The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the Voter ID law, Act 23, and Wisconsin's collective bargaining reforms, Act 10, as consitutional Thursday morning in two of the biggest cases before the court.

Justice Michael Gableman wrote in the majority 5-2 opinion in the MTI Act 10 decision, "We now uphold Act 10 in its entirety."
The plaintiffs have insisted at every stage of litigation in this case that they are not arguing a constitutional right exists to collectively bargain.  It is evident, however, that they really are, for without such a constitutional right, their challenge fails.  The plaintiffs' reliance on Lawson hinges on the defendants conditioning the receipt of a benefit on the relinquishment of a constitutional right, but as the plaintiffs acknowledge, collective bargaining——no matter the specific statutory limitations at issue——is not constitutionally protected.
A dissenting opinion from Justice Bradley reads in part:
Act 10 is clear: if you have exercised your associational right to organize as a collective bargaining unit you lose your ability to negotiate over anything other than an increase in base wages up to the amount of inflation. This is the textbook definition of an unconstitutional condition. By permitting such a statute to stand, the majority greatly dilutes the First Amendment protection on the right to freedom of association.
In the Milwaukee NAACP Voter ID case, Justice Patience Roggensack wrote in the majority 4-3 opinion:
"We conclude that plaintiffs have failed to prove Act 23 unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. In League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Network, Inc. v. Walker, 2014 WI 97, __ Wis. 2d __, __ N.W.2d __, also released today, we concluded that requiring an elector to present Act 23-acceptable photo identification in order to vote is not an additional elector qualification. Id.,  In the present case, we conclude that the burdens of time and inconvenience associated with obtaining Act 23-acceptable photo identification are not undue burdens on the right to vote and do not render the law invalid. 
We conclude, as did the United Stated Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), that "the inconvenience of making a trip to [a state motor vehicle office], gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote." 
And another Voter ID lawsuit brought by the League of Women Voters challenged the legislature's authority to require voter's to present an ID. Justice Roggensack wrote in the majority opinion:
We conclude that the legislature did not exceed its authority under Article III of the Wisconsin Constitution when it required electors to present Act 23-acceptable photo identification. Since 1859, we have held that "it is clearly within [the legislature's] province to require any person offering to vote[] to furnish such proof as it deems requisite[] that he is a qualif[i]ed elector." Cothren v. Lean, 9 Wis. 254 (*279), 258 (*283-84) (1859). Requiring a potential voter to identify himself or herself as a qualified elector through the use of Act 23-acceptable photo identification does not impose an elector qualification in addition to those set out in Article III, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. 
We also conclude that the requirement to present Act 23-acceptable photo identification comes within the legislature's authority to enact laws providing for the registration of electors under Article III, Section 2 because Act 23-acceptable photo identification is the mode by which election officials verify that a potential voter is the elector listed on the registration list. 
Finally, we conclude that plaintiff's facial challenge fails because Act 23's requirement to present photo identification is a reasonable regulation that could improve and modernize election procedures, safeguard voter confidence in the outcome of elections and deter voter fraud. See Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 191 (2008). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
Chief Justice Abrahmson wrote in a dissenting opinion on Voter ID wrote:
Today the court follows not James Madison——for whom Wisconsin's capital city is named——but rather Jim Crow——the name typically used to refer to repressive laws used to restrict rights, including the right to vote, of African-Americans. 
Indeed the majority opinion in NAACP v. Walker1 brings the specter of Jim Crow front and center. It invalidates costs incurred by a qualified Wisconsin voter to obtain an Act 23 photo ID as an illegal de facto poll tax.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court also upheld the state's domestic partnership registry as constitutional.