Tom Tiffany pledged: “As governor, I will sign all of them.”

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany didn’t mince words about Gov. Tony Evers’ vetoes Tuesday. Specifically, Evers vetoed bills to ban boys in girls’ sports and locker rooms; to empower parents to make decisions about their kids’ pronouns and names; and to ban sex-change surgeries of minors.

“How crazy is this?” Tiffany, the Republican candidate for governor, wrote of the veto spree. He pledged to sign all of them as governor.

What of the Democrat candidates for governor?

Sara Rodriguez and Missy Hughes, both fresh off applauding the No Kings protests, were silent on the vetoes. Mandela Barnes hawked his merch and also silent on the vetoes. Joel Brennan was silent. Kelda Roys ranted that Evers’ congressional maps are “rigged,” but was silent on the vetoes. David Crowley pledged to stand up for transgender “equity” and against Trump’s “immigration agenda,” but was silent on the vetoes. Francesca Hong praised the vetoes but doesn’t think they go far enough, writing, “Governor Evers vetoed them all today, buying us more time to fight.”

Rep. Barbara Dittrich (R – Oconomowoc) responded on Tuesday to the vetoes of legislation she authored to protect women, girls, and parental rights:

“Governor Evers likes to say, ‘The will of the people is the law of the land,’ yet with the vetoes of Assembly Bill 100 and 102, he clearly goes against the will of the vast majority of Wisconsinites in regards to the Save Women’s Sports Act,” she said. “In my district alone, 9 out of 10 constituents responded to my 2025 Spring Survey saying they support the Act’s preservation of girls’ and women’s sports for biological females only. Statewide, over three-quarters of Wisconsinites support this issue, and nationally, it is gaining similar support as well. His veto on the Save Women’s Sports Act is a disgusting and dangerous sign of disrespect to all of the hardworking women and girls of Wisconsin and shows disregard for their achievements.”

“I am also deeply disappointed in the veto of Assembly Bill 103. This legislation would have enshrined the recent United States Supreme Court Decision protecting a parent’s right to be directly involved in their child’s education and upbringing,” she added. “This legislation was always meant to restore the working relationship between parents and schools, but now, Wisconsin schools risk litigation because state statute does not match what has been decided in federal court. Additionally, parents may be in the dark on their children’s mental health without even being notified by the school.”

Evers vetoed:

• • • • AB 100/AB 102 “to ban men from playing in girls’ sports.”

     

  • What would those bills do?The non-partisan Legislative Reference Bureau wrote, “This bill requires each University of Wisconsin institution and technical college that operates or sponsors an intercollegiate or club athletic team or sport to designate the athletic team or sport as one of the following based on the sex of the participating students: 1) males or men; or 2) females or women. The bill defines ‘sex’ as the sex determined by a physician at birth and reflected on the birth certificate. The bill also requires a UW institution or technical college to prohibit 1) a male student from participating on an athletic team or in a sport designated for females, and 2) a male student from using locker rooms designated for females.”

    And: “This bill requires each school board, independent charter school, and private school participating in a parental choice program (educational institution) that operates or sponsors an interscholastic, intramural, or club athletic team or sport to designate the athletic team or sport based on the sex of the participating pupils. The bill defines ‘sex’ as the sex determined at birth by a physician and reflected on the birth certificate. The bill also requires an educational institution to prohibit a male pupil from 1) participating on an athletic team or in an athletic sport designated for females and 2) using a locker room designated for females. Finally, the bill requires the educational institution to notify pupils and parents if an educational institution intends to change a designation for an athletic team or sport.”

  • AB 103 “to keep parents informed about what’s going on in their kids’ schools.”

What would this bill do?

“By July 1, 2026, this bill requires school boards to adopt 1) a policy related to the conditions under which a school board will change a pupil’s legal name or legal name and pronouns in official school records (legal name and pronoun records policy) and 2) a policy related to the conditions under which a school board will allow school staff to regularly use or refer to a minor pupil by a name other the pupil’s legal name or by pronouns other than the pronouns provided at the time the pupil first enrolled in the school district (name and pronoun usage policy).

The bill requires that a school board include certain provisions in its legal name and pronoun records policy. Under the bill, a school board’s legal name and pronoun record policy must include 1) that the initial determination is made by the principal of the school the pupil attends, 2) that the principal may only approve the change if the documentation of a legal name change is provided or, if such documentation is not provided, an affidavit is provided stating, among other things, that the pupil legally changed the pupil’s name and that it was not for a fraudulent purpose or to interfere with the rights of others, 3) for a minor pupil, a requirement that the school board make a reasonable attempt to provide each of the minor pupil’s parents and legal guardians with an opportunity to provide information in favor of or against approving the requested change; and 4) a process to appeal a principal’s decision to deny a request to the school board.”

“The bill also specifies provisions that a school board must include in its name and pronoun usage policy. Under the bill, a school board’s name and pronoun usage policy must 1) state that a minor pupil’s parent or legal guardian determines the names and pronouns school staff are allowed use to refer to the minor pupil during school hours and 2) prohibit school staff from referring to a minor pupil by a name or pronoun that does not align with the pupil’s biological sex without written authorization from the pupil’s parent or guardian. A name and pronoun usage policy does not need to require written authorization for school staff to use a shortened version of a minor pupil’s legal first or middle name to refer to the pupil. Finally, the bill explicitly states that nothing in the bill may be construed to limit the rights of pupils, parents, or guardians under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the federal law that protects pupil records.”

• • AB 104 “to ban irreversible sex-change surgeries for minors.”

What would the bill do?

“This bill prohibits health care providers from engaging in, causing the engagement in, or making referrals for, certain medical intervention practices upon an individual under 18 years of age if done for the purpose of changing the minor’s body to correspond to a sex that is discordant with the minor’s biological sex. The prohibitions under the bill do not apply to any of the following: 1) a health care provider providing a service in accordance with a good faith medical decision of a parent or guardian of a minor born with a medically verifiable genetic disorder of sex development; 2) the treatment of any infection, injury, disease, or disorder that has been caused by or exacerbated by the performance of a gender transition medical procedure, whether or not that procedure was performed in accordance with state and federal law; or 3) any procedure undertaken because the minor suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the minor in imminent danger of death or impairment of a major bodily function unless surgery is performed.”