visited on 5/21/2015

The Evolution of Legalized Gambling
in Wisconsin

State of Wisconsin
Legislative Reference Bureau
Informational Bulletin 12-2, November 2012

 visited on 5/21/2015
Table of Contents
CONSTITUTION PROHIBITED ALL GAMBLING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PROMOTIONAL CONTESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
BINGO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
RAFFLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
RACING: PARI-MUTUEL ON-TRACK WAGERING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
STATE LOTTERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
INDIAN GAMING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
GAMBLING LAWS AND PENALTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
HISTORY OF GAMBLING REGULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

 visited on 5/21/2015
THE EVOLUTION OF LEGALIZED GAMBLING
IN WISCONSIN
The story of gambling in Wisconsin is
an evolution from absolute legal prohibition to the present situation in which the
state and certain organizations and entities,
including Indian tribes, may conduct a wide
variety of gaming activities. This narrative
summarizes that evolution.
The original Wisconsin Constitution,
adopted in 1848, outlawed “lotteries,”
which has been interpreted to mean any
type of gambling. In 1965, the voters approved an amendment to the state constitution to allow participation in sweepstakes
and promotional contests. Other amendments followed to permit charitable bingo games (1973), charitable raffles (1977),
on-track pari-mutuel wagering on racing
(1987), and the state lottery (1987). Pursuant
to the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act of 1988, the state and its 11 Indian tribes
and bands had by 1992 concluded gaming
compacts allowing the conduct on tribal
reservations or trust land of various gambling activities including slot machines,
Poker, Blackjack, and Craps. In 1993, the
voters ratified a constitutional amendment
to generally limit gambling on non-Indian
lands to only those activities approved by
the previous amendments.
CONSTITUTION PROHIBITED ALL
GAMBLING

Gambling had been illegal in Wisconsin
since 1839 when the first version of the territorial statutes specifically outlawed “any
lottery” games such as faro and roulette,
and, more broadly, prohibited “any other
gambling device designed to be used in
gaming.” As with current law, participation in gambling (making a bet) has always
been treated less harshly than commercially
operating the games or devices. A person

convicted of gambling has typically been
subject to a forfeiture, fine, or the penalties
associated with a minor misdemeanor. On
the other hand, businesses and others who
offered gambling have been liable to be
convicted of felonies resulting in significant
prison time.
The original form of the Wisconsin
Constitution, Article IV, Section 24, read:
“The legislature shall never authorize any
lottery, or grant any divorce.” This provision may seem to be narrowly tailored to
prohibit only certain activities – specifically, traditional raffle-types of lotteries in
which a winning ticket or number is drawn
at random. However, this provision has
been generally interpreted by the courts, the
legislature, and attorneys general as banning all forms of gambling, both public and
private, whether conducted for profit or to
benefit charitable causes. Any activity involving the three elements of prize, chance
(random odds or luck), or consideration
(paying money or giving a thing of value to
play) has been held to be a lottery, and thus
not allowed. Even if skill or knowledge
could influence the outcome of a game, as
long as chance was the major determining
factor in the outcome, the activity was considered to be illegal gambling.
The prohibition on lotteries was considered during the proceedings of the first
of the two constitutional conventions that
eventually resulted in Article IV, Section 24.
On October 19, 1846, a resolution was introduced to the convention providing:

Prepared by Daniel F. Ritsche, Senior Legislative Analyst.

“Resolved, That the Committee on
miscellaneous provisions, be instructed to enquire into the expediency of
providing, in the Constitution, an article forbidding the existence of any
lottery, or the vending of any lottery

 visited on 5/21/2015
–2–
tickets within this State…” [Wisconsin
Constitutional Convention, 1846, p. 70.]

This absolute ban on lotteries was
largely a reaction to crooked governmentsanctioned lotteries in our nation’s early
history. According to “Gambling and the
Law,” Wisconsin Law Review, Volume 1980,
Number 5:
Following the Revolutionary War,
most states had relied heavily on lotteries as a means of financing public
works and supporting organizations
such as orphanages and hospitals.
These states had also authorized various philanthropic organizations such
as churches and universities to conduct lotteries. States and organizations had usually relied upon management companies to conduct the
lotteries. The companies would then
turn over a percentage of the profits to
the sponsor… In 1833, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, and New York had
abolished lotteries due in large measure to fraudulent practices by lottery
management companies. Many other
states followed their lead. Prior to the
War Between the States all but three
states had barred lotteries. The drafters of Wisconsin’s Constitution acted
within this historical context in barring
lotteries.

The article goes on to assert that in enacting the antilottery laws that appeared
in the first version of the state’s statutes in
1849, the legislature “almost certainly used
the term ‘lottery’ to mean raffles and not in
its generic sense.”
However, gambling – usually involving
the risking of a small sum for an opportunity to win a prize – is deeply ingrained in our
culture and in human nature. Wagering on
outcomes uncertain is an activity enjoyed
to greater or lesser extent by a large segment of the population. While laws have
been passed with the intention of suppress-

LRB–12–IB–2
ing gambling, and police and prosecutors
have with varying zeal attempted to curtail
private and particularly commercial gaming, people have continued to find ways to
satisfy the desire to try their luck in games
of chance. In part due to people’s creativity
in inventing gambling schemes, the legislature, courts, and attorneys general progressively expanded the scope of activities that
came to be considered illegal under the antilottery laws. This expansive perspective
was expressed by the attorney general in a
1938 opinion (OAG XXVII 225): “…lottery
statutes are to be construed broadly with a
view to preventing the mischief aimed at,
viz., stimulation of the gambling spirit and
the natural desire to get something for nothing.”
Illegal Gambling Widespread
Despite the laws, illicit gambling was
common. Charitable, fraternal, and religious organizations operated bingo games
and raffles to raise money. Taverns offered
slot machines, pinball machines with money
betting, dice and card games, punchboards,
tip jars and various other gambling schemes
for the amusement of patrons. Sometimes
slot machines were even used by churches,
stores, hotels, and other establishments to
support good works or to increase profits.
Bookmakers ran numbers games and accepted wagers on races and athletic events.
Private social gambling existed in many
forms, such as betting on card games like
poker. Because gambling was perceived
by many persons as a relatively harmless
and victimless crime, it was widely tolerated, though not necessarily condoned, by
law enforcement authorities. To illustrate
the general feelings regarding this issue, a
January 13, 1937 Milwaukee Journal article
recounts how “After a North Fond du Lac
church picnic where four [slot] machines
were operated, the laborer who spent $12

 visited on 5/21/2015
LRB–12–IB–2
in them was hailed as a benefactor of the
church.” An October 2, 1937, editorial in
The Capital Times recounted how commercial gambling operators were praised by
public officials and citizens in Oneida and
Bayfield Counties for making contributions
to civic improvements and worthy causes,
and which reinforced public toleration of
gambling.
The entire spectrum of gaming activities was available throughout the state, but
it was slot machines that received the most
serious attention, owing to their visibility
and their profitability. A January 10, 1928
Milwaukee Journal article titled “Slot Machine
in Wide Use” stated “That slot machines
are in operation…in a great majority of the
counties of Wisconsin…is evident.” Ole A.
Stolen, State Humane Agent and a former
Madison judge, commenting on the popularity and pervasiveness of slot machines
in taverns, said “’The machines will pay all
expenses during the summers months’ one
hears repeatedly [from tavern owners] and
in every county in which they operate. ‘And
most of it comes from tourists, anyway.’” A
September 25, 1941 Chicago Daily Times article asserted that “Gambling in northern
Wisconsin is generally as open as a union
station…the slot machines are as numerous
as the pines of the forest.”
Sometimes the tide of public opinion
would at least temporarily turn against
gambling, resulting in crackdowns by police and prosecutors. Often, these efforts
occurred soon after elections for sheriff
and district attorneys who strived to fulfill
campaign pledges to curtail slot machines.
Well-publicized raids resulted in the confiscation of many illegal gambling machines.
For example, a raid in Dane County in 1927
netted 200 machines. A severe “cleanup” in
1941 in Hurley, a city notorious for ready
availability of various vice opportunities,

–3–
closed almost all gambling activity, even
bingo in the churches.
Slot machines became a prime target of
law enforcement attention not just because
of their pervasiveness, but because the public sometimes became frustrated with players’ seeming inability to win back an acceptable percentage of their wagers. A January
13, 1937 Milwaukee Journal article stated that
“Most machines, when they come from the
factory, are set to pay back 40 cents on the
dollar… But when put out for the public,
the machines are more often screwed down
to pay 10 per cent and the winning jackpot
combination is plugged out.” A January 8,
1928 article in the Milwaukee Journal stated
“Practically every slot machine operator will
admit readily that slot machines, as they are
‘set,’ leave little to chance – that they cannot
be beaten and that no form of gambling is so
much of a ‘sure thing.’” Thus, proprietors
greatly resented any actions to remove this
highly profitable venture.
Notwithstanding periodic enforcement
actions, the gambling trade continued to
flourish, leading to occasional calls to “legalize” slot machines and other gambling.
For example, 1939 Assembly Bill 343 proposed that slot machines and pinball machines be decriminalized, and that county
boards be authorized to enact ordinances to
license and regulate their operation in places of business such as taverns. A few years
later, 1943 Assembly Bill 325 (as amended)
proposed that cities, towns, and villages be
authorized to permit each business establishment to operate up to three licensed slot
machines. Under this “home rule” slot machine bill, the licensing fee revenue would
be collected by the state, but 25 percent of
the funds would go to the county, and 75
percent to the municipality. At the public
hearing held by the Assembly’s Judiciary
Committee, a proponent of the bill asserted
that “You cannot legislate morality.” He

 visited on 5/21/2015
–4–
said that “The attitude toward slot machines has been similar to our attitude on
social diseases. Both have been treated in a
hush-hush manner, hoping that they somehow would correct themselves…we believe
in bringing the slot machine out in the open
and making it pay its fair share of the tax
burdens so that property taxes may be reduced.”
But there remained considerable opposition to legalization, both from moral and
practical perspectives. On April 23, 1943,
the Milwaukee Journal editorialized: “If you
cannot legislate morality, then all our laws
governing personal behavior are futile. If
slot machines should be licensed for their
revenue, then perhaps these other immoral
things should also be licensed – for even
more revenue… It is perhaps true that,
people being what they are, it [gambling]
can never be completely stopped, but that
does not change the fact that it should be attacked and not condoned… The state cannot properly wink at anti-social practices.
Even less can it participate in them by sharing in the unworthy gains.”
Thomson Antigambling Law. The legislature and Governor Walter Goodland responded to rampant tavern gambling with
Chapter 374, Laws of 1945, known as the
Thomson Antigambling law for its sponsor, Assemblyman Vernon W. Thomson
(later attorney general and governor). The
Thomson law provided for the seizure and
destruction of slot machines or gambling
devices found in a tavern and the revocation of the establishment’s alcohol beverage
license. The state’s beverage tax agents were
authorized to investigate gambling in establishments serving alcohol beverages. Under
the law, any law enforcement official who
was aware of illegal gambling and failed to
take appropriate action was subject to removal from office by the governor. Well-

LRB–12–IB–2
publicized raids resulted in the confiscation
of many illegal gambling machines. An
October 10, 1945, article in the Appleton PostCrescent quoted Deputy Attorney General
James Ward Rector as asserting: “The law
has operated as we knew it would, and has
eliminated the public gambling problem in
Wisconsin.” “A slot machine today is a real
novelty,” added D. H. Pritchard, head of the
beverage tax division.
That the law did, at least for a time,
achieve some of its intended effect was illustrated in an August 20, 1947 Milwaukee
Journal article, in which a tourist complained
to a bartender in a Northern Wisconsin resort about the disappearance of slot machines under the antigambling law. A native of the area explained that, “If they get
caught with slot machines they lose their
liquor licenses. There aren’t any slot machines this year, but I think some places will
try putting them in next spring.” The constitutionality of the law was upheld by the
Wisconsin Supreme Court in State v. Coubal,
248 Wis. 247 (1946).
Although the Thomson Antigambling
law significantly suppressed illegal commercial gambling for a while, the demand
for games of chance always seemed to eventually overcome whatever laws and enforcement activities were attempted. Over
the years, tavern operators came under increasing pressure from Indian tribal casino
gambling, the higher 21 drinking age, and
increased drunk driving enforcement. As
a result, illegal gambling machines gradually reappeared in taverns, particularly slot
machines in their more modern incarnation
– electronic video games.
Video games, controlled by computer
microchips and featuring graphics and
sound effects, may be programmed to simulate the play of poker and other casino-type
games. Although the machines often did not
automatically dispense money to winners,

 visited on 5/21/2015
LRB–12–IB–2
many proprietors awarded money prizes to
patrons who accumulated certain numbers
of points. There was confusion among law
enforcement authorities as to whether mere
possession of video gaming machines was
prohibited, although it was generally understood that actual payouts based on the
results of the games was illegal. Proprietors
argued that the devices could legitimately
be used for amusement because, unlike
traditional slot machines, they are not designed to automatically dispense money.
But in a May 26, 1996 Wisconsin State Journal
article titled “Video Gambling: Illegal But
Thriving,” an anonymous bartender stated:
“Of course they pay. If they didn’t, people
wouldn’t be sticking fives, tens, and twenties in them.” Enforcement officers found
it to be a very sensitive issue. It was often
perceived as unfair if they raided a tavern
to seize gaming machines similar to those
available at nearby Indian tribal casinos.
In a March 1992 informal opinion requested by Senators Michael Ellis and
Robert Cowles, Attorney General James
Doyle stated that the mere possession of video gaming machines was generally illegal
and that they may be seized. He reiterated
this position in a May 1996 formal opinion.
Court rulings on the issue were mixed. For
example, the Court of Appeals ruled in State
v. Hahn, 203 Wis. 2d 450 (1996), that a video
poker machine is not a gambling machine
per se. The court said that for a violation to
be found, the defendant must have collected
proceeds from video poker machines knowing they were being used for gambling and
the proceeds were derived from gambling.
Governor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on
Gambling. In October of 1991, Governor
Tommy Thompson, by Executive Order
#136, established a Blue Ribbon Task Force
on Gambling. Its task was to try to determine
public opinion on gaming in Wisconsin, as-

–5–
sess the economic benefits and social costs of
state and Indian tribal games, and make recommendations regarding the future scope
and regulation of gaming. In its January
1992 final report, the task force found that
there appeared to be a general acceptance
of gambling in the state and a willingness
to expand legal gaming opportunities. For
example, an article in The Capital Times that
month quoted an anonymous tavern owner
as estimating that up to 75 percent of Dane
County taverns had video poker machines
and that more than 90 percent ran illegal
pull tabs, football pools, dice games, and
other similar games of chance. The report
suggested creation of a consolidated gaming commission to regulate all gambling activity in the state and proposed certain expansions of legalized gambling within the
state lottery.
The task force recommended authorization of four floating casinos. It also suggested legalizing video gambling machines,
such as video poker, in establishments possessing liquor licenses, including taverns,
restaurants, and racetracks, provided they
were approved by local voters in referenda.
These games, as with the floating casinos,
would be technically operated by the state
under the auspices of the Wisconsin State
Lottery. Supporters of this controversial
proposal asserted the games would generate additional revenue to help taverns compete more effectively against other entertainment options. A November 1991 article
in the Eau Claire Leader Telegram reported
that northern Wisconsin tavern owners generally agreed that a bill to allow video poker
in bars may be the only way to keep their
businesses operating as they compete with
Indian gambling attractions. Opponents
argued that making video gaming widely
available would not create many new jobs
in taverns but would lead to a saturation of
the gambling market and harm the newly

 visited on 5/21/2015
–6–
established tribal casinos. The governor rejected the floating casino recommendation
but included a proposal in 1991 Senate Bill
483 (the 1992 budget adjustment bill) to allow video gaming machines tied to the state
lottery in establishments licensed to serve
alcohol beverages by the drink (including
racetracks). The proposal was eventually
deleted from the bill by the Joint Committee
on Finance.
Previously in the 1991 Legislative
Session, Assembly Amendment 1 to
Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 to 1991
Assembly Bill 91 (the biennial budget), included a proposal to create Chapter 567 of
the Wisconsin Statutes, titled “Legal gambling boats.” Under the proposal, the State
Lottery Board would have been authorized
to operate casinos on privately-owned excursion vessels. Attorney General Doyle
opined that the Lottery Board could legally
operate the games as long as the board controlled their use. In addition to video poker
and other video gambling machines, other
games which would have been allowed included traditional slot machines, roulette,
craps and other dice games, bingo, keno,
and any card game that is typically available at a casino such as poker and blackjack. Another bill from that session, 1991
Assembly Bill 469, proposed authorizing
state-operated gambling on floating casinos.
Two constitutional amendment proposals,
1991 Senate Joint Resolution 38 and 1991
Assembly Joint Resolution 18, would have
authorized the legislature to allow offshore
casino gambling on scheduled passenger
vessels on Lake Michigan, Lake Superior,
and the Mississippi River. Two other bills
from the 1991 Session, both of which failed
to pass, proposed permitting electronic video games in taverns. 1991 Senate Bill 188
and 1991 Assembly Bill 361 would have had
the machines regulated by the State Lottery
Board with 15 percent (later increased to 25

LRB–12–IB–2
percent) of the profits going toward property tax relief.
While most gambling remained illegal,
it continued to be commonly available and
enforcement was a low priority issue for
police agencies. In January 1992, Portage
County Sheriff Thomas Wanta was quoted
as saying: “I don’t have the manpower to
check every tavern. If we get a complaint,
then we follow through on it.” In the
same month, Sauk County Sheriff Virgil
Steinhorst commented: “Am I going to bust
the tavern owner who has a video poker
machine in his bar when the Indians have
dozens of them just a few miles down the
road?”
Efforts to legalize a minimal number
of video gambling machines as part of the
state lottery (authorized by a 1987 constitutional amendment) were dampened by a
constitutional amendment ratified on April
6, 1993, by a vote of 623,987 to 435,180. The
amendment generally limited gambling on
non-Indian lands to only those activities
previously approved: promotional contests,
charitable bingo and raffles, pari-mutuel
betting on racing, and the state lottery. It
specifically prohibited lottery slot or video
gambling machines, blackjack, poker, roulette, craps, and other games of chance from
being operated by the state. At the same
election, in an advisory referendum put on
the ballot by the legislature, over 63 percent
of Wisconsin voters rejected the decriminalization of video gambling in taverns.
Tavern owners continued to push for a
way to compete with Indian tribal casinos.
1995 Assembly Bill 633 proposed legalizing
video amusement devices, including video
poker machines, in taverns. The machines,
which would have been licensed by the state
Gaming Commission, would have to be allowed unless a city, village, or town enacted
an ordinance prohibiting them or if the electors, in a referendum called by the local gov-

 visited on 5/21/2015
LRB–12–IB–2
erning body, voted against the concept. The
bill raised serious constitutional issues regarding the extent of gambling that the legislature may authorize. In a formal opinion
requested by Senate Leadership, Attorney
General Doyle stated that legalizing video
gambling in taverns would violate the constitution. Senate Majority Leader Michael
Ellis was quoted in a January 24, 1996
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article as accusing
the Tavern League of Wisconsin of “trying
to run through the (Legislature’s) back door
and circumvent the Constitution.” AB-633
was defeated in the Assembly by a vote of
66-33 in March 1996. 1995 Assembly Bill 744,
which failed to pass, proposed legalizing up
to five video gambling machines, licensed
by the Department of Revenue (DOR), in
each tavern, unless precluded by the same
ordinance or referendum provisions that
were in AB-633. The sponsor of AB-744,
Representative Joe Handrick, speaking in
support of the bill at a February 1996 public hearing, was quoted by The Capital Times
as supporting the right of business to effectively compete with tribal gambling, saying: “We want a level playing field. They
just want fairness.”
Decriminalization of Video Gambling
in Taverns. 1999 Wisconsin Act 9, the biennial budget act, decriminalized the possession and operation of five or fewer video
gambling machines in an establishment licensed to serve alcohol beverages for consumption on the premises, such as a tavern
or restaurant. It reduced the penalty from a
felony to a $500 civil forfeiture per machine
and also removed the threat that an establishment could have its alcohol beverage license revoked solely because of having five
or few machines. Mere possession of any
gaming machine remains illegal, and the
machines are subject to seizure, but tavern
video gambling was de facto legalized. All
enforcement for having five or fewer ma-

–7–
chines is now the exclusive responsibility
of state revenue agents, and local police or
sheriff agencies may not enforce the law if
an establishment does not have more than
five gambling devices. Because there are
relatively few revenue agents throughout
the state, and they are responsible for other
tasks, enforcement actions have in practice proved to be fairly rare. Act 9 did not
change the law that makes it a misdemeanor crime to make a bet, including gambling
using a video gaming machine.
In an October 15, 1999 letter urging that
the governor veto this provision, Attorney
General Doyle noted that the $500 forfeiture “would essentially be nothing more
than a ‘tax’ on these machines,” that it will
allow the unregulated growth of industries
“pushing a product many refer to as the
‘crack cocaine of the gambling industry,’”
and that the National Gambling Impact
Study Commission recently recommended
against any expansion of this type of “convenience gambling” due to the minimal
economic benefits but potentially greater
social costs.
In his veto message for Act 9, Governor
Tommy Thompson presented his reasons
for approving the tavern video gambling
decriminalization. He cited the inconsistent enforcement of the gambling laws and
stated that this change would result in more
uniformity. While acknowledging the continued illegality of the machines, he said
the penalty for minimal gaming activities
would more closely fit the crime, particularly in light of the overcrowded prison system. He also stated his belief that gaming
machines should be licensed, regulated,
and taxed.
PROMOTIONAL CONTESTS

Prior to 1965, all sales promotions that
awarded prizes primarily by chance were
prohibited as illegal lotteries, and disclaim-

 visited on 5/21/2015
–8–
ers such as “void in Wisconsin” appeared
in advertisements for national sweepstakes
and other contests designed to stimulate
sales. Nevertheless, promotions by local retailers were common. An example is
cited in a November 13, 1939 article in the
Milwaukee Journal, which discussed the use
of “holiday” punchboards by grocers to
“give away” Thanksgiving Turkeys. Some
merchants tried to evade the law by various schemes, but the courts consistently
ruled that the element of consideration was
deemed to be involved if the promoter received some commercial advantage from
the activity or participants were disadvantaged in some way, such as by being required to visit a retailer to participate or
to pay postage to mail an entry form. The
Wisconsin Supreme Court, in State ex rel.
Cowie v. La Crosse Theaters Co., 232 Wis. 153
(1939), prohibited a “Bank Night” promotion held by a theater in which persons who
bought tickets for admission to the motion
pictures could receive chances to win prizes by tickets drawn at random. The court
ruled this a lottery, even though persons
who didn’t buy theater tickets could come
to the establishment and enter their names
into the drawings without having to purchase a ticket to the performance.
In Chapter 463, Laws of 1951, the legislature attempted to authorize certain “giveaway” programs by restricting the definition of “consideration” to the payment of
money or expenditure of substantial effort
or time. However, the Wisconsin Supreme
Court invalidated the law, holding in State
v. Laven, 270 Wis. 524 (1955), that this definition violated the constitutional prohibition
against lotteries, and that lottery-type activity could only be legalized by amending the
constitution. In the 1963 and 1965 legislative
sessions, a joint resolution was approved
by both houses regarding a referendum
question to be placed on the ballot propos-

LRB–12–IB–2
ing that the first exception to the constitutional ban on all lotteries and gambling be
enacted to allow promotional contests. In
a February 1965 editorial, The Capital Times
warned against adoption of this first breach
in the legal wall against games of chance,
stating: “We have felt that any attempt to
amend or weaken the constitutional barrier
would open the floodgates wide to all the
gambling bills that are always introduced in
the legislature.”
In April of 1965, the voters ratified
the constitutional amendment by 454,390
to 194,327 to permit promotional contests,
amending Article IV, Section 24. Previously
prohibiting the legislature from authorizing any lottery, the amendment added the
clause: “Except as the legislature may provide otherwise, to listen to or watch a television or radio program, to fill out a coupon or entry blank, whether or not proof of
purchase is required, or to visit a mercantile
establishment or other place without being
required to make a purchase or pay an admittance fee does not constitute consideration as an element of a lottery.” The legislature enacted Chapter 122, Laws of 1965,
to implement the constitutional provisions
in June 1965.
Regulation of Promotional Contests.
Section 945.01 (5), Wisconsin Statutes, governs games, drawings, contests, sweepstakes, prize offers, and other sales promotion activities. Under the law, a “lottery” is
defined as “an enterprise wherein for a consideration the participants are given an opportunity to win a prize, the award of which
is determined by chance, even though accompanied by some skill.” “Consideration”
is defined as meaning “anything which is a
commercial or financial advantage to the
promoter or a disadvantage to any participant,” but the law specifically exempts from
the definition of consideration “any advan-

 visited on 5/21/2015
LRB–12–IB–2
tage to the promoter or disadvantage to any
participant caused when any participant
learns from newspapers, magazines and
other periodicals, radio or television where
to send the participant’s name and address
to the promoter.” The law further provides
that none of the following constitutes consideration:
x ꕕ’—ȱ˜žȱŠȱŒ˜ž™˜—ȱ˜›ȱŽ—›¢ȱ˜›–ȱ‘Šȱ
is received through the mail or published in a newspaper or magazine,
if facsimiles of the coupon or entry
˜›–ȱ ˜›ȱ ‘Š— ›’ĴŽ—ȱ Š—ȱ ˜‘Ž›ȱ ’—formal entries are acceptable or if no
purchase is required;
x furnishing proof of purchase if the
proof required does not consist of
more than the container of any product as packaged by the manufacturer,
or a part of the container, or a facsimile of either;
x sending the coupon or entry form and
proof of purchase by mail to a designated address;
x ꕕ’—ȱ ˜žȱ Šȱ Œ˜ž™˜—ȱ ˜›ȱ Ž—›¢ȱ ˜›–ȱ
obtained and deposited on the prem’œŽœȱ˜ȱŠȱ‹˜—Šȱꍎȱ›ŠŽȱŠ’›ȱ˜›ȱ›ŠŽȱ
show…but if an admission fee is
charged to the exhibition all facilities
for obtaining and depositing coupons
or entry forms shall be outside the
area for which an admission fee is required;
x visiting a mercantile establishment or
other place without being required
to make a purchase or pay an admittance fee; and
x using certain “in-pack” chance pro–˜’˜—œȱ œžŒ‘ȱ Šœȱ ˜ěŽ›œȱ ˜ȱ ˜”Ž—œȱ ˜›ȱ
game pieces in cereal boxes or prizes
ž—Ž›ȱ‹˜Ĵ•ŽȱŒŠ™œǯ
In addition, 2009 Wisconsin Act 354
amended the law to permit an employee’s
referral of a potential customer to his or her

–9–
employer in exchange for a chance to win a
prize.
Promotional contests are regulated by the
Wisconsin Department of Administration’s
(DOA) Division of Gaming, which may be
contacted at (608) 270-2555, www.doa.state.
wi.us/gaming/.
Some were concerned that the promotional contests amendment could be interpreted more broadly than either the legislature or the voting electorate had in mind.
Lieutenant Governor Patrick Lucey was
quoted at the time saying that the referendum’s language was ambiguous: “I would
be very fearful that it might lend itself to an
interpretation that would be broader than it
is assumed the authors intended.” A March
7, 1968 article in the Milwaukee Journal discussed this outcome, saying that “The
amendment, which slipped through the
legislature with scarcely a ripple, was billed
as a ‘contest amendment’ making it possible
for state residents to participate legally in
national contests advertised on TV and in
magazines and newspapers. What it actually did was to sanction promotional lotteries,
national and local. Most of these games are
not ‘contests.’ They are lotteries in which
not a vestige of skill is required.” A sponsor of the amendment, former Senator Lynn
Stalbaum, confirmed this view: “Frankly, I
did not anticipate that there would be this
development. What we were mainly trying
to do was to allow people to enter national
contests.”
In response to numerous stores offering
bingo games under the promotional contests authorization, the legislature in 1966
enacted Chapter 654, Laws of 1965. This
law outlawed the playing of bingo in stores
by declaring that a visit to a mercantile establishment did constitute consideration
under the lottery laws, even if making a
purchase or paying an admittance fee, was
not required. The exemption for visiting

 visited on 5/21/2015
– 10 –
stores to participate in promotional contests, drawings, and sweepstakes was restored by Chapter 351, Laws of 1981.
BINGO

Bingo has long been viewed as a relatively harmless social diversion and has
been widely used as a fundraising tool by
religious, charitable, service, and fraternal
organizations. However, opponents of the
promotional contests amendment warned
that any liberalization of the antilottery
laws would inevitably lead to the legalization of other forms of gambling.
Pressure to legalize charitable bingo intensified after the authorization of promotional contests in 1965. It was argued that
if merchants could use games of chance,
many of which resembled bingo, to stimulate business, then churches and charities
should have the same opportunity to raise
money for worthy causes.
In 1940, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
ruled that bingo is an illegal lottery regardless of whether or not the proceeds are
used for public benefit (State ex rel. Trampe
v. Multerer, 234 Wis. 50 (1940)). However,
the widespread popularity of low-stakes
charitable bingo led to a sensitive law enforcement situation, with sheriffs and police officers reluctant to intervene in games
conducted by community groups. Jefferson
County Sheriff Roger Rienel was quoted in
a September 29, 1971 article in The Capital
Times that it was practically impossible
to enforce the state ban on bingo in small
communities and that legalizing the game
would take the law enforcers “out of an
awkward situation.” Numerous bills were
introduced proposing to legalize bingo by
statute, despite the court’s ruling that a constitutional amendment would be required.
A joint resolution to authorize the legislature to permit charitable bingo games
passed both houses in the 1971 Legislative

LRB–12–IB–2
Session. The debate was spirited when the
measure was again considered in the 1973
session. “All this amendment does is allow
people to do legally what they are now doing
illegally,” said Assistant Assembly Minority
Leader Tommy Thompson. Representative
Frederick Schroeder said legalization
would be a boon to fundraising efforts for
volunteer fire departments, churches, and
other civic organizations. Representative
Gervase Hephner commented that “They’re
playing bingo at every picnic I go to, and I
sit down and play along.”
On the other hand, opponents claimed
there was a logical progression from legalized bingo to other forms of gambling, and
control of gambling by organized crime.
“I don’t want to be a part of opening the
door to legalized [horse] race track betting
and dog track betting,” said Representative
George Molinaro. A March 13, 1973 Racine
Journal editorial warned of the social costs:
“Legalized gambling compounds a community’s social problems as losses fall heavily
on the poor. Money that should be spent
on food, clothing, housing and constructive
projects is wasted by those who can least afford it.” Representative Lewis Mittness said
that professional organizations have moved
in to operate bingo games for nonprofit
groups in other states and end up with the
biggest share of the profits. This concern
was addressed by a provision in the proposed amendment requiring that all bingo
profits must go to the licensed organization,
and that no salaries, fees, or profits may be
paid to any other organization or person.
A bingo constitutional amendment was
ratified in April 1973 by a vote of 645,544
to 391,499. It permitted the legislature to
authorize licensed bingo games conducted
by religious, charitable, service, fraternal
or veterans’ organizations or other groups
entitled to receive tax-deductible contributions. Chapter 156, Laws of 1973, imple-

 visited on 5/21/2015
LRB–12–IB–2
mented the amendment by legalizing bingo
games in Wisconsin.
Bingo Regulation and Conduct.
DOA’s Division of Gaming administers
the laws and rules relating to the licensing and regulation of bingo: (608) 270-2530,
www.doa.state.wi.us/gaming/. It annually
licenses approximately 800 organizations,
performs on-site operational inspections of
bingo events and conducts compliance audits. Chapter 563, Wisconsin Statutes, and
Chapters Game 41 through 43, Wisconsin
Administrative Code, apply to bingo.
In order to qualify for a license to conduct bingo, an eligible organization must:
have been in existence at least three years
before applying, have at least 15 members in good standing, conduct activities
in Wisconsin in addition to the conduct of
bingo, operate without profit to its members or any other shareholder or individual,
and have been actively engaged in making
proper and legitimate expenditures of funds
derived from sources outside the conduct of
bingo. Included in the definition of “service
organizations” eligible to conduct bingo are
community-based residential facilities, senior citizen community centers, and adult
family homes.
In general, there is an annual license fee
of $5 per organization and a license fee of
$10 for each bingo occasion. An organization must also pay an occupational tax to
the state on the gross receipts of bingo operations. The tax is one percent of the first
$30,000 in gross receipts received during a
licensing year and two percent of the gross
receipts received by a licensed organization
during a licensing year that exceed $30,000.
In fiscal year 2011-12, about 475 organizations were licensed to conduct bingo. The
approximately $135,000 in licensing fees
and $260,000 in gross receipts taxes were
used to fund bingo regulatory operations.

– 11 –
The record high for license fee collections was $250,992 in 1986, and the highest
amount of tax collections was $648,163 in
1989. The drop-off is largely attributed to
the popularity of other forms of gambling or
bingo games offered by Indian tribes, which
are not regulated by the state and may offer
larger prizes.
A bingo license allows an organization
to hold an unlimited number of bingo occasions per year. There is no limit on the number of games played at a regular bingo occasion. However, only $2,500 in prizes may be
given at any one bingo occasion sponsored
by a licensed organization. In general, bingo cards may be sold for not more than $1
each, and the purchase of a card serves as
admission to the occasion. Organizations
may also conduct limited-period bingo for
not more than four out of five consecutive
days in any one year at a festival, bazaar,
picnic, carnival, or similar function. No admission fee may be charged, and cards are
sold on a game-by-game basis for not more
than $1 per game. No cards may be given
free to players.
Prizes may be cash or merchandise, except that alcoholic beverages or interest in
real estate or securities may not be awarded as a prize. The total amount of prizes
awarded at a bingo occasion may generally
not exceed $2,500 in cash and/or merchandise retail value. The maximum prize in a
single game is $500, except for progressive
jackpot games. 2005 Wisconsin Act 247 permitted progressive jackpot bingo, a form of
the game in which prize money rolls over
to a game played on a later day if no player
wins within a specified number of calls. All
profits from bingo operations must be used
by the organization for proper and legitimate expenditures to support any purpose
for which the group is organized or for the
advancement, improvement, or benefit of
the organization.

 visited on 5/21/2015
– 12 –
All persons assisting in the conduct
of bingo must be at least 18 years of age,
and may not play during the occasion. No
worker may be compensated in any way.
A bingo caller must be a member in good
standing of the organization or its auxiliary,
or a spouse of a member.
As provided by 2009 Wisconsin Act 328,
a minor may play bingo if accompanied by
an adult relative or guardian. In general,
bingo games may only be played between
the hours of 7 a.m. to 12 midnight. All
players must have an equal chance to win,
and, except for progressive jackpot bingo,
all winners must be determined and prizes awarded on the same day on which the
bingo occasion is conducted. When there is
more than one winner in a game, the prizes
are to be generally divided equally among
the winners.
RAFFLES

A raffle is a form of lottery in which
participants purchase a ticket for the chance
to win a prize in a random drawing. Like
bingo, raffles had long been widely and illegally used as fundraisers by nonprofit
groups with sponsors sometimes asking
for “donations” in an attempt to evade the
gambling laws. Because of their association
with charitable causes, drawings were routinely tolerated by law enforcement authorities. Milwaukee County District Attorney
W.C. Zabel was quoted in a July 12, 1921
Milwaukee Journal article: “…we have never
stopped such things if they have been for
charity, religious or legitimate fraternal
purposes. Who would think of going into
a church bazaar and stopping a raffle on a
ham or a jar of canned fruit.”
The 1973 legalization of charitable bingo
games led to demands for similar treatment
for raffles. Representative Paul Offner said
in an October 1, 1975 Wisconsin State Journal
article: “The fact that everybody is break-

LRB–12–IB–2
ing the law is a darn strong reason to take
a look at it.” He also said the present law
banning raffles is “making outlaws of threequarters to 90 percent of the people in this
state.” Columnist John Wyngaard in the
Green Bay Press Gazette echoed a common
prediction: “…bingo is merely the opening
wedge for what will surely be a continuing
onslaught by those who favor more serious forms of gambling…” Representative
Marjorie Miller commented, “Everybody
said bingo was getting the foot in the door.
This [raffles] is getting the leg in.”
Raffles were authorized by a constitutional amendment ratified on April 5,
1977, by a vote of 483,518 to 300,473. The
amendment allowed the legislature to empower state-licensed raffles conducted by
local religious, charitable, service, fraternal,
or veterans’ organizations, as well as other
groups entitled to receive tax-deductible
contributions. The amendment, which was
implemented by Chapter 426, Laws of 1977,
requires that all raffle profits go to support
the licensed organization.
Raffles Regulation and Conduct.
DOA’s Division of Gaming administers the
laws and rules relating to the licensing and
regulation of raffles: (608) 270-2552, www.
doa.state.wi.us/gaming/. It annually licenses approximately 9,000 raffles, and collects
about $235,000 in license fees. There is no
gross receipts tax on raffles. Chapter 563,
Wisconsin Statutes, and Chapter Game 44,
Wisconsin Administrative Code, apply to
raffles.
To be qualified to hold a raffle, an organization must have been in existence for
at least one year or chartered by a state or
national organization that has been in existence for at least three years. 1987 Wisconsin
Act 240 added labor organizations and political parties to the list of eligible service
organizations.
Both the constitutional

 visited on 5/21/2015
LRB–12–IB–2
amendment and the original implementing legislation restricted eligibility to conduct raffles to “local” organizations, but did
not define the term. 1987 Wisconsin Act
147 provided a broad definition, including
units that are statewide in nature. Under
act 147, a “local organization” means “an
organization whose activities are limited to
this state or to a specific geographical area
within this state.” 2009 Wisconsin Act 316
further broadened the scope by adding: “or
to a specific geographical area that is partly
within this state and partly within another
state.”
The fee for a raffle license is $25, and is
valid for 12 months. A qualified organization could originally hold only two regular
raffles and one special raffle during a year,
but may now conduct up to 200 raffles and
no more than one calendar raffle during a
year. A “calendar raffle” is one for which a
drawing is held and a prize awarded on each
date specified in a calendar. All raffle drawings must be held in public, and all prizes
must be awarded, but there is no legal limit
on the value of the prizes. All profits from
raffles must be used to further the purpose
for which the organization was organized
and no salaries, fees, or profit may be paid
to any other organization or individual in
connection with the operation of a raffle.
Under a Class A license, tickets may be
sold in advance and on the day of the drawing. Originally set at $5, the maximum permissible price of a raffle ticket was raised
to $10 by 1987 Wisconsin Act 399, to $50 by
1993 Wisconsin Act 152, and to $100 by 2001
Wisconsin Act 16.
Tickets for Class A raffles must be numbered consecutively and must contain the
raffle license number printed on both the
organization’s and the purchaser’s portions
of the ticket; the name and address of the
sponsoring organization; the price of the
ticket; a place for the purchaser to enter his

– 13 –
or her name and address; a list of each prize
to be awarded that has a retail value of $500
or more; and the date, time, and place of the
drawing. The maximum price for a calendar raffle ticket is $10 for each month covered by the calendar. If a drawing is canceled, refunds must be issued to purchasers
of tickets. A list of prize winners must be
provided to any requester who provides a
self-addressed stamped envelope.
1995 Wisconsin Act 27 authorized Class
B raffles, in which all of the tickets for the
raffle are sold on the same day as the drawing. In a Class B raffle, a purchaser of a ticket must generally be present to win a prize,
unless he or she has designated another
person to claim the prize on behalf of the
purchaser. The maximum cost of a Class B
raffle ticket is $10.
RACING: PARI-MUTUEL ON-TRACK
WAGERING

Racing without wagering has always
been legal in Wisconsin, and county fairs
have often held harness, horse, or stock car
races for entertainment. Illegal wagering
was common, however, particularly in the
southeastern part of the state. This led to
passage of Chapter 187, Laws of 1897, which
explicitly outlawed pool selling, bookmaking, betting, or wagering “upon the result
of any trial or contest of skill, speed or power of endurance of man or beast…or upon
any other uncertain event or occurrence.”
Despite the law, illegal on- and off-track
betting was common, sometimes under a
thinly disguised betting scheme in which
track patrons “contributed” money for
certain racing dogs but only received “refunds” on winning animals. This system
was specifically prohibited by Chapter 218,
Laws of 1929.
A number of bills were introduced over
the years to statutorily legalize race wagering. A 1963 attorney general’s opinion (52

 visited on 5/21/2015
– 14 –
OAG 188) stated that race wagering would
require a constitutional amendment, due
to the broad antilottery provision, because
chance was the dominant element, despite
the involvement of other factors, such as the
speed of the animals and the bettor’s skill.
Bills considered to legalize betting on horse
or dog racing were 1905 Senate Bills 399 and
400, 1935 Assembly Bill 766, 1939 Assembly
Bill 674, 1963 Assembly Bill 745, and 1965
Assembly Bill 276.
Beginning with 1973 Senate Joint
Resolution 25, constitutional amendments
were regularly considered to authorize betting on racing. They successfully culminated with an amendment ratified on April 7,
1987, by a vote of 580,089 to 529,729. The
amendment did not name the types of racing that would be permitted, but it did specify that only pari-mutuel on-track betting
would be allowed. In the pari-mutuel system of betting, gamblers wager against one
another, rather than against the track. The
track has no direct stake in the outcome of
races and receives a fixed amount of every
dollar wagered to cover taxes, contestant’s
purses, operations, and maintenance. Any
money remaining after the payouts constitutes the track’s profit.
Thoroughbred horse racing was the
driving force behind the referendum, with
horse enthusiasts touting the state as an ideal location because of its thriving tourism
industry and abundance of farms for growing feed and raising stock. Some racing experts, however, warned that Wisconsin was
not populous enough to profitably support
both horse and dog racing. Although 1987
Wisconsin Act 354, the implementing legislation, authorized betting on horse, dog,
and snowmobile races, dog racing has been
the only type of live wagering event yet conducted in the state. Betting on horses has
been limited to events, such as the Kentucky
Derby, held in other states and simulcast at

LRB–12–IB–2
Wisconsin racetracks. The state may license
betting on horse races held at county fairs if
approved by the county board of supervisors.
Licenses to conduct greyhound dog
racing were issued to five tracks in May
1989. There were more than 3.5 million
visitors to the dog tracks in 1991, the first
year all five were open, but attendance and
revenue declined steadily afterwards. All
five of the racetracks have since closed, an
outcome attributed mainly to competition
from other forms of gambling, particularly
Indian tribal casinos. The Wisconsin racetracks were: Wisconsin Dells Greyhound
Park in Lake Delton, which opened in April
1990 and closed in September 1996; Geneva
Lakes Kennel Club in Delavan, which
opened in May 1990 and closed for live racing in November 2005, although betting on
simulcasting continued until April 2006;
Dairyland Greyhound Park in Kenosha,
which opened in June 1990 and closed in
December 2009; Fox Valley Greyhound Park
in Kaukauna, which opened in August 1990
and closed in August 1993; and St. Croix
Meadows in Hudson, which opened in June
1991 and closed in August 2001.
Racing Regulation. Wisconsin’s racing laws have been recognized as among
the strictest in the nation. (Chapter 562,
Wisconsin Statutes, and Chapters Game
1 through 24, Wisconsin Administrative
Code.) At least 51 percent of the ownership interest in a racetrack must be held by
Wisconsin residents or a corporation chartered in the state. The following racingrelated occupations are required to have
state licenses: horse or dog owners, horse
or dog trainers, jockeys, exercise riders,
grooms, kennel masters and helpers, veterinarians, and most race officials and personnel. Generally, three stewards supervise
the conduct of live races and at least two of

 visited on 5/21/2015
LRB–12–IB–2
them must be employed by, or under contract with, the state. Stewards are subject to
criminal record restrictions. Track employees and owners are not allowed to bet at
their own tracks and betting on races at locations other than racetracks is prohibited.
The minimum wager is generally $2 per
ticket with no limit on the number of tickets that may be purchased. Minors may attend a race but may not place a bet. Prizes
may be paid for picking the first, second, or
third finisher (“win,” “place,” or “show”)
in a particular race, and there are a variety
of possible combination (exotic) bets such
as the “trifecta” (picking the first, second,
and third finishers in the same race) and the
“daily double” (picking the winners of the
first two races held that day).
Final race odds and payoff amounts,
which are not announced until after the
completion of a race, vary depending on the
volume and distribution of bets. Winning
ticketholders generally divide 80 percent to
83 percent of the “handle” (the total amount
wagered) from straight pool races (bets on
single animals to win, place, or show.) They
share 75 percent to 77 percent of the handle
from multiple pool races (combination bets).
A dog track must devote an amount equal
to at least 4.5 percent of the total amount
wagered on each race day to purses paid
to the owners of animals that win, place, or
show. If horse racing is conducted, purses
must be at least eight percent of the handle.
A pari-mutuel tax is paid to the state,
with the percentage varying depending on
the total amount wagered in a year. A 50
cent per person admissions tax is collected
from each person entering a racetrack, with
half of the amount collected going to the
county, and the other half to the municipality. The track may keep 50 percent of any
unclaimed winnings, with the rest paid to
the state.

– 15 –
Racing dogs must be trained and treated humanely. Dogs that were trained using live lures or bait are not allowed, and
animals that come from a state that does not
prohibit cruel racing or training practices
are barred. Individual dogs may not race
more than once in a three-day period and
cannot compete when ill or injured. Track
surfaces must be safely maintained, and animals must receive adequate food, housing,
attentive handling, and medical care. When
dog tracks were in operation in the state,
random testing was used to ensure that no
medication, performance-enhancing drug,
or other foreign substance was administered to an animal within 48 hours prior to
a race. Humane euthanasia methods are required, and Wisconsin was the first state to
initiate an adoption program for placing retired racing greyhounds as household pets.
Snowmobile Racing. In addition to
dog and horse racing, 1987 Wisconsin Act
354 authorized the state to license wagering on snowmobile races. A December 1999
proposal to sanction betting at the World
Championship Snowmobile Derby in Eagle
River was not approved.
Casinos at Racetracks. Since 1992, there
have been various proposals by certain
Wisconsin-based Indian tribes and bands,
some singly and some in combination with
other tribes or bands, to purchase racetrack
properties for the purposes of establishing
off-reservation casino gaming facilities. The
proposals, which have generally been wellreceived by the localities involved, have not
yet received the required approval from
federal authorities, and some proposed
ventures have been the subject of litigation.
STATE LOTTERY

Lotteries date back to early times in
America, and were used to raise funds
for financing the Jamestown colony, the

 visited on 5/21/2015
– 16 –
Continental Army, and the founding of universities such as Harvard, Dartmouth, Yale,
and Columbia. Lotteries were also used
by many states and localities to fund public schools, roads, bridges, and other public works. Most states had abolished them
by 1890 due to numerous scandals, including the notably corrupt Louisiana Lottery.
Religious pressure to abolish them on moral
grounds also had an effect. In 1963, New
Hampshire authorized the first modern
state lottery, intended as a revenue source
in a state that lacked a sales or income tax.
Since then, 43 states and the District of
Columbia have adopted state lotteries, and
most states belong to one or more multistate lottery associations, in which revenues
are pooled for certain games, resulting in
large prize amounts.
The framers of the Wisconsin
Constitution specifically prohibited legislative authorization of lotteries, but eventually attempts were made to loosen this ban.
An early attempt to constitutionally legalize lottery games was a 1939 proposal (1939
Assembly Joint Resolution 66) to authorize
lotteries to provide financial support to the
elderly. 1943 Senate Joint Resolution 69 proposed permitting the legislature to authorize
the state to conduct, participate in, or permit
state or private lotteries. Following the example of New Hampshire, 1965 Assembly
Joint Resolution 41 proposed that the legislature be allowed to create a state lottery,
to be called the “Wisconsin Sweepstakes,”
with the proceeds to be used for public education.
After the Illinois Lottery began operation in 1974, proponents of a Wisconsin lottery asserted that state residents’ gambling
dollars spent across the border should be recaptured and used for tax relief. They urged
that voters should be given the chance to
decide on lottery legalization. Public support was manifested in the legislature with

LRB–12–IB–2
an increasing number of proposals beginning in the mid-1970s, particularly after the
authorization of charitable raffles in 1977.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel stated of the
results of the raffle vote: “Advocates of the
lottery are likely to interpret the outcome
as a clear statement that the electorate does
not regard games of chance as necessarily
immoral, socially dangerous or contaminating.” Representative Lewis Mittness
said in an October 1, 1975 Milwaukee Journal
article that legalizing raffles would be
the first step toward open gambling, and
Willis Merriman, Executive Director of the
Wisconsin Council of Churches, said in a
March 23, 1977 Milwaukee Sentinel article
that “It [raffles] just makes it that much easier for other forms of gambling to come in,
the lottery being one of them.”
However, many people remained opposed to exploiting people’s vices to raise
money for public purposes. In an April 1,
1976 editorial in the Green Bay Press Gazette,
John Wyngaard said of lotteries: “They are
convenient instruments for the taxation of
the poor, the ignorant, and the credulous.”
Governor Patrick Lucey was quoted in a
January 13, 1977 article in The Capital Times
as calling a state lottery “one of the most
regressive forms of taxation now in use,”
and Representative Tom Loftus stated in a
January 22, 1977 article in The Capital Times:
“I simply believe that it is wrong for government to raise tax money by urging people to gamble.”
In April 1987, the electors ratified, by a
vote of 739,181 to 391,942, a constitutional
amendment to create an exception to the
ban on lotteries in order to authorize a staterun lottery. The amendment stated that net
proceeds must be used for property tax relief as provided by law, public funds may
not be used for promotional advertising of
the lottery, and all informational advertising must indicate the odds of winning each

 visited on 5/21/2015
LRB–12–IB–2
prize. 1987 Wisconsin Act 119 created the
Wisconsin State Lottery, which began operation on September 14, 1988 with “Match
3,” an instant win scratch-off game. The first
on-line tickets were sold in August 1989.
Defining the Scope of the Lottery
Disagreement arose as to whether the
1987 state lottery amendment was limited
to a state-run lottery operating traditional
numbers-based drawings, or whether it
also permitted the legislature to legalize
any form of state-operated lottery it chose,
including casino-style games. A third question was whether the lottery amendment
also permitted the legislature to legalize private casino-style gaming. The controversy
revolved around the definition of the word
“lottery.” The issue was whether “lottery”
should continue to be broadly interpreted
as including all types of gambling, or narrowly defined as only the types of drawings
games commonly associated with state lotteries.
In a 1990 opinion, Attorney General
Donald Hanaway departed from the traditional broad view of “lottery” as encompassing all games of chance and concluded
that the term “lottery,” as used in the constitution, refers narrowly only to lottery-style
games as distinct from casino-style games
such as slot machines, Blackjack, and roulette (79 OAG 14). He argued that because
the constitution, as amended, prohibited lotteries other than a state-run lottery but did
not specifically prohibit casino-type games,
the legislature could statutorily authorize
state-operated or private casino gambling
at any time. In contrast, the next Attorney
General, James Doyle, stated in 1991 the
traditional view that “lottery” was a broad
term that included all forms of gambling (80
OAG 53). Thus, he asserted, although the
1987 amendment permitted the legislature
to authorize the operation of state-run ca-

– 17 –
sino-style games as part of the state lottery,
it did not allow the legalization of private
commercial gambling. In January 1993, the
Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to rule
on the scope of gambling allowed, saying
the question was not yet ripe for adjudication.
In the confusion, various legislation
was considered to expand gambling, either
through the lottery or by authorizing private
gambling. In the 1989 session, constitutional amendment measures were introduced in
both houses to allow offshore casino gambling on scheduled passenger vessels operating on Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and
the Mississippi River. Two other resolutions in the 1989 session proposed that the
legislature be empowered to allow charitable and nonprofit organizations to operate
games of chance up to two days each year
(“Las Vegas Nights”). Four more offshore
casino gambling proposals were introduced
in the 1991 session, as well as another charitable and nonprofit gambling proposal, and
three related to authorizing video poker and
other video gambling machines in taverns,
but regulated by the Lottery Board.
Governor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force
on Gambling. In October 1991, Governor
Tommy Thompson established a Blue
Ribbon Task Force on Gambling to determine public opinion, assess economic benefits and social costs, and make recommendations regarding the scope and regulation
of gambling. In its January 1992 final report,
the task force found that there appeared to
be a general acceptance of and willingness
to expand legal gambling in the state.
The task force suggested authorizing
four floating casinos and legalizing video
gaming machines at places such as taverns
and racetracks, subject to approval by local voters. These games would technically
be state-operated and would be linked to

 visited on 5/21/2015
– 18 –
the state lottery computer. Supporters of
this controversial proposal asserted the
games would generate additional state revenue while assisting financially struggling
taverns. The governor rejected the floating casino recommendation but included
a proposal in 1991 Senate Bill 483, which
was later deleted by the Joint Committee on
Finance, to allow video gaming machines
in establishments licensed to serve alcohol
beverages.
Statutory Definition of the State
Lottery. In an effort to address the confusion about how much gambling may be
permitted as part of the state lottery, the
governor called a special session of the legislature in April 1992. The resulting legislation, 1991 Wisconsin Act 321, specified what
types of games are allowed as part of the
state lottery and which are not. According
to Section 565.01 (6m), Wisconsin Statutes,
the state lottery is “an enterprise, including
a multistate lottery in which the state participates, in which the player, by purchasing
a ticket, is entitled to participate in a game
of chance.” It restricted the state lottery to
the scratch-off instant win games, pull-tabs,
and on-line numbers drawings games currently offered. It excluded games involving
prizes, chance and consideration, including
games in which winners are selected based
on the results of a race or sporting event,
blackjack, baccarat, poker, roulette, craps
or any other game that involves using dice,
keno, slot machines, and video gaming machines.
Act 321 also provided that five statewide
nonbinding advisory referenda regarding
the future of gambling in Wisconsin would
appear on the April 6, 1993, ballot.
1993
Constitutional
Amendment
Limits Gambling. Governor Thompson
called another special session for June 1992
to consider amending the constitution to

LRB–12–IB–2
permanently exclude casino gambling from
inclusion in the state lottery. This would
have the effect of considerably strengthening the limits enacted by 1991 Wisconsin
Act 321. A number of amendments had
been considered in both the 1989 and 1991
sessions to define and restrict the state lottery to the games currently played.
After considerable debate and a series
of hearings conducted by legislators around
the state, the following question was presented to the electors:
Gambling expansion prohibited. Shall
Article IV of the constitution be revised
to clarify that all forms of gambling are
prohibited except bingo, raffles, parimutuel on-track betting, the current
state-run lottery and to assure that the
state will not conduct prohibited forms
of gambling as part of the state-run lottery?

A coalition of eight of the state’s 11
Indian tribes and bands offered the state a
significant share of future casino revenues
(up to $250 million per year) if the amendment was shelved and the gaming compacts
were renegotiated to allow a tribal consortium to build a large off-reservation casino
in southeastern Wisconsin. The tribes were
generally against the amendment primarily because they were concerned that a constitutional provision that specifically outlawed casino-type games might jeopardize
renewal of their existing gaming compacts.
However, some tribes, notably the Oneida,
believed the future of tribal casinos would
be unaffected by the amendment and
thought it would instead fortify the status
of the tribal monopoly on casino-type operations.
Those campaigning against the amendment included the Wisconsin Indian
Gaming Association, the Tavern League of
Wisconsin, racetrack operators, and boosters of floating casinos in port cities, such

 visited on 5/21/2015
LRB–12–IB–2
as La Crosse and Superior. Tavern interests and others were opposed because the
measure would prohibit video poker and
other gambling machines they wanted.
Opponents funded an expensive advertising effort against the amendment.
Republican
Governor
Tommy
Thompson and Democratic Attorney
General James Doyle stumped for the
amendment in joint appearances around
the state and expressed a shared desire to
restrict the expansion of gambling. The
Wisconsin Council of Churches and the
Wisconsin Catholic Conference also favored passage, asserting that gambling activity had exceeded the bounds of moderation and was a threat to community values
and health and economic security.
On April 6, 1993, the amendment was
ratified by a vote of 623,987 to 435,180. As a
result, to have state-operated or private casino-style gaming would require subsequent
constitutional change. The advisory referenda, which also appeared on the amendment ballot, indicated the voters’ preference
for maintaining the status quo regarding
gambling. The electors voted against allowing casino gambling on excursion boats
(604,289 to 465,432), against video poker and
other forms of off-reservation video gambling (702,864 to 358,045), for a continuation
of pari-mutuel on-track wagering on racing
(548,580 to 507,403), and for the continuation of the state lottery (773,306 to 287,585).
A fifth advisory question, asking voters if
they favored a constitutional amendment
that would restrict gambling casinos in the
state, was rendered moot by the ratification
of the amendment, but it passed by a vote of
646,827 to 416,722.
Proposal for a Sports Lottery. In
April 1995, a constitutional amendment
appeared on the ballot proposing to allow
proceeds from a special state lottery game

– 19 –
to be earmarked to fund construction of a
new stadium for the Milwaukee Brewers
baseball team. Despite winning solidly in
the Milwaukee metropolitan area, the rest
of the state overwhelmingly voted against
the plan, which was defeated by a vote of
618,377 to 348,818.
Lottery Property Tax Relief
The constitutional amendment that in
1987 authorized the state lottery required
that the net proceeds be used for property
tax relief as determined by law. Proponents
of the amendment did not promise that the
lottery would substantially reduce real estate property taxes, but they did claim that
earmarking the profits would serve to moderate tax increases.
Property Tax Credit – Court Challenge
I. From the beginning of the operation of
the lottery in September 1988 through 1991,
approximately $150 million of the lottery
proceeds were applied to general school
equalization aids and district attorney salaries. Additional lottery profits were used to
fund the Farmland Tax Relief Credits.
Disagreement arose as to whether applying lottery monies to school aids and
district attorney salaries qualified as property tax relief as required by the constitution. State Senator Russell Feingold, joined
by eight state residents, filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all Wisconsin property
taxpayers alleging, among other things, that
lottery profits were being improperly used.
In May 1991, the Dane County Circuit Court
ruled that using lottery profits to supplement school aids was unconstitutional. The
judge found that the intent of the voters in
ratifying the 1987 lottery amendment was
to provide direct property tax relief that
was “separate, different and extra” and that
adding funds to existing state aid programs
might or might not result in an actual dol-

 visited on 5/21/2015
– 20 –
lar-for-dollar reduction of property taxes
owed. The court did not order replacement of the funds already used for school
aids, and the decision was not appealed by
the state. In a companion claim, the court
held that it was appropriate to partially
fund district attorney salaries from lottery
money because this was an expense county
taxpayers would otherwise have to finance
through the property tax levy.
In response to the court’s decision, the
legislature created “the lottery credit for
school property tax relief” as the vehicle
for direct distribution of lottery revenues
(1991 Wisconsin Act 39). Owners of principal residences became eligible for a credit
on their local property tax bills, related to
the amount of property taxes they owed toward the local school levy. 1991 Wisconsin
Act 323 required that beginning in 1993 the
amount of lottery credits must equal lottery
profits from the previous year.
Property Tax Credit – Court Challenge
II. In October 1996, the Dane County
Circuit Court ruled that the law providing
lottery property tax credits only to owners
of primary residences in Wisconsin violated
the “uniformity clause” of the state constitution. The suit, brought by the Wisconsin
Out-of-State Landowners Association,
which primarily consisted of persons who
own vacation homes in the state, asserted
that the clause requires that the method of
taxing real property be applied uniformly
to all classes of property within a taxation
district. The court held that homes owned
by out-of-state residents, second homes
owned by Wisconsin residents, and commercial property cannot be arbitrarily excluded from the lottery property tax relief
program. While appealing the ruling, the
state decided not to distribute the lottery
proceeds in 1996. Responding to the court
decision, 1997 Wisconsin Act 27 created a

LRB–12–IB–2
new formula that distributed lottery proceeds to all owners of taxable parcels in the
state, including those owned by nonresidents and businesses.
Constitution Amended to Limit
Lottery Credit to State Residents. A constitutional amendment ratified in April 1999
by a vote of 648,903 to 105,976 created an
exception to the uniformity clause by allowing lottery proceeds to be used for property
tax relief for state residents only. It also allowed the same distribution for moneys received by the state from bingo games and
pari-mutuel on-track betting, after expenses
are deducted for regulation of these activities. The amendment provided that the distribution of gaming profits could not vary
based on the income or age of the person
receiving the property tax relief.
Lottery Proceeds Limited to Primary
Homeowners. 1999 Wisconsin Act 5 provided that the proceeds from the state lottery,
bingo, and pari-mutuel on-track betting
be distributed as direct property tax relief,
through the Lottery and Gaming Credit,
only to the owners of principal dwellings
owned by state residents. Qualified property owners must file an application with
their county treasurer or City of Milwaukee
Treasurer to receive the credit.
DOA, with the concurrence of the
Legislature’s Joint Committee on Finance,
annually determines the amount available for distribution as lottery credits.
DOR, which is notified of this amount by
November 1, bases the value of the credit
on a particular school district’s tax rate and
estimated fair market values of real estate.
The credit is shown on tax bills as a reduction of property taxes due.
1999 Wisconsin Act 9, as passed by the
legislature, contained a provision to pay the
administrative costs of the state lottery from
general purpose tax dollars for the 1999-

 visited on 5/21/2015
LRB–12–IB–2
2001 biennium, thereby significantly increasing the proceeds available for property
tax relief to homeowners. These costs had
been covered by lottery revenues. The bill
also proposed transferring general purpose
revenue to the lottery fund as a retroactive
“buy back” of administrative costs from
prior years beginning with 1995. Based on
advice from Attorney General Doyle and
private legal counsel, Governor Thompson
vetoed most of the cost assumption plan except for a one-time infusion of $76 million in
state tax dollars to pay lottery administrative expenses.
Operation and Administration of the
Wisconsin Lottery. The Wisconsin State
Lottery is administered by the DOR’s
Division of Lottery, 608-261-8800, http://
www.revenue.wi.gov/contact/lottery.html,
http://www.wilottery.com/. The lottery
is governed by Chapter 565, Wisconsin
Statutes, and Chapters Tax 20, 61, 62, and
63, Wisconsin Administrative Code.
The lottery offers on-line games, instant
win scratch-off games, and pull-tab games.
Tickets are sold by retailers under contract
with the lottery. Tickets may only be sold
for cash and at the price established by the
lottery. Tickets may not be sold to minors,
but children may receive tickets as gifts.
Retailers receive a basic commission of
6.25 percent for instant scratch tickets and
pull-tab tickets, and 5.5 percent for online
products. In addition, nonprofit organizations may apply to sell pull-tab tickets and
receive a substantially higher commission
rate. Currently there are about 3,800 retail
outlets throughout the state, including convenience stores, grocery stores, service stations, restaurants, liquor stores, and nonprofit organizations. Wisconsin belongs to
a consortium of states that participate in the
Multi-State Lottery Association’s on-line
games called “Powerball,” in which very

– 21 –
large jackpots are often awarded (a record
$650 million jackpot was awarded in March,
2012.). In addition, the lottery also holds a
weekly Second Chance drawing, which
a player may enter by mailing a specified
amount of non-winning tickets to the lottery.
Winning online tickets with values of
less than $600 may be redeemed at any online retailer, the Wisconsin Lottery offices,
or a Lottery Redemption Center. Prizes of
$600 or more must be redeemed at either
the Lottery offices or a redemption center.
Lottery prizes exceeding $2,000 are subject
to income tax withholding. Winning tickets
must be redeemed within 180 days of the
draw, or 180 days from the end of the game.
Winners of prizes over a specified amount
are identified to state agencies to determine
whether some or all of the winnings must
be first applied toward debts owed to the
state, including delinquent taxes or unpaid
child or family support payments. Large
jackpots may be paid in the form of longterm annuities, which may be inherited, or,
as provided by 1999 Wisconsin Act 9, in a
lump sum at the winner’s option. Act 9 also
permitted winners to petition the circuit
court to use lottery prizes as security for
loans or to voluntarily assign lottery prizes
to other individuals or organizations.
In order to maintain public confidence
in the integrity of the lottery, the drawings
are conducted in public. The law requires
that at least 50 percent of lottery revenues
be paid out in prizes to winners, and also
generally limits administrative expenses,
excluding retailer commissions, to no more
than 10 percent of gross revenues (lowered
from 15 percent by 1997 Wisconsin Act 27,
which included retailer commissions in the
calculation). The remainder of lottery revenues constitutes the net proceeds available
for property tax relief, which over the years

 visited on 5/21/2015
– 22 –
has averaged about 31 percent of total revenues.
The Wisconsin Lottery sold over $547
million in tickets during the fiscal year
ending on June 30, 2012, which was the
record highest sales in its history. This
will provide an estimated $150 million in
property tax relief credits to eligible homeowners. In 2011, the average lottery and
gaming tax credit per residence was $86.
Advertising
Restrictions.
The
Wisconsin Constitution prohibits spending
state funds on “promotional advertising”
of the state lottery. (Lottery retailers may,
however, conduct promotional advertising
themselves if their ads clearly indicate private sponsorship.) The state may conduct
informational advertising that describes
the lottery; ticket prices and sales locations;
prize structures; game types and playing
procedures; the time, date, and place of
drawings; and the identity of winners and
amounts won. Creative presentation of
these topics is not prohibited, but there has
been controversy over the line between informational and promotional advertising.
(An example: the famous “dancing cows”
television commercial.) A panel, commissioned by Governor Thompson, stated in
May 1991 that almost any approach used
to attract consumers is bound to be both informational and promotional. In July 1991,
Attorney General Doyle stated that lottery
advertising sometimes violates the spirit,
but not necessarily the letter, of the law. He
noted that the distinction between promotional and informational advertising can become so blurred as to be improperly vague,
and he recommended legislation to clarify
what is legal.
INDIAN GAMING

Summary. Native American tribes
and bands are authorized to operate “Las

LRB–12–IB–2
Vegas” style gambling casinos on reservation and trust lands within the state in accordance with compacts reached with the
state that were required by the Federal
Indian Regulatory Act of 1988. This law
required that the state and tribes negotiate agreements to allow the tribes to operate any games that are either specifically
legal or not criminally prohibited within
the state. Indian casinos may offer slot and
video gaming machines, blackjack, poker,
craps, and other games of chance that are
illegal in the rest of the state because at the
time the initial compacts were concluded, the then-current interpretation of the
Wisconsin Constitution’s gambling provisions was that any type of gambling activity
could be conducted by the state as part of
the state lottery. Although subsequent 1992
legislation and a 1993 constitutional amendment limited the state lottery to traditional
lottery-type drawings and clearly banned
casino-style games, the compact provisions
that allow the tribes to operate a variety of
games remain in force.
Federal Law and Indian Gaming
Indian tribes are considered self-governing, domestic, dependent nations that,
under treaties with the federal government,
retain many attributes of sovereignty in the
regulation of criminal justice and other affairs on tribal lands. State and local governments may not interfere with on-reservation rights granted by federal treaties or
laws, including those related to hunting,
fishing, gathering and harvesting of natural resources, and gambling. Tribal members hold dual tribal-U.S. citizenship and
are exempt from state income taxes and local property taxes if they live and work on
a reservation. Tribal enterprises located on
reservation land, such as casinos or other
for-profit businesses, are also exempt from
state and local taxes. Tribes, however, may

 visited on 5/21/2015
LRB–12–IB–2

– 23 –

voluntarily enter into agreements to reimburse municipalities for government services such as police and fire protection and
road construction and maintenance.
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress
the power to regulate commerce with the
Indian tribes. Historically, this has generally precluded states from exercising jurisdiction over Indian matters unless federal law
specifically grants the state such authority.
Federal law (Public Law 83-280) currently
grants some states, including Wisconsin,
broad jurisdiction over criminal offenses
committed by or against Indians on tribal
lands. Under P.L. 280, if a state generally
outlaws an activity and makes violations
punishable with criminal penalties, then
the state law is “criminal-prohibitory” and
enforceable on the reservation. However, if
the state permits an activity, even though it
may be limited by certain regulations and
conditions, the law is considered “civil-regulatory,” and the state may not regulate the
activity on Indian lands.
In 1981, the Oneida Tribe in Wisconsin
was threatened with enforcement action by
the Brown County Sheriff because it operated unlicensed bingo games that exceeded
the prize limits set by the state’s charitable
bingo statutes. Federal Judge Barbara Crabb
ruled in Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
v. State of Wisconsin, 518 F. Supp. 712 (W.D.
Wis. 1981), that, once the state legalized bingo to be conducted by any person or entity,
it lost regulatory jurisdiction on the Oneida
or any other reservation. She observed that:

Bingo games on tribal land began to
greatly proliferate across the country, in
states that had bingo, after 1982 when the
U.S. Supreme Court let stand a federal appellate court decision in Seminole Tribe of
Florida v. Butterworth, 658 F. 2d 310 (5th Cir.
1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1021 (1982).
The appeals court held that Florida had no
jurisdiction under its P.L. 280 powers to
regulate bingo games on reservations if the
game was legal elsewhere in the state.
In a pivotal 1987 case, California v.
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202
(1987), the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly
confirmed the criminal-prohibitory/civilregulatory test. California law permitted
gambling at card clubs and permitted charitable organizations to conduct bingo games.
The state sought to apply restrictive regulations, including jackpot limits, to card and
bingo games operated by the Cabazon Band
on their Riverside County reservation. The
court agreed with the lower court that the
state and county lacked authority to enforce
gambling law on the reservation, because
California permitted card games, bingo,
betting on horse races, and the state-operated California Lottery. Because the state
permitted this variety of gambling types,
the Court reasoned that the gambling laws
were regulatory rather than prohibitory.
The Court did not, however, specifically
define what amount or types of gambling
was sufficient to characterize a state’s public policy as regulatory, rather than prohibitive.

[T]he Wisconsin Legislature and the
general populace, as evidenced by the
constitutional amendment of 1973,
have determined that bingo playing is
generally beneficial and have “chosen
to regulate rather than prohibit.” Thus,
it appears that Wisconsin’s bingo laws
are civil-regulatory, and…not enforceable by the state in Indian country.

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Congress enacted the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497
(25 U.S.C., Sec. 2701, et. seq.), in October
1988. Prompted in part by the decision in
Cabazon, IGRA was the culmination of years
of efforts to forge a workable compromise
among the states, federal agencies, and sov-

 visited on 5/21/2015
LRB–12–IB–2

– 24 –
ereign tribes regarding Indian Gaming. The
stated purpose of the law was to promote
tribal economic development and employment, tribal self-sufficiency, and strong sovereign tribal governments. Employment
and revenue from tribal gaming enterprises
was seen as an effective way to raise the
standards of living on historically povertystricken reservations. IGRA established
the National Indian Gaming Commission
to regulate and oversee Indian Gaming
Operations, maintain the fairness and honesty of tribal gaming, and keep gaming
free of the influence of criminal elements.
Congress intended that existing state gaming regulatory systems be used to the extent
possible in order to satisfy the law enforcement concerns of all parties.
The key component of the law was the
requirement that states and tribes enter into
compacts to regulate tribal gaming. IGRA
generally provides that tribes may conduct
gaming activities on tribal lands or certain
lands taken into trust for the tribe after
October 17, 1988, if such gaming activities
are permitted or not criminally prohibited
by the laws of the state in which the Indian
lands are located. The act divides gambling
into three classes, but only Class III games
are regulated by compacts:
x Class I games are social games played
solely for prizes of minimal value or
traditional forms of Indian gaming
played in connection with tribal ceremonies or celebrations. Class I gaming is solely under the control of the
tribes and is not regulated by the state
or outside agencies.
x Class II games include bingo or bingo-type games, pull-tabs and punchboards, and certain non-banking
card games, such as poker. (A nonbanking game is one in which players
compete against one another as opposed to playing against the house.)

x

If bingo or any other Class II game is
™Ž›–’ĴŽȱ‹¢ȱŠȱœŠŽȂœȱ•Š ǰȱ‘Ž—ȱ›’‹Žœȱ
within a state may conduct similar
games and may set prize amounts
above any limits in state statutes.
Class III games covers all other forms
of gambling, including (but not limited to): any house banking game,
such as Blackjack (“21”) or baccarat,
and other casino games such as rou•ŽĴŽǰȱ Œ›Š™œǰȱ Š—ȱ ”Ž—˜Dzȱ œ•˜ȱ –ŠŒ‘’—Žœȱ
and electronic or electromechanical
facsimiles of any game of chance;
Š—¢ȱ œ™˜›œȱ ‹ŽĴ’—ȱ Š—ȱ ™Š›’Ȭ–žžŽ•ȱ
 ŠŽ›’—ǰȱ’—Œ•ž’—ȱ‹ŽĴ’—ȱ˜—ȱ‘˜›œŽȱ
racing, dog racing, or jai alai; and lotŽ›’Žœǰȱ’—Œ•ž’—ȱ›ŠĝŽœǯ

Tribal Gaming Compacts.
In
Wisconsin, controversy arose over the question of whether casino-type games were allowed by state law and whether the games
should be included in state-tribal gaming
compact negotiations. Federal courts have
tended to be permissive, generally ruling
that tribes located in a state that allows one
or more forms of Class III gaming may conduct any type of Class III gaming and are
not limited to just those games played in
that state. The issue was further complicated in Wisconsin because some interpreted
the 1987 state lottery amendment as permitting statutory authorization of state-operated casino-type games.
By late 1989, Attorney General Donald
Hanaway, who had been designated as the
state’s negotiator by Governor Thompson,
reached tentative agreements with several
tribes that would have allowed certain casino games. The compacts were awaiting
gubernatorial and tribal approval in 1990
when Hanaway issued a formal opinion
putting the process on hold (79 OAG 14).
He said that casino gambling, while not
constitutionally prohibited, was illegal un-

 visited on 5/21/2015
LRB–12–IB–2
der the criminal statutes, thus making such
games ineligible for consideration in compact talks. He indicated in his opinion that
the legislature had the authority to amend
the statutes to legalize casino games for
non-Indians and thus make them appropriate for inclusion in state-tribal gaming compacts.
Some Wisconsin tribes had already
opened casinos in anticipation of completing the compacts. The Lac du Flambeau and
Sokaogon (Mole Lake) Chippewa bands
filed suit in federal court, claiming the state
had failed to bargain in good faith. Judge
Crabb held in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin, 743
F. Supp. 645 (W.D. Wis. 1990), that tribes
could not operate casinos without signed
agreements. However, she also held that
only federal officers have enforcement authority over illegal Indian casinos.
Hanaway’s successor as attorney general took a different view of Wisconsin
law. Attorney General Doyle concluded
in a 1991 opinion that “lottery,” as used in
the original constitution, must be broadly
interpreted to include all games in which
a person pays for a chance to win a prize
(80 OAG 53). Because “lottery” essentially
meant “gambling,” he reasoned that the
1987 constitutional amendment that authorized the legislature to create the state lottery also removed any constitutional prohibition against the state operating games of
chance as part of the state lottery, including
casino gambling.
In June 1991, in a second case, Lac du
Flambeau Band v. Wisconsin, 770 F. Supp.
480 (W.D. Wis. 1991), Judge Crabb, citing
Attorney General Doyle’s broad interpretation of the word “lottery,” ruled that since
the state constitution did not prohibit the
legislature from authorizing state-operated
casino games and since Wisconsin permitted a substantial level of Class III gambling,

– 25 –
Indian tribes in Wisconsin could conduct
any form of casino games under a statetribal gaming compact. The judge found
Wisconsin gaming laws to be regulatory
rather than prohibitory in nature because
the state permitted raffles and pari-mutuel
wagering on races, and conduced a state
lottery. She ordered the state to consider
casino games “on the table” in compact
negotiations and directed it to reach agreement with the tribes within the 60-day period required under IGRA. Judge Frank
Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals in Chicago dismissed the state’s
appeal of the case in March 1992 on procedural grounds.
The governor was authorized to enter into gaming compacts on behalf of the
state by 1989 Wisconsin Act 196, which
was enacted in April 1990 (Section 14.035,
Wisconsin Statutes). Act 196 contained no
provision for legislative review or requirement for approval of negotiated agreements. By June 1992, after receiving the required approval by the U.S. Secretary of the
Interior, Wisconsin had concluded 7-year
gaming compacts with all 11 of the state’s
Indian tribes and bands. All compacts were
renewed in 1998 and 1999 for 5-year terms.
The compacts were amended again in 2003
and 2004, generally for indefinite duration.
The compacts have since been generally
amended to reflect the Panzer decision, discussed below, which held that the permanent duration of the compacts was inappropriate.
The Forest County Potawatomi Tribe,
which among other facilities operates a
large casino in the City of Milwaukee,
signed an amended compact with the state
in February 2003. The amended compact
had no specified renewal date and made
a number of other changes, including giving approval to the tribe to conduct additional Class III games such as keno, roulette,

 visited on 5/21/2015
– 26 –
craps, and poker. Instead of a fixed duration period, the amended agreement provided that the compact would remain in effect until terminated by mutual agreement
of the parties, or until such time as the tribe
decided to no longer engage in Class III
gaming. The indefinite term of the compact
prompted objections on several grounds
by legislative leaders. Senate Majority
Leader Mary Panzer and Speaker of the
Assembly John Gard wrote in March 2003
to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, asking
that “In light of these concerns, and before
the door to reviewing the 2003 amendments
is forever closed, we ask that the Bureau
of Indian Affairs immediately suspend its
consideration of the Potawatomi Compact
amendment until these legal issues can be
resolved.” The legislative leaders also filed
suit in an original action with the Wisconsin
Supreme Court challenging, among other
things, the governor’s authority to agree to
a perpetual term for the gaming compact.
In May 2004, in Panzer v. Doyle, 271 Wis.
2d 295 (2004), the court concluded that the
governor lacked the authority to enter into
compacts of indefinite duration with the
Potawatomi or any other Indian tribe or
band. It also said that the governor could
not on his own waive the state’s sovereign
immunity or allow the tribe to offer new
casino-style games that were, as reflected in
the state’s criminal statutes and reinforced
by the constitution, prohibited to everyone
else in the state. The court ruled that “the
Governor exceeded his authority when he
agreed unilaterally to a compact term that
permanently removes the subject of Indian
gaming from the legislature’s ability to establish policy and make law.”
In response, a subsequent amendment
to the Potawatomi Compact, agreed to by
the parties in October 2005, provides for a
25-year extension. Thereafter, the compact
is extended automatically unless either par-

LRB–12–IB–2
ty serves notice of nonrenewal. However,
the state may serve notice of non renewal
only if it first enacts a statute directing the
governor to nonrenew and initiate a process
of renegotiation. If neither party serves a
notice of nonrenewal, either party may propose amendments to the compacts, and the
parties must negotiate in good faith to reach
agreement, with disagreements resolved
through an arbitration process in which the
arbitrator must select a last best offer of one
of the parties. However, whichever offer is
accepted, it must provide that the compact
be extended for a term of not less than 15
years, or not more than 25 years. This compact served as the template for agreements
with the other tribes and bands.
The operators of the Dairyland
Greyhound Park dog track, concerned about
the adverse effect on its business posed by
the increasing popularity of Indian casinos,
filed suit. They alleged that the governor
did not have the authority to renew tribal
gaming compacts that included most Class
III games because the 1993 constitutional
amendment and 1991 Wisconsin Act 321
both limited the Wisconsin State Lottery to
only drawings-type games, and precluded the state from conducting casino-type
games as part of the lottery. The Wisconsin
Supreme Court, in Dairyland Greyhound
Park v. Doyle, 295 Wis. 2d 1 (2006), held
in July 2006 that “the 1993 amendment…
does not invalidate the Original Compacts.
Because the Original Compacts contemplated extending the Compacts and amending the scope of Indian gaming within the
Compacts…the parties’ right of renewal is
constitutionally protected by the Contract
Clauses of the Wisconsin and United States
Constitutions, and [ ] amendments to the
Original Compacts that expand the scope
of gaming are likewise constitutionally protected.” The court withdrew any language
to the contrary in Panzer v. Doyle that would

 visited on 5/21/2015
LRB–12–IB–2
limit the state’s ability to negotiate for additional Class III games. The court concluded
that the law in existence at the time the compacts were entered into controlled, rather
than the subsequently-enacted amendment
to the constitution prohibiting the legislature from authorizing gambling. The court
noted that neither the legislature or the electors, in adopting the amendment, intended
the “freeze” on gambling to invalidate
compacts previously entered into with the
tribes.
Payments to the State. The compacts
provide that the tribes will make annual
payments to the state based on a percentage of net win attributed to gaming operations. While the percentages vary by tribe,
a larger percentage is due as the net win
crosses specified threshold amounts and
higher percentages apply to tribes that run
more lucrative casinos, which are typically
located closer to larger urban areas. In fiscal year 2011, the tribes made a total of $50.1
million in payments to the state, from a net
win of $1.19 billion. That equates to an effective state payment rate of about 4.2 percent.
The payments are primarily in recognition of the “exclusivity” status that tribal
operations enjoy in most types of gambling.
Other than lotteries, raffles, and wagering on racing, tribal casinos are the only
legal venue for Class III gaming within
Wisconsin. The compacts include clauses
stating that if the Wisconsin Constitution
and state statutes are changed to affect this
virtual monopoly by allowing the state or
other persons to conduct additional Class
III gaming, then the tribes are relieved of
their obligations to make the payments to
the state.
In accordance with the IGRA requirement to use gaming profits to promote
“community objectives,” net proceeds re-

– 27 –
ceived by a tribe are used to fund social welfare programs, tribal government, schools,
higher education scholarships, medical facilities, day care centers, housing, business
development, roads and other infrastructure improvements, and direct payments
to eligible enrolled tribal members. Tribal
officials also cite sociological benefits from
tribal gaming, such as increased optimism
and self-esteem and a decline in domestic
violence, alcoholism, and welfare dependency. Gaming operations also generate
revenues for the state and local governments from income and sales taxes paid by
employees (many of whom are not tribal
members) and suppliers and increased
tourism-related spending.
Off-Reservation
Casino
Gaming
Expansion. IGRA generally provides that
Class III gaming may not be conducted on
trust lands acquired after October 17, 1988,
unless the land was adjacent to the boundaries of the reservation as they existed on that
date. However, subject to final approval by
the governor, gaming on newly-acquired
land that is noncontiguous to a reservation
may by authorized by the U.S. Secretary of
the Interior, provided it is deemed in the
best interest of the tribe and not detrimental
to the surrounding community or nearby
tribal gaming operations. There is no appeals procedure if the governor withholds
consent. The St. Croix Band of Chippewa
Indians operates, among other facilities, a
casino in the Village of Turtle Lake. The
tribe bought the land for this casino prior
to October 1988. Thus, while it is technically an “off-reservation” casino, federal
approval was not required in order to make
the land eligible for a casino through the
compacting process. The land on which the
casino is located, while not adjacent to any
other tribally-owned lands, is within territory that the tribe has traditionally occupied.

 visited on 5/21/2015
– 28 –
Over the years there have been efforts by various tribes, mostly those in the
northern part of the state, to seek approval
to open off-reservation casinos in the more
populated areas of the state. One example
is a proposal by a combination of Chippewa
bands to establish a casino in Beloit.
Another ongoing plan is the proposal by the
Menominee tribe to open a casino on the site
of the former Dairyland Greyhound Park in
Kenosha that could draw business from a
large market area ranging from Milwaukee
to Chicago. This plan has been opposed on
competitive grounds by the Forest County
Potawatomi Tribe, which operates a large
casino in Milwaukee.
If the Kenosha plan or any other proposed off-reservation casino is approved by
the federal government, the governor will
then have to decide whether to approve or
veto the expansion. In a May 2012 letter written by Michael Huebsch, the Secretary of the
Wisconsin Department of Administration,
he said Governor Scott Walker will not approve an off-reservation proposal unless
there is a “consensus” among the state’s 11
tribes and bands and the new facility does
not “lead to a major net expansion” of gaming in the state.
The Potawatomi’s Milwaukee Casino
is one of only a handful of federally-approved off-reservation tribal casinos in the
nation. It is located within a geographic
area that the tribe has historically occupied.
The Potawatomi bought the land, which
was formerly a college in Milwaukee’s
Menomonee Valley, placed it in trust status, and, pursuant to a 1990 agreement with
the city, established a high-stakes bingo operation. In June 1992, with the encouragement of the U.S. Department of the Interior,
the state approved a gaming compact that
authorized a limited number of slot/video
gaming machines, but not Blackjack, to be
operated at the facility. The city sued, con-

LRB–12–IB–2
tending that its agreement with the tribe,
which only permitted opening of the bingo
hall, required further city approval prior to
instituting casino gaming. In September
1993, the federal district court ruled that the
tribe may operate a casino in accordance
with the compact reached with the state.
Legal appeals by the city were unsuccessful.
Tribal Gaming Compacts and Regulation
The State-Tribal Gaming compacts
are administered by the Wisconsin DOA’s
Division of Gaming, Office of Indian Gaming
and Regulatory Compliance: (608) 2702555 http://doa.wi.gov/index.asp?locid=7.
Chapter 569, Wisconsin Statutes, governs
state activities with regard to tribal gaming
regulation. The compacts and amendments
are available at: http://www.doa.state.
wi.us/section_detail.asp?linkcatid=694&lin
kid=117&locid=7&sname=.
The compacts provide that disputes
are generally to be resolved by employing
a neutral arbitrator using the last, best offer format. Only if the last, best offers of
both parties are rejected as not complying
with IGRA and the compact, and subsequent last, best offers are both rejected on
the same grounds, will the arbitrator be allowed to decide the issues in dispute using
his or her best judgment within the context
of applicable law.
An example of a recent utilization of the
dispute resolution procedure was the July
2012 ruling by an independent arbitrator
that the Ho-Chunk Tribe (formerly known as
the Winnebago tribe), was conducting Class
III games, specifically electronic poker, at its
gaming facility in Madison in violation of
the compact. Under the terms of the compact, the Tribe is only allowed to conduct
Class II bingo-type games at the Madison
facility, although the state and tribe may
amend the compact to permit slot machines
and other Class III gaming in Madison. The

 visited on 5/21/2015
LRB–12–IB–2
state subsequently asked a federal judge to
enforce the ruling, although the tribe is disputing the arbitrator’s jurisdiction because
it claims that the electronic poker is actually
a Class II game.
GAMBLING LAWS AND PENALTIES

From the beginning of the state, operating a commercial gambling operation
has been subject to more serious penalties
than has gambling as a customer. The 1839
Statutes of the Territory of Wisconsin specified a penalty of imprisonment of not less
than one month nor more than six months
in the county jail for setting up or promoting any lottery, dealing cards or keeping any
gambling device, or allowing a property to
be used for gambling. On the other hand,
the penalty was a fine of not less than five
dollars or not more than twenty dollars for
“Every person who shall bet any money or
other property at or upon any gaming table,
game or device…” These prohibitions and
penalties were retained in the first edition,
in 1849, of the statutes of the new State of
Wisconsin.
Currently, private gambling (making a
“bet”) is a Class B misdemeanor [s.945.02],
and commercial gambling is generally a
Class I felony [s. 945.03]. Section 945.01
(1) , Wisconsin Statutes, defines a “bet” as
“a bargain in which the parties agree that,
dependent upon chance even though accompanied by some skill, one stands to win
or lose something of value specified in the
agreement.” Excepted from the law are legitimate business transactions such as insurance policies, stocks, bonds, and trading
in commodities futures; and participation
in sports events at which purses, prizes or
premiums are awarded to the actual contestants for the determination of skill, speed,
strength, or endurance or to the owners of
animals or vehicles entered in contests. It is
a Class A misdemeanor for a contest partici-

– 29 –
pant to bet on the outcome of the event [s.
945.07]. “Las Vegas” nights or similar gambling events in which participants pay to
play are illegal, even if conducted by or for
the benefit of a nonprofit or charitable organization or charity, and even if actual cash
is not used during play. Anything of value
received by a person participating in illegal
gambling may be forfeited to the state in an
action brought by the attorney general or
any district attorney [s. 945.10].
Permitting a premises to be used as
a gambling place is generally a Class A
misdemeanor [s. 945.04]. Dealing in gambling devices is generally a Class I felony
[s. 945.05]. Section 945.01 (4) (c), Wisconsin
Statutes, provides that any gambling place
is a public nuisance against which judicial
enforcement action may be sought.
Chapter 91, Laws of 1979, exempted
certain amusement devices, such as pinball
machines, from the laws prohibiting gambling. Exempted machines must reward the
player exclusively with one or more free replays for achieving certain scores, and any
accumulated points may not be redeemed
for cash or prizes. 1987 Wisconsin Act 329
legalized licensed crane games, which are
amusement devices that allow the paying
player an opportunity to win inexpensive
merchandise prizes by operating controls
to manipulate a crane within a glass-enclosed cubicle to pick up an object. The
law requires that skill must be the major
determining element of play and that only
those prizes contained inside the machine
may be awarded. The wholesale value of
a prize may not be more than seven times
the cost charged to play or $5, whichever
is less. DOA’s Division of Gaming licenses
and regulates crane games (Chapter 564,
Wisconsin Statutes).

 visited on 5/21/2015
– 30 –
HISTORY OF GAMBLING
REGULATION

The Lottery Board was created by 1987
Wisconsin Act 119 to regulate the Wisconsin
State Lottery. The Racing Board was created by 1987 Wisconsin Act 354 to regulate
pari-mutuel on-track wagering.
The Gaming Commission was created
by 1991 Wisconsin Act 269, which also repealed the Lottery Board and the Racing
Board. The Gaming Commission became
responsible for the regulation of all gambling in Wisconsin, including charitable
bingo and raffles and the state’s involvement with Indian gaming.
The Gaming Board was created by 1995
Wisconsin Act 27 to assume the duties of the
Gaming Commission, which was repealed.
Act 27 also created the Lottery Division in

LRB–12–IB–2
DOR. The Division became responsible for
the day-to-day administration of the state
lottery, with the Gaming Board exercising a
policy oversight role.
The Gaming Division in DOA was created by 1997 Wisconsin Act 27, which repealed the Gaming Board. The division
regulates racing, charitable bingo and raffles, crane games and Indian gaming. With
the repeal of the Gaming Board, DOR’s
Lottery Division assumed complete responsibility for operating the state lottery. The
Department of Justice prosecutes violations
of the promotional contests/sweepstakes
laws and provides legal services required
by DOR’s Lottery Division.

 visited on 5/21/2015
Selected Legislative Reference Bureau Publications
These and other LRB publications are available at www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs
Research Bulletins
  ƺŖŚƺŗȱȱ
  ƺŖŜƺŘȱȱ
  ƺŗŘƺŗȱȱ

 ’œŒ˜—œ’—ȱ Ž’œ•Š’ŸŽȱ ’œ›’Œȱ •–Š—ŠŒǯȱȱ ™›’•ȱŘŖŖŚ
 œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ –’—’œŽ›’—ȱ‘Žȱ ŽŠ‘ȱ Ž—Š•¢ǯȱȱ Œ˜‹Ž›ȱŘŖŖŜ
 ž––Š›¢ȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŗŗȬŘŖŗŘȱ ’œŒ˜—œ’—ȱ Ž’œ•Š’ŸŽȱ Žœœ’˜—ǯȱȱ Š¢ȱŘŖŗŘ

Informational Bulletins
  ƺŖŞƺŗȱȱ
  ƺŖŞƺŚȱȱ
  ƺŗŖƺŗȱȱ
  ƺŗŗƺŗȱȱ
  ƺŗŗƺŗȱȱ
  ƺŗŗƺŘȱȱ
  ƺŗŘƺŗȱȱ
IB–12–2

 Š’›ȱ mployment, Antidiscrimination, and Worker Protection Laws in Wisconsin. February 2008
 œ”ȱ‘Žȱ   ǯȱȱ ŽŒŽ–‹Ž›ȱŘŖŖŞǯȱȱ ŽŸ’œŽȱ ˜ŸŽ–‹Ž›ȱŘŖŗŖ
ŘŖŗŗȱ Ž’œ•Š’ŸŽȱ Žœœ’˜—ȱ ’œŒŠ•ȱ œ’–ŠŽȱ Š—žŠ•ǯȱȱ ˜ŸŽ–‹Ž›ȱŘŖŗŖ
 ž’Ž•’—Žœȱ˜›ȱ “žœ’—ȱ ž—’Œ’™Š•ȱ Š›œȱ ˜••˜ ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŗŖȱ ŽŽ›Š•ȱ Ž—œžœǯȱȱ Š›Œ‘ȱŘŖŗŗ
 ž¢ȱ ž’Žȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ2011-12 Wisconsin Blue Book. October 2011
 —œ’Žȱ‘Žȱ2011-2012 Wisconsin Blue Book. October 2011
 ’œŒ˜—sin’s Role in Electing the President. March 2012
The Evolution of Legalized Gambling in Wisconsin. November 2012

Wisconsin Briefs
 ›’ŽȱŗŖƺŞȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŖƺşȱȱ
 ›’Žȱŗŗƺŗȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŗƺŘȱȱ
 ›’Žȱŗŗƺřȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŗƺŚȱȱ
 ›’Žȱŗŗƺśȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŗƺŜȱȱ
 ›’Žȱŗŗƺŝȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŗƺŞȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŘƺŗȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŘƺŘȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŘƺřȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŘƺŚȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŘƺśȱ
Brief 12–6
Brief 12–7
Brief 12–8

 ’œŒ˜—œ’—ȱ ŠŽȱ ĜŒŽ›œǯȱȱ ˜ŸŽ–‹Ž›ȱŘŖŗŖ
 Š•Š›’Žœȱ˜ȱ ŠŽȱ •ŽŒŽȱ ĜŒ’Š•œȱ 쎌’ŸŽȱ Š—žŠ›¢ȱŘŖŗŗǯȱȱ ŽŒŽ–‹Ž›ȱŘŖŗŖ
 ›’Žȱ ’˜›Š™‘’ŽœȱŘŖŗŗȱ ’œŒ˜—œ’—ȱ ĜŒŽ›œǯȱȱ Š—žŠ›¢ȱŘŖŗŗ
 ›˜ę•Žȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŗŗȱ ’œŒ˜—œ’—ȱ Ž’œ•Šž›Žǰȱ Š—žŠ›¢ȱřǰȱŘŖŗŗǯȱȱ Š—žŠ›¢ȱŘŖŗŗ
 ’œŒ˜—œ’—ȱ ˜–Ž—ȱ Ž’œ•Š˜›œȱƺȱ ȱ
’œ˜›’ŒŠ•ȱ ’œǯȱ Š—žŠ›¢ȱŘŖŗŗ
 ˜—œ’ž’˜—Š•ȱ –Ž—–Ž—œȱ ’ŸŽ—ȱȃ ’›œȱ ˜—œ’Ž›Š’˜—Ȅȱ ™™›˜ŸŠ•ȱ‹¢ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖşȱ ’œŒ˜—œ’—ȱ Ž’œ•Šž›Žǯȱȱ Š—žŠ›¢ȱŘŖŗŗ
 ŽŒŠ••ȱ˜ȱ •ŽŒŽȱ ĜŒ’Š•œǯȱȱ ž—ŽȱŘŖŗŗ
 ¡ŽŒž’ŸŽȱ Š›’Š•ȱ Ž˜ȱ˜ȱ œœŽ–‹•¢ȱ ’••ȱŚŖDZȱ ¡ŽŒž’ŸŽȱ žŽȱ ’••ȱ ŠœœŽȱ‹¢ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŗŗȱ ’œŒ˜—œ’—ȱ Ž’œ•Šž›ŽȱǻŘŖŗŗȱ ’œŒ˜—sin Act 32). July 2011
 ‘Š›Ž›ȱ Œ‘˜˜•ȱ ¡™Š—œ’˜—ǯȱȱ ŽŒŽ–‹Ž›ȱŘŖŗŗ
ŘŖŗŘȱ ’œŒ˜—œ’—ȱ ›Žœ’Ž—’Š•ȱ ›ŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽȱ ›’–Š›¢ǯȱȱ ŽŒŽ–‹Ž›ȱŘŖŗŗ
 —’’Š’ŸŽǰȱ ŽŽ›Ž—ž–ǰȱŠ—ȱ ŽŒŠ••ȱ’—ȱ ’œŒ˜—œ’—ǯȱȱ ™›’•ȱŘŖŗŘ
 ¡ŽŒž’ŸŽȱ Ž˜Žœȱ˜ȱ ’••œȱ ŠœœŽȱ‹¢ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŗŗȱ ’œŒ˜—œ’—ȱ Ž’œ•Šž›Žȱ›˜–ȱ Š—žŠ›¢ȱŗŗǰȱŘŖŗŗǰȱ˜ȱ ™›’•ȱŘŖǰȱŘŖŗŘȱǻ ¡ŒŽ™ȱ‘Žȱ
2011 Executive Budget Bill). April 2012
 ˜—ŒŽŠ•Žȱ Š››¢ȱŠ—ȱ ’›ŽŠ›–œȱ Š œȱ’—ȱ ’œŒ˜—œ’—ǯȱȱ Š¢ȱŘŖŗŘ
 ŠŽȱ Ž—Œ’Žœǰȱ ˜Š›œǰȱ ˜––’œœ’˜—œǰȱ˜›ȱ ˜ž—Œ’•œȱ ›ŽŠŽǰȱ Ž™ŽŠ•Žǰȱ˜›ȱ ŽŸ’œŽȱ‹¢ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŗŗȱ Ž’œ•Šž›ŽȱƺȱŘŖŗŗȱ ’œŒ˜—œ’—ȱ
Acts 1-286. June 2012
 ¡ŽŒž’ŸŽȱ žŽȱ ’••œȱ —ŠŒŽȱ‹¢ȱ‘Žȱ ’œŒ˜—œ’—ȱ Ž’œ•Šž›ŽǰȱŗşřŗȬŘŖŗŗǯȱȱ ž•¢ȱŘŖŗŘ
Candidates: Primary Election, August 14, 2012. July 2012
Candidates: General Election, November 6, 2012. September 2012
Wisconsin Farm to School. October 2012

Budget Briefs
 ›’ŽȱŖŞƺŗȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŖŞƺŘȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŖşƺŗȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŖşƺŘȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŖƺŗȱȱ

 Š›ren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program. January 2008
 ˜ȱ Š••ȱ ’œȱŠ—ȱ Ž••ȱ ‘˜—Žœǯȱȱ ž•¢ȱŘŖŖŞ
 Š›•¢ȱ Ž•ŽŠœŽȱŠ—ȱ Ž—Ž—Œ’—ȱ Ž˜›–œǯȱȱ Ž™Ž–‹Ž›ȱŘŖŖş
 ˜–Žœ’Œȱ Š›—Ž›œ‘’™ǯȱȱ Ž™Ž–‹Ž›ȱŘŖŖş
 Š—datory Motor Vehicle Insurance. May 2010

Legislative Briefs
 ›’ŽȱŖŞƺŗȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŖŞƺŘȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŖŞƺřȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŖŞƺŚȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŖŞƺśȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŖŞƺŜȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŖŞƺŝȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŖŞƺŞȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŖşƺŗȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŖƺŗȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŖƺŘȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŖƺřȱȱ
 ›’Žȱŗŗƺŗȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŗƺŘȱȱ
 ›’ŽȱŗŘƺŗȱȱ
Brief 12–2

 –Ž›Ž—Œ¢ȱ ˜ntraception for Rape Victims. March 2008
 ŠŽȱ •ŽŒ›’ŒŠ•ȱ ˜ŽȱŠ—ȱ •ŽŒ›’Œ’Š—ȱ ’ŒŽ—œ’—ǯȱȱ Š›Œ‘ȱŘŖŖŞ
 Ž›–’—Š’—ȱ Ž—Š—Œ¢ȱ’—ȱ ˜–Žœ’Œȱ ‹žœŽȱ ŠœŽœǯȱȱ ™›’•ȱŘŖŖŞ
 Œ›Š™ȱ ŽŠ•ȱ Š•Žœȱ Žž•Š’˜—œǯȱȱ ™›’•ȱŘŖŖŞ
 Ž™ŽŠȱ ›ž—”Ž—ȱ ›’Ÿ’—ȱ Ž—Š•’Žœȱ —Œ›ŽŠœŽǯȱȱ Š¢ȱŘŖŖŞ
 ’›žŠ•ȱ ‘Š›Ž›ȱ Œ‘˜˜•œǯȱȱ Š¢ȱŘŖŖŞ
 ‘Š—Žœȱ’—ȱ –™ŠŒȱ ŽŽœȱŠ—ȱ ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—ȱ˜ȱ ž‹•’Œȱ ŠŒ’•’’Žœǯȱȱ ž•¢ȱŘŖŖŞ
 ›Š—ȱ ˜—Š’˜—ǯȱȱ ž•¢ȱŘŖŖŞ
 —˜˜›ȱ –˜”’—ȱ Š—ȱ’—ȱ ’œŒ˜—œ’—ǯȱȱ Š¢ȱŘŖŖş

ž–Š—ȱ ›˜ ‘ȱŠ—ȱ ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—ȱ —œ›žŒ’˜—ȱƺȱŘŖŖşȱ ŒȱŗřŚǯȱ Š›Œ‘ȱŘŖŗŖ
 —Œ›ŽŠœŽȱ Ž—Š•’ŽœȱŠ—ȱ —’’˜—ȱ —Ž›•˜Œ”ȱ Žšž’›Ž–Ž—œȱ˜›ȱ ›ž—”ȱ ›’Ÿ’—ȱ 쎗œŽœǯȱȱ ™›’•ȱŘŖŗŖ
 Š¢Š¢ȱ ˜Š—œȱƺȱŘŖŖşȱ ’œŒ˜—œ’—ȱ ŒȱŚŖśǯȱȱ ˜ŸŽ–‹Ž›ȱŘŖŗŖ
 ˜ŒŠ•ȱ Ž’œ›’Œ’—ȱ ŽŠ“žœ–Ž—ǯȱȱ žžœȱŘŖŗŗ
 Š›—ȬŠȬ žŒ”ȱ Ž™ŽŠ•ȱŠ—ȱ
ž—’—ȱ ŽŠœ˜—ȱ Žž•Š’˜—œȱƺȱŘŖŗŗȱ ŒȱśŖǯȱȱ ŽŒŽ–‹Ž›ȱŘŖŗŗ
 Ž™˜›’—ȱ ‘’•ȱ buse or Neglect. March 2012
Earmark Transparency – 2011 Wisconsin Act 220. October 2012

 ŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽȱ ŽŒ’˜—ȱǻŜŖŞǼȱŘŜŜƺŖřŚŗDZȱ Š¡ȱǻŜŖŞǼȱŘŜŜƺśŜŚŞ
 ŽŠ•ȱ ŽŒ’˜—ȱǻŜŖŞǼȱŘŜŜƺřśŜŗDZȱ Š¡ȱǻŜŖŞǼȱŘŜŚƺŜşŚŞ
Library Circulation Desk (608) ŘŜŜƺŝŖŚŖ

One East Main Street
P.O. Box 2037
 Š’œ˜—ǰȱ ’œŒ˜—œ’—ȱśřŝŖŗƺŘ037