Posted by Siseko Tapile
14 Comments
When Charlie Kirk died at age 31 on October 13, 2025, a wave of tributes surged across the conservative landscape, but none proved as contentious as the move by the Wisconsin State Assembly to enshrine his memory in law.
At 9:47 p.m. Central Time on October 14, the chamber voted 63‑35 along strict party lines to adopt Assembly Joint Resolution 101 (AJR 101), designating that day as a state‑wide remembrance for the Turning Point USA founder. All 63 Republican members supported the measure; every Democrat opposed it.
Kirk founded Turning Point USA in 2012, a nonprofit that claimed 487,000 registered student activists by October 2025 and operated 38 state chapters with 147 full‑time staff. His meteoric rise made him a darling of the conservative media circuit, yet his critics accused him of spreading election misinformation and targeting vulnerable college students.
Born in Arlington, Virginia, Kirk spent much of his adult life traveling the country. In 2023 he opened a Wisconsin office at 202 W Washington Ave, Suite 450, Madison, cementing the Badger State as a frequent tour stop—he visited the state 17 times in 2025 alone, including a September 28 rally at the University of Wisconsin‑Whitewater that drew 2,300 attendees.
His sudden death from acute myocarditis, confirmed by the Wisconsin Medical Examiner’s Office, sent shockwaves through both the campus activist community and the political establishment.
The tribute began as Senate Joint Resolution 88 (SJR 88), filed on October 2, 2025, by Senator Julian Bradley (R‑New Berlin), Senator Chris Kapenga, and Senator Duey Stroebel. Their language called for a day of “honor and prayer” for Kirk’s family and the nation.
When the bill reached the Assembly, Representative Scott Penterman (R‑Stevens Point) offered Substitute Amendment 2, which reshaped the text into AJR 101 and inserted the phrase “extraordinary life and legacy with profound gratitude.” The amendment was introduced at 3:18 p.m. Central Time on the same day the vote would later be taken.
The floor debate stretched for two hours and seventeen minutes, beginning at 7:30 p.m. and featuring 21 speakers—12 Republicans and 9 Democrats. The most quoted line came from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R‑Rochester), who asked, “What is the bar? When do we decide someone is worthy of remembrance in this body?” That comment framed the partisan split and sparked a flurry of retorts.
Democratic leaders slammed the resolution as a partisan endorsement of a polarizing figure. Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D‑Racine) warned, “Honoring a figure who consistently spread election misinformation sets a dangerous precedent.” Representative Kalan Haywood (D‑Milwaukee) echoed the sentiment, saying, “We’re setting the bar at zero for who gets memorialized here.”
Republicans, on the other hand, framed the vote as a tribute to a man who inspired “millions of young conservatives to engage civically,” according to Senator Bradley’s response during the debate.
Religious voices also entered the fray. Pastor James B. Johnson of Christ Our Light Anglican Church in Waukesha issued a press release praising the resolution as a “faith‑based acknowledgment of Kirk’s contributions.” Conversely, University of Wisconsin‑Madison political science professor Maria Lopez labeled the move “an erosion of the institution’s credibility.”
Governor Tony Evers (D‑Madison) released a measured statement the next morning: “While I respect the legislature’s right to pass commemorative resolutions, I believe we should reserve such honors for individuals with bipartisan recognition of their contributions to Wisconsin.”
The Wisconsin move mirrors a parallel effort in Washington, D.C. On the same day, the U.S. Senate introduced S.Res. 403, sponsored by Senator Ted Cruz (R‑Texas) and co‑sponsored by 22 other Republicans, seeking a national day of remembrance for Kirk. That bill currently sits before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Analysts note that this is the first time a Wisconsin legislative body has honored a political commentator who was not a resident of the state, raising questions about the growing influence of national partisan figures on state politics.
Financially, the resolution carries a $0 price tag—it’s purely symbolic. Yet the political cost could be significant: the vote deepened the partisan divide in the Assembly and may shape upcoming elections, especially in swing districts where the timing of the tribute could be leveraged by both sides.
AJR 101 now heads to the Wisconsin State Senate for concurrence. Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R‑Oostburg) scheduled a vote for October 17, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. Central Time. If passed, the resolution will be entered into the official Journal of Proceedings, cementing the date of October 14, 2025, as a state‑wide day of remembrance.
Meanwhile, Turning Point USA released a statement honoring Kirk’s “unwavering commitment to empowering the next generation of leaders,” while also pledging to continue its campus outreach programs nationwide.
Whether the Senate affirms the Assembly’s decision or lets the measure die will likely serve as a barometer for how Wisconsin’s bipartisan leadership navigates the increasingly polarized national climate.
The resolution is purely symbolic and carries no funding, so it doesn’t change Turning Point USA’s day‑to‑day activities. However, the official recognition may boost the organization’s visibility among students and could aid future recruitment drives in Wisconsin campuses.
Senators Julian Bradley, Chris Kapenga and Duey Stroebel filed SJR 88 just days after Kirk’s sudden death, aiming to capitalize on the immediate outpouring of support among conservatives and to cement his legacy before the momentum faded.
All 35 Democratic Assembly members voted against it, arguing that honoring a figure associated with election misinformation sets a dangerous precedent and that state honors should be reserved for individuals with bipartisan acclaim.
No. It is a non‑binding, symbolic measure with a $0 fiscal impact. Its primary purpose is to record an official acknowledgment within the state’s legislative journal.
If the Senate votes no, the resolution would fail to become part of the official record, effectively ending the legislative tribute. The issue could then re‑emerge in future sessions or be addressed through other ceremonial means.
Comments
Quinten Squires
It's obvious the Assembly is using a memorial bill as a political score‑card. The vote split 63‑35 and every Republican was on board, which tells you how tightly the party is wired around Kirk. Democrats see a dangerous precedent, and they aren't wrong about the optics. The whole process feels more like a rally than a sober legislative act. In the end, the resolution does nothing but widen the partisan chasm.
October 16, 2025 at 22:21
Tyler Manning
While my colleague points to partisanship, one must recognize that honoring a champion of American values is nothing short of patriotic. The resolution stands as a testament to the unwavering commitment of Wisconsin conservatives to defend liberty, and any dissent reeks of anti‑American sentiment. Moreover, the federal attempt to replicate this tribute underscores the nationwide resonance of Kirk's message. Let us not diminish the significance of commemorating a true patriot.
October 17, 2025 at 20:19
james patel
The procedural trajectory of AJR 101 illustrates a classic case of partisan agenda‑setting within a bicameral framework. By leveraging the substitute amendment mechanism, the majority expedited the memorialization without substantive cross‑party deliberation, thereby circumventing the normative deliberative model. This asymmetry in legislative behavior aligns with existing literature on coalition dynamics and agenda monopolization. Consequently, the resolution functions less as a bipartisan honor and more as a strategic signaling device. Stakeholders should therefore assess the long‑term institutional ramifications of such unilateral commemorative actions.
October 18, 2025 at 18:17
Scarlett Mirage
Indeed, the very architecture of this legislative act betrays a profound ethical erosion; the chorus of celebratory rhetoric masks an underlying existential crisis of collective memory-what does it truly mean to elevate a figure whose narrative is steeped in controversy? One must ask, with unflinching honesty, whether the Assembly is honoring principle or perpetuating a cult of personality; the answer, dear colleagues, lies not in procedural minutiae but in the moral calculus of our society. By enshrining a partisan icon, the body risks diluting the sanctity of public remembrance, thereby rendering the gesture hollow and self‑serving. Such decisions demand rigorous introspection, lest we compromise the very foundations of democratic virtue.
October 19, 2025 at 16:16
Ian Sepp
The resolution, while symbolic, raises substantive questions about the criteria for state‑wide honors. A rigorous standard would require demonstrable, bipartisan contributions to the public good. Absent such consensus, the measure may set a precarious precedent for future commemorations.
October 20, 2025 at 14:14
Lois Parker
Honestly, this feels like a publicity stunt.
October 21, 2025 at 12:12
Lerato Mamaila
From a cultural standpoint, honoring a youth activist can inspire many students to engage civically, especially in a diverse state like Wisconsin. Yet we must also consider how such symbols resonate across different communities, ensuring inclusivity. A balanced approach would celebrate activism without alienating those who question the individual's legacy.
October 22, 2025 at 10:10
Dennis Lohmann
Totally get where you're coming from 😊. Celebrating youth leadership is great, but the political spin can be a bit much.
October 23, 2025 at 08:08
Jensen Santillan
The so‑called “honor” bestowed upon a polarizing media figure is nothing more than a calculated maneuver designed to cement a particular ideological narrative within the legislative annals. When a state assembly converts a grief‑laden moment into a partisan trophy, it betrays an unhealthy symbiosis between governance and agitprop. The sheer audacity of allocating legislative time to enshrine an individual whose brand is built on sensationalism is an affront to the principles of deliberative democracy. Moreover, the unanimous Republican support for AJR 101 underscores a troubling homogeneity of thought that marginalizes dissenting perspectives. Such monolithic voting patterns erode the very checks and balances that prevent legislative overreach. The resolution’s language-replete with hyperbolic praise-serves as a veneer for underlying power consolidation. By glorifying a figure synonymous with election misinformation, the assembly tacitly validates the erosion of factual discourse. Critics who decry this move are, in reality, confronting an uncomfortable truth: the political establishment is increasingly comfortable with symbolic gestures that mask substantive policy failures. The potential ripple effects extend beyond Wisconsin, signaling to other legislatures that commemoration can be weaponized for partisan gain. While proponents claim the measure is a benign tribute, the strategic timing-mere days after a tragic death-suggests opportunistic exploitation of public emotion. This pattern echoes historical precedents where monuments were erected to solidify ruling party narratives rather than to honor universal virtue. In effect, the resolution functions as a legislative echo chamber, amplifying a singular viewpoint while silencing nuanced debate. The long‑term consequences may include a desensitization to the misuse of state symbols for political propaganda. Ultimately, if the Senate were to endorse this resolution, it would codify a dangerous precedent where ideological allegiance outweighs bipartisan merit in the conferral of public honors.
October 24, 2025 at 06:06
Mike Laidman
While the preceding analysis is thorough, it is essential to recognize that legislative bodies possess discretion in commemorating citizens whose impact resonates with constituents. The resolution does not allocate fiscal resources, thus its practical implications remain limited. Nevertheless, the symbolic weight of such honors warrants careful deliberation. A balanced approach that considers bipartisan input could mitigate perceptions of partisanship.
October 25, 2025 at 04:05
johnson ndiritu
The Assembly’s decision is a glaring example of moral bankruptcy 🙄. Elevating a figure who thrived on misinformation betrays the very fabric of our democratic ethos. If we continue down this path, we invite further decay of truth in public discourse 😡.
October 26, 2025 at 02:03
sheri macbeth
Oh sure, because nothing says “respect for democracy” like turning a legislature into a celebrity fan club. Maybe the real agenda is to distract us while the deep state pulls the strings behind the scenes. At least we got a catchy resolution to talk about at the next town hall.
October 27, 2025 at 00:01
Ashlynn Barbery
It is understandable that emotions run high when a prominent activist passes away, and the desire to recognize contributions is natural. However, fostering inclusive dialogue across party lines can enhance the legitimacy of any commemorative effort. By inviting diverse perspectives, the Assembly could transform a partisan gesture into a unifying moment for Wisconsin. Encouraging such collaborative spirit may serve the state’s long‑term interests.
October 27, 2025 at 21:59
Sarah Graham
Finding common ground in moments of loss can help bridge the divisions that have deepened in recent years. A respectful acknowledgment that honors service without inflaming partisan tensions could be a step forward. Let’s focus on what unites us rather than what separates us.
October 28, 2025 at 19:57