WisconsinBill would limit some nuisance claims against racing facilities
The failed proposal would limit some nuisance lawsuits by nearby property owners and bar local governments from creating conflicting private rights to sue.
What it does
Nearby property owners could not get a nuisance finding against a racing facility that was built or operating before they bought or improved property within five miles. A major expansion that significantly increases use, including a demonstrable rise in racing days, is an exception.
Local governments could not create a private right to sue that conflicts with the limits on nuisance actions against racing facilities.
Argument forRacing facilities might face fewer nuisance findings from later property owners, which could make it easier to continue operating unless a major expansion sharply increases use.
Argument againstNearby owners might have fewer ways to seek a nuisance finding when a facility was already operating before they bought or improved their property.
More detail
A racing facility could not be found to be a public or private nuisance in certain cases. The case must be brought by a person who owns property within five miles of the facility and who bought or improved that property after the facility was built or began operating. A racing facility includes permanent or seasonal racetracks and related areas used for competitive motorsports. The limit would not apply if the facility made a substantial and material expansion that significantly increased overall use, including a demonstrable increase in racing days beyond its earlier pattern. This limit would apply to actions started on or after the effective date of the provision.
A local government could not create a private right to sue that conflicts with the limits on nuisance actions against racing facilities. This applies to political subdivisions, such as counties, cities, villages, and towns.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed Assembly
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- May 13Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82Latest
- May 12Placed on calendar 5-12-2026 pursuant to Joint Rule 82 (2)(a)
- Apr 8Report vetoed by the Governor Tony Evers on 4-8-2026Major
- Apr 2Presented to the Governor on 4-2-2026To Governor
- Mar 19Report correctly enrolled on 3-19-2026Minor
- Mar 18Received from Senate concurred inMinor
- Mar 17Ordered immediately messaged
- Mar 17Read a third time and concurred inPassed Senate
- Mar 17Rules suspended to give bill its third reading
- Mar 17Ordered to a third readingMinor
- Mar 17Read a second timeMinor
- Mar 16Placed on calendar 3-17-2026 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Mar 5Available for scheduling
- Vote recorded Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Transportation and Local Government, Ayes 3, Noes 2. Result: pass.Upper
- Mar 5Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Transportation and Local Government, Ayes 3, Noes 2Minor
- Mar 5Executive action taken
- Feb 27Read first time and referred to committee on Transportation and Local GovernmentMinor
- Feb 23Received from AssemblyMinor
- Feb 19Ordered immediately messaged
- Feb 19Read a third time and passedPassed Assembly
- Feb 19Rules suspended
- Feb 19Ordered to a third readingMinor
- Feb 19Assembly Amendment 2 adoptedMajor
- Feb 19Assembly Amendment 1 adoptedMajor
- Feb 19Read a second timeMinor
- Feb 18Made a special order of business at 11:41 AM on 2-19-2026 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 14
- Feb 18Assembly Amendment 2 offered by Representative MursauMinor
- Feb 5Referred to committee on RulesMinor
- Vote recorded Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by Committee on Local Government, Ayes 8, Noes 2. Result: pass.Lower
- Vote recorded Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Local Government, Ayes 8, Noes 2. Result: pass.Lower
- Feb 5Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Local Government, Ayes 8, Noes 2Minor
- Feb 5Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by Committee on Local Government, Ayes 8, Noes 2Minor
- Feb 4Executive action taken
- Feb 3Assembly Amendment 1 offered by Representative MursauMinor
- Jan 27Representative Gundrum added as a coauthor
- Jan 21Public hearing held
- Jan 16Read first time and referred to Committee on Local GovernmentMinor
- Jan 16Introduced by Representatives Mursau, Brill, Kreibich, Duchow and Kurtz; cosponsored by Senators Tomczyk and Cabral-GuevaraIntroduced