Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 9.20 (2026)
Direct legislation
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
9.20(1)(1) A number of electors equal to at least 15 percent of the votes cast for governor at the last general election in their city or village may sign and file a petition with the city or village clerk requesting that an attached proposed ordinance or resolution, without alteration, either be adopted by the common council or village board or be referred to a vote of the electors. The individual filing the petition on behalf of the electors shall designate in writing an individual to be notified of any insufficiency or improper form under sub. (3).
9.20(2)(2) The preparation and form of the direct legislation petition shall be governed by s. 8.40.
9.20(2m)(2m) After the petition has been offered for filing, no name may be erased or removed. No signature may be considered valid or counted unless the date is less than 60 days before the date offered for filing.
9.20(3)(3) Within 15 days after the petition is filed, the clerk shall determine by careful examination whether the petition is sufficient and whether the proposed ordinance or resolution is in proper form. The clerk shall state his or her findings in a signed and dated certificate attached to the petition. If the petition is found to be insufficient or the proposed ordinance or resolution is not in proper form, the certificate shall give the particulars, stating the insufficiency or improper form. The petition may be amended to correct any insufficiency or the proposed ordinance or resolution may be put in proper form within 10 days following the affixing of the original certificate and notification of the individual designated under sub. (1). When the original or amended petition is found to be sufficient and the original or amended ordinance or resolution is in proper form, the clerk shall so state on the attached certificate and forward it to the common council or village board immediately.
9.20(4)(4) The common council or village board shall, without alteration, either pass the ordinance or resolution within 30 days following the date of the clerk’s final certificate, or submit it to the electors at the next spring or general election, if the election is more than 70 days after the date of the council’s or board’s action on the petition or the expiration of the 30-day period, whichever first occurs. If there are 70 days or less before the election, the ordinance or resolution shall be voted on at the next election thereafter. The council or board by a three-fourths vote of the members-elect may order a special election for the purpose of voting on the ordinance or resolution at any time prior to the next election, but not more than one special election for direct legislation may be ordered in any 6-month period.
9.20(5)(5) The clerk shall cause notice of the ordinance or resolution that is being submitted to a vote to be given as provided in s. 10.06 (3) (f).
9.20(6)(6) The ordinance or resolution need not be printed in its entirety on the ballot, but a concise statement of its nature shall be printed together with a question permitting the elector to indicate approval or disapproval of its adoption.
9.20(7)(7) If a majority vote in favor of adoption, the proposed ordinance or resolution shall take effect upon publication under sub. (5). Publication shall be made within 10 days after the election.
9.20(8)(8) City ordinances or resolutions adopted under this section shall not be subject to the veto power of the mayor and city or village ordinances or resolutions adopted under this section shall not be repealed or amended within 2 years of adoption except by a vote of the electors. The common council or village board may submit a proposition to repeal or amend the ordinance or resolution at any election.
9.20 AnnotationThis section implements legislative powers reserved by the people. Subject to certain conditions, a common council has no authority to make an initial judgment of the constitutionality or validity of proposed direct legislation. State ex rel. Althouse v. City of Madison, 79 Wis. 2d 97, 255 N.W.2d 449 (1977).
9.20 AnnotationA proposal that is administrative, rather than legislative, in character is not the proper subject of initiative proceedings. State ex rel. Becker v. Common Council, 101 Wis. 2d 680, 305 N.W.2d 178 (Ct. App. 1981).
9.20 AnnotationA city clerk has a mandatory duty to forward to the common council a sufficient petition and ordinance in proper form. State ex rel. North v. Goetz, 116 Wis. 2d 239, 342 N.W.2d 747 (Ct. App. 1983).
9.20 AnnotationThe power of initiative does not extend to legislative decisions that have already been made by the legislative body. Schaefer v. Village Board, 177 Wis. 2d 287, 501 N.W.2d 901 (Ct. App. 1993).
9.20 AnnotationIf statutes establish procedures for the accomplishment of legislation in a certain area, an initiative may not effect legislation that would modify the statutory directives that would bind a municipality if it were legislating in the same area. Section 62.23 establishes such procedures for zoning; zoning may not be legislated or modified by initiative. An ordinance constituting a pervasive regulation of, or prohibition on, the use of land is zoning. Heitman v. City of Mauston Common Council, 226 Wis. 2d 542, 595 N.W.2d 450 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-3133.
9.20 AnnotationThere are four exceptions to the sub. (4) requirement that requested direct legislation be either passed or submitted to the electors: 1) when the proposed direct legislation involves executive or administrative matters, rather than legislative ones; 2) when it compels the repeal of an existing ordinance, or compels the passage of an ordinance in clear conflict with existing ordinances; 3) when it seeks to exercise legislative powers not conferred on a municipality; and 4) when it would modify statutorily prescribed directives that would bind a municipality if it were attempting to legislate in the same area. Mount Horeb Community Alert v. Village Board, 2002 WI App 80, 252 Wis. 2d 713, 643 N.W.2d 186, 01-2217.
9.20 AnnotationMandamus is the appropriate action when a city council refuses either option of sub. (1). Mount Horeb Community Alert v. Village Board, 2002 WI App 80, 252 Wis. 2d 713, 643 N.W.2d 186, 01-2217.
9.20 AnnotationA proposed ordinance, initiated by a group of citizens, to require a village to hold a binding referendum prior to the start of construction on any new village building project requiring a capital expenditure of $1 million or more was an appropriate subject of direct legislation. Mount Horeb Community Alert v. Village Board, 2003 WI 100, 263 Wis. 2d 544, 665 N.W.2d 229, 01-2217.
9.20 AnnotationSection 893.80 (1) (b), which requires the filing of a notice of claim before an action may be commenced against a municipality, did not apply to an action for mandamus seeking to compel a city council to comply with this section. Oak Creek Citizen’s Action Committee v. City of Oak Creek, 2007 WI App 196, 304 Wis. 2d 702; 738 N.W.2d 168, 06-2697.
9.20 AnnotationA “concise statement” under sub. (6), properly construed, means a brief statement of the general purpose of the proposed ordinance. It is not required that the ballot must contain every essential element of the proposed ordinance. Metropolitan Milwaukee Ass’n of Commerce v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 45, 332 Wis. 2d 459, 798 N.W.2d 287, 09-1874.
9.20 AnnotationWhen an ordinance was never implemented because an injunction was issued and two years passed before the injunction was vacated, the two-year time period excluded the time between the issuance of the injunction and its vacation. In that circumstance, returning the parties to the position they were in as of the date on which the temporary injunction was the only reasonable construction of sub. (8). Metropolitan Milwaukee Ass’n of Commerce v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 45, 332 Wis. 2d 459, 798 N.W.2d 287, 09-1874.
9.20 AnnotationThis section does not apply to towns and does not grant town residents the right of direct legislation, even if a town has adopted village powers under ss. 60.10 (2) (c) and 60.22 (3). Thus, a town has no legal duty either to adopt residents’ proposed ordinance or to place the issue on the ballot. State ex rel. Meessmann v. Town of Presque Isle, 2023 WI App 36, 408 Wis. 2d 690, 993 N.W.2d 749, 22-0720.
9.20 AnnotationVox Populi: Wisconsin’s Direct Legislation Statute. Bach. Wis. Law. May 2008.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2023 · leading case: Mount Horeb Cmty. Alert v. Vill. Bd. of Mt. Horeb, 2003 WI 100 (Wis. 2003).
Mount Horeb Cmty. Alert v. Vill. Bd. of Mt. Horeb, 2003 WI 100 (Wis. 2003). “This is a mandamus action to compel a village board to act on an initiative petition pursuant to the direct legislation statute, Wis. Stat. § 9.20 (1999-2000). [1] *549 ¶ 2.”
Metro. Milwaukee Ass'n of Com., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 45 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “This appeal concerns an ordinance providing paid sick leave for employees within the City of Milwaukee that was enacted pursuant to the direct legislation statute, Wis. Stat. § 9.20 (2009-10). 1 Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of *471 Commerce (MMAC) filed this action…”
Heitman v. City of Mauston Common Council, 595 N.W.2d 450 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Mark Heitman appeals from a summary judgment dismissing the complaint which requested a writ of mandamus compelling the City of Mauston Common Council, pursuant to § 9.20, STATS., either to adopt or to refer to a vote of the electorate, without alteration, a proposed initiative…”
Oak Creek Citizen's Action Comm. v. City of Oak Creek, 2007 WI App 196 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “01 mandamus action seeking to compel the City of Oak Creek to comply with *704 the direct-legislation statute, Wis. Stat. § 9.20 . 1 The circuit court dismissed the action because the Committee and Verhalen admittedly did not file a notice of claim under Wis.”
State Ex Rel. Althouse v. City of Madison, 255 N.W.2d 449 (Wis. 1977). “Attached to that petition was a document entitled, “Fair Rent Ordinance,” which the petitioners sought to have enacted pursuant to sec. 9.20, Stats. It is agreed that the petition and the attached ordinance were in conformity with the requirements of Wisconsin’s direct…”
Mount Horeb Cmty. Alert v. Vill. Bd. of Mt. Horeb, 2002 WI App 80 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “Horeb decided to take no action on Community Alert's petition for direct legislation, which Community Alert had filed pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 9.20 (1) (1999-2000). 1 This statute requires a village board to either pass proposed legislation or refer the proposal to the electors.”
Otey v. Common Council of City of Milwaukee, 281 F. Supp. 264 (E.D. Wis. 1968). “It then alleges that on November 6, 1967, petitions were filed with the City Clerk pursuant to § 9.20, Wisconsin Statutes 1 requesting adoption by the Common Council or reference to *267 a vote of the electorate of the following resolution : “BE IT RESOLVED: That the Common…”
State Ex Rel. North v. Goetz, 342 N.W.2d 747 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983). “The Waukesha city clerk received a petition, with an attached proposed ordinance, from a member of the public demanding that it be forwarded to the city council for consideration, pursuant to sec. 9.20, Stats. The clerk refused to forward it because she believed the proposal was…”
Wisconsin Just. Initiative, Inc. v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2023 WI 38 (Wis. 2023). “It began by discussing Ekern, and concluded that in context it was not clear an every essential standard was even being proposed at all, an observation we agree with.”
Town of Rhine v. Bizzell, 2008 WI 76 (Wis. 2008). “" 2 Young, supra, § 9.20, at 169. *788 ¶ 20 In addition to permitted uses, ordinances may also provide for conditional uses by virtue of a special use or conditional use permit.”
Schaefer v. Vill. Bd. of Potosi, 501 N.W.2d 901 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “This appeal involves an attempt by electors of the Village of Potosí to initiate legislation under sec. 9.20, Stats., to control the installation of sidewalks and the provision of parking on a portion of State Trunk Highway (STH) 133 in the village.”
State Ex Rel. Becker v. Common Council of the Milwaukee, 305 N.W.2d 178 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981). “The sole issue in this appeal is whether a “no-confidence” resolution seeking the removal from office of Milwaukee Police Chief, Harold Breier, constitutes “direct legislation” under sec. 9.20, Stats., requiring the Common Council of the City of Milwaukee (Common Council) to…”
— Wis. Stat. § 9.20(1) — 5 cases
Mount Horeb Cmty. Alert v. Vill. Bd. of Mt. Horeb, 2002 WI App 80 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “Horeb decided to take no action on Community Alert's petition for direct legislation, which Community Alert had filed pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 9.20 (1) (1999-2000). 1 This statute requires a village board to either pass proposed legislation or refer the proposal to the electors.”
State Ex Rel. Althouse v. City of Madison, 255 N.W.2d 449 (Wis. 1977). “Attached to that petition was a document entitled, “Fair Rent Ordinance,” which the petitioners sought to have enacted pursuant to sec. 9.20, Stats. It is agreed that the petition and the attached ordinance were in conformity with the requirements of Wisconsin’s direct…”
Metro. Milwaukee Ass'n of Com., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 45 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “This appeal concerns an ordinance providing paid sick leave for employees within the City of Milwaukee that was enacted pursuant to the direct legislation statute, Wis. Stat. § 9.20 (2009-10). 1 Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of *471 Commerce (MMAC) filed this action…”
Jeffrey Meessmann v. Town of Presque Isle (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
Wisconsin Term Limits v. League of Wisconsin Municipalities, 880 F. Supp. 1256 (E.D. Wis. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 9.20(2) — 1 case
Town of Rib Mountain v. Marathon Cnty., 926 N.W.2d 731 (Wis. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 9.20(3) — 4 cases
State Ex Rel. North v. Goetz, 342 N.W.2d 747 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983). “The Waukesha city clerk received a petition, with an attached proposed ordinance, from a member of the public demanding that it be forwarded to the city council for consideration, pursuant to sec. 9.20, Stats. The clerk refused to forward it because she believed the proposal was…”
State Ex Rel. Becker v. Common Council of the Milwaukee, 305 N.W.2d 178 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981). “The sole issue in this appeal is whether a “no-confidence” resolution seeking the removal from office of Milwaukee Police Chief, Harold Breier, constitutes “direct legislation” under sec. 9.20, Stats., requiring the Common Council of the City of Milwaukee (Common Council) to…”
Jeffrey Meessmann v. Town of Presque Isle (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
Wisconsin Term Limits v. League of Wisconsin Municipalities, 880 F. Supp. 1256 (E.D. Wis. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 9.20(4) — 6 cases
State Ex Rel. Althouse v. City of Madison, 255 N.W.2d 449 (Wis. 1977). “Attached to that petition was a document entitled, “Fair Rent Ordinance,” which the petitioners sought to have enacted pursuant to sec. 9.20, Stats. It is agreed that the petition and the attached ordinance were in conformity with the requirements of Wisconsin’s direct…”
Town of Rib Mountain v. Marathon Cnty., 926 N.W.2d 731 (Wis. 2019).
Otey v. Common Council of City of Milwaukee, 281 F. Supp. 264 (E.D. Wis. 1968). “It then alleges that on November 6, 1967, petitions were filed with the City Clerk pursuant to § 9.20, Wisconsin Statutes 1 requesting adoption by the Common Council or reference to *267 a vote of the electorate of the following resolution : “BE IT RESOLVED: That the Common…”
Oak Creek Citizen's Action Comm. v. City of Oak Creek, 2007 WI App 196 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “01 mandamus action seeking to compel the City of Oak Creek to comply with *704 the direct-legislation statute, Wis. Stat. § 9.20 . 1 The circuit court dismissed the action because the Committee and Verhalen admittedly did not file a notice of claim under Wis.”
Wisconsin Term Limits v. League of Wisconsin Municipalities, 880 F. Supp. 1256 (E.D. Wis. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 9.20(6) — 1 case
Metro. Milwaukee Ass'n of Com., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 45 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “This appeal concerns an ordinance providing paid sick leave for employees within the City of Milwaukee that was enacted pursuant to the direct legislation statute, Wis. Stat. § 9.20 (2009-10). 1 Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of *471 Commerce (MMAC) filed this action…”
— Wis. Stat. § 9.20(7) — 1 case
Metro. Milwaukee Ass'n of Com., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 45 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “This appeal concerns an ordinance providing paid sick leave for employees within the City of Milwaukee that was enacted pursuant to the direct legislation statute, Wis. Stat. § 9.20 (2009-10). 1 Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of *471 Commerce (MMAC) filed this action…”
— Wis. Stat. § 9.20(8) — 2 cases
Metro. Milwaukee Ass'n of Com., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 45 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “This appeal concerns an ordinance providing paid sick leave for employees within the City of Milwaukee that was enacted pursuant to the direct legislation statute, Wis. Stat. § 9.20 (2009-10). 1 Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of *471 Commerce (MMAC) filed this action…”
Otey v. Common Council of City of Milwaukee, 281 F. Supp. 264 (E.D. Wis. 1968). “It then alleges that on November 6, 1967, petitions were filed with the City Clerk pursuant to § 9.20, Wisconsin Statutes 1 requesting adoption by the Common Council or reference to *267 a vote of the electorate of the following resolution : “BE IT RESOLVED: That the Common…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.