Public Comment

A Wisconsin constitutional amendment headed for the November 2026 ballot would prohibit government from closing places of worship or forbidding gatherings there during declared emergencies, including public-health emergencies. The proposal grew out of disputes over COVID-era restrictions. Its central tension is whether religious exercise deserves an absolute constitutional protection from closure orders or should instead receive strong equal-treatment protection while remaining subject to genuinely necessary, neutral emergency rules that apply to comparable gatherings. Government should not treat worship as less important than comparable secular activity. Absolute exemptions are harder: a rule written for every conceivable emergency must also work when a gathering itself creates an immediate danger to participants or neighbors.

What protection should places of worship receive during a declared emergency?

Overall results

1
56% support · excluded by 4%
7

An explicit rule eliminates emergency-by-emergency political disputes over whether worship deserves the same status as other protected activity.

7

A crisis is precisely when constitutional rights need durable protection from officials deciding which activities are essential.

2
51% support · excluded by 6%
7

Religious exercise deserves meaningful constitutional protection without making government powerless in a genuine emergency.

7

A necessity-and-equal-treatment standard lets courts examine specific restrictions instead of creating either blanket deference or blanket immunity.

3
46% support · excluded by 2%
7

Government needs authority to respond to severe hazards, but it should use objective capacity and risk rules rather than religious classifications.

4
46% support · excluded by 14%
7

Emergency declarations should never give government authority to dictate whether or how many people may assemble for religious exercise.

About the author