Two constitutional questions are on the ballot Tuesday in Wisconsin.

The first question deals with the use of private funds in election administration. It reads, “Shall section 7 (1) of article III of the constitution be created to provide that private donations and grants may not be applied for, accepted, expended, or used in connection with the conduct of any primary, election, or referendum?”

A yes vote would ban the use of private grants and donations in election administration. A no vote allows elections officials to continue to apply for grants to help pay certain election costs, rather than relying only on tax money.

The second question concerns elections officials. It reads, “Shall section 7 (2) of article III of the constitution be created to provide that only election officials designated by law may perform tasks in the conduct of primaries, elections, and referendums?”

A yes vote would add language to the state constitution stating that only elections officials designated by law can perform tasks in an election. A no vote would leave state law as it is, where only appointed election officials can conduct elections.

The proposed amendments were passed by the Republican-controlled Wisconsin Legislature in November along party-line votes. At least 27 states, most controlled by Republicans, have outlawed private funding for elections, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Municipalities in 38 of the Wisconsin’s 72 counties received a combined $10 million in grants from Center for Tech and Civic Life during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Wisconsin Examiner. CTCL is a non-profit organization partially funded by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife and the grants were available to all municipalities.

The second question has been described by Anthony Chergosky, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, as being opaque.

“I think voters are going to be making decisions on this second question without a clear understanding of what concretely would change as a result of this,” Chergosky told Courthouse News Service.

An analysis by Emily Lau, staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative, also concluded it’s unclear whether or how the proposed amendment would change existing law.

However, she said, if the amendment were broadly interpreted it might exclude any number of people involved with the efficient administration of elections who are not sworn election officials, such as staff who help set up polling places or vendors who may be onsite to troubleshoot technological issues.

“In short, were this proposed amendment to pass, uncertainty about its scope could generate confusion and disagreement, which could in turn give rise to litigation,” Lau said.