MADISON, Wis. (AP) – The November ballot will provide voters a plain-English explanation of a jargon-laden same-sex marriage referendum, but opposing camps are sparring over whether one specific phrase in the explanation provides meaningful clarity or exposes the author’s bias.

The explanation, written by Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, describes what it means to vote yes or no on the measure.

A “yes” vote, she said, would write into the state constitution an existing restriction limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman. A “yes” vote would also ban civil unions and other arrangements for unmarried couples that are “substantially similar” to marriage.

Some groups that favor the amendment have taken issue over an additional line in the explanation – one that tells voters it would be up to courts or the Legislature to determine whether the amendment would affect so-called domestic partner benefits between same-sex and other unmarried couples.

Julaine Appling, who heads the Vote Yes for Marriage coalition supporting the amendment, said the measure would affect only full-fledged civil unions or “look-alike” marriages. Lautenschlager’s interpretation of the “substantially similar” clause exposes the attorney general’s bias, she said.

But Josh Freker, a spokesperson for the anti-amendment group Fair Wisconsin, said Lautenschlager was right to say that domestic partner benefits could be affected, since there is still uncertainty on how courts will view the issue.

Jane Schacter, a Stanford Law School professor and former UW-Madison faculty member, said the explanation seemed straightforward.

“My honest opinion is that the attorney general pretty much played this down the middle,” she said.

Paul Bucher, a Republican candidate for attorney general, called on Lautenschlager to delete the sentence referring to the potential uncertainty of how the courts and lawmakers would interpret the amendment.

“If you choose not to do so, you will leave me no option but to seek court action,” he wrote in the letter released Aug. 5.

Mike Bauer, a spokesperson for Lautenschlager’s office, said the explanations spoke for themselves. He declined further comment.

The questions that will appear on the ballot were determined by the Legislature, and the explanations appear after the questions, said Election Board spokesperson Kyle Richmond. Anyone wanting to change the explanation’s wording would have to ask Lautenschlager first and could file a case in court if she refused, he said.

A separate explanation Lautenschlager provided for a death penalty question may need to be revised.

In May, the Legislature approved a nonbinding referendum that asks voters whether the death penalty should be enacted in cases of first-degree intentional homicide, where the conviction is supported by DNA evidence.

But the explanation given by Lautenschlager’s office is for a slightly different question – whether the death penalty should be enacted in cases of multiple intentional homicide, where the murders are vicious and the convictions supported by DNA evidence.

The explanation is based on an early version of the referendum question that has since changed, said Mike Prentiss, a spokesperson for Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R- Juneau, one of the bill’s co-sponsors. He confirmed that the correct language should not include the reference to vicious or multiple homicides.

Bauer said the explanation was for the question provided by the Elections Board but it would be amended in time for the fall election if the question was wrong.