republican trifectas enacted legislation opposing ESG investing, while states with Democratic trifectas enacted legislation supporting ESG investing. Eleven of the 15 bills passed this year prohibited or restricted certain ESG uses in four states with Republican trifectas. Two bills required ESG for state contracts in two states with Democratic trifectas. The remaining two bills prohibited certain uses of ESG and passed in Kentucky, which has a divided government.
Let’s take a closer look at states’ ESG approaches this year based on their trifecta status and zoom out to see which states have been the most active since 2020.
States with Republican trifectas prohibiting ESG
Twenty-three states currently have Republican trifectas. The four states with Republican trifectas that have enacted legislation prohibiting or limiting uses of ESG this year are Arkansas, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. Of those states:
- Three passed anti-discrimination laws prohibiting banks and government agencies from using ESG scores (also known as social credit scores) to determine individual or business eligibility for financial services.
- Three passed sole fiduciary laws prohibiting or discouraging officials or advisers managing funds on behalf of a state from considering ESG factors in public investments (like pension funds).
- Two passed public disclosure requirement laws requiring additional transparency on the ESG policies, investments, and considerations of state investment boards and other government agencies.
For a full list of legislation against ESG, click here.
The map below shows which Republican trifecta states have enacted the most types of legislation prohibiting or limiting ESG since 2020:
States with Democratic trifectas requiring ESG
Fifteen states have Democratic trifectas, and two – Illinois and Massachusetts – passed laws requiring ESG criteria in state contracts this year. For a full list of legislation in favor of ESG, click here.
The map below shows which Democratic trifecta states have enacted the most types of legislation requiring ESG since 2020:
Click on the corresponding links to learn more about ESG, areas of disagreement and inquiry related to it, and for comprehensive analysis and details on ESG legislation by trifecta status. For a full list of bills from the last five years, click here.
Click here to use our free ESG Legislation Tracker, read our simplified bill summaries, or sort bills by state, trifecta status, topic, and more. There are no required downloads, registration, or email addresses.
Ballotpedia’s Economy and Society newsletter covers developments in the world of ESG and hits inboxes every Tuesday. Click here to subscribe.
How Wisconsin’s partial veto power has evolved through 95 years of ballot measures
On April 18, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld Gov. Tony Evers’ (D) use of a partial veto in the state’s biennial budget. His partial veto extended a two-year school funding increase to 402 years.
We’ll get to the specifics of this case below, but first, what is a partial veto, and how did we get here?
According to the Associated Press’ Scott Bauer, “Wisconsin is the only state where governors can partially veto spending bills by striking words, numbers and punctuation to create new meaning or spending amounts. In most states, governors can only eliminate or reduce spending amounts.”
Between 1930 and 2008, Wisconsin voters approved three ballot measures related to the partial veto.
- Question 1 of 1930: Established the governor’s partial veto for appropriation bills
- Question 1 of 1990: Prohibited the governor from using the partial veto to create new words from individual letters
- Question 1 of 2008: Prohibited the governor from using the partial veto to create a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences
1930: Origin of Wisconsin’s partial veto
In 1930, voters approved Question 1, granting the governor the power to partially veto appropriation bills.
State Sen. Thomas Duncan (Socialist), who sponsored the proposal, said, “[Currently,] the governor can block bad budget legislation only by vetoing the entire bill. The item veto is absolutely indispensable to the successful operation of the Wisconsin budget plan, in which all appropriations are made in a single bill.”
Phillip La Follette (R), who was running for governor at the time, opposed Question 1. He said, “Passage of the amendment would be another step in the concentration of power in the executive office.”
La Follette was elected governor with 64.8% of the vote, and Question 1 was approved with 62.2% support.
1990: Can’t Remove Individual Letters to Form New Words
In 1990, voters changed the partial veto power, approving Question 1 60.5%-39.5%. It prohibited the governor from using the partial veto to remove individual letters from words to form new words.
Before proposing Question 1, the Democratic-controlled Wisconsin Senate sued Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) over his use of the partial veto.
In 1990, the Associated Press wrote: “The constitutional amendment was backed by Democrats angered by Gov. Tommy G. Thompson’s use of hundreds of partial vetoes to rewrite legislation sent to him by the Democratic-controlled Legislature since 1987.”
In June 1988, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that “any claimed excesses on the part of the governor in the exercise of this broad partial veto authority are correctable not by this court, but by the people, either at the ballot box or by constitutional amendment.”
2008: Can’t Combine Parts of Two Sentences to Form a New Sentence
In 2008, voters approved a constitutional amendment prohibiting the governor from combining parts of two or more sentences in an appropriations bill to form new sentences. It passed with 70.6% of the vote.
In the 2005 biennial budget, Gov. Jim Doyle (D) selected 20 words from a 752-word section to form a new sentence authorizing the transfer of $427 million from the transportation fund to the general fund to support public school operations. Lawmakers who opposed this method called it a “Frankenstein veto.”
According to the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, “Largely in response to Governor Doyle’s aggressive use of the editing veto in the 2005 biennial budget, the 2005 legislature, in a bipartisan vote, adopted 2005 Senate Joint Resolution 33, which proposed amending the constitution to ban the Frankenstein veto. … The 2007 legislature adopted the proposal on second consideration almost unanimously.” Republicans held majorities in both chambers of the Legislature in 2005. In 2007, Democrats held a majority in the state Senate, and Republicans held a majority in the House.
2025: Wisconsin Supreme Court on Gov. Evers’ Partial Veto for School Funding Change
On April 18, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld Gov. Tony Evers’ (D) partial veto extending a two-year school funding provision to 402 years. The 4-3 decision followed the court’s ideological divide, with the liberal bloc in the majority and the conservative bloc dissenting.
In the court’s opinion, Justice Jill Karofsky wrote that the partial veto followed four deletion-veto principles established in prior case law. Justice Brian Hagedorn dissented, writing, “This is not a policy that was presented to the governor for approval.”
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, who filed the lawsuit, alleged that deleting digits from the phrase ‘2023–24 school year, or 2024–25 school year‘ to create the number 2425 violated Section 10(1)(c), which voters added in 1990 and amended in 2008.
To read more about the court’s decision and the dissent, click here.
Proposed amendments:
Republicans have proposed two constitutional amendments that would change the partial veto. One could appear on the ballot in 2026 and the other in 2027. In Wisconsin, a constitutional amendment must be approved during two legislative sessions.
In 2024, legislators passed Assembly Joint Resolution 112 (AJR 112), which would prohibit the governor from using the partial veto to create or increase a tax or fee. Republicans supported AJR 112, and Democrats opposed it. The amendment must be approved again during the 2025-2026 legislative session to appear on the ballot in 2026. As of April 20, the proposal has not been reintroduced.
On Feb. 17, 15 House Republicans and three Senate Republicans introduced another amendment, which would limit vetoes to entire sections of an appropriations bill and only allow vetoes if those sections could stand alone as complete and workable laws. If approved twice, the earliest possible election date for the amendment is April 6, 2027.
Ballotpedia’s Historical Ballot Measures Factbook includes a full inventory of 178 years of Wisconsin ballot measures. Click here to learn more.
Denise Slipy and Keri Heintzeman are running in the special election for Minnesota Senate District 6
As part of our ongoing coverage of special state legislative elections in 2025, let’s take a look at a race happening in Minnesota next week.
Denise Slipy (D) and Keri Heintzeman (R) are running in the special election for District 6 of the Minnesota Senate on April 29. The previous incumbent, Justin Eichorn (R), resigned on March 20 after he was arrested and federally charged for allegedly attempting to solicit a minor for sex.
In the 2022 elections, the chamber changed from a one-seat Republican majority to a one-seat Democratic majority. The District 6 vacancy created a temporary 34-32 Democratic majority. This means that if Slipy wins, Democrats will expand their majority to 35-32, and if Heintzeman wins, the chamber will return to a 34-33 Democratic majority.
District 6 switched to Republican control in 2022 when Eichorn, who previously represented District 5, won the seat following redistricting and incumbent David Tomassoni’s (D) death. Tomassoni represented the district from 2001 to 2022. In the 2022 general election, Eichorn defeated Steve Samuelson (D) 63.5%-36.4%. In 2020, Tomassoni defeated John Moren (R) 57%- 42.8%.
Slipy is an environmental health and safety professional, OSHA instructor, and first responder.
Heintzeman was the director of President Donald Trump’s (R) 2024 campaign in Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District. Her husband, Josh Heintzeman (R), represents state House District 6B. Together, they run a small business called Up Country Log and operate rental properties.
Minnesota has a divided government due to the 67-67 tie formed in the state House following the 2024 elections. Democrats gained control of the Senate in 2022 for the first time since 2012. Gov. Tim Walz is a Democrat. Click here to learn more about the Minnesota Senate District 6 election.