By Gretchen Schuldt
A bill that would make public more information about Parole Commission decisions and require that victims get more advance notice of parole hearings has passed both houses of the Legislature and awaits action by Gov. Evers. The bill, Assembly Bill 47, would require the Department of Corrections to post on its internet site the names of people granted parole, denied parole, and returned to prison following the revocation of parole. It also would require the department to post monthly and yearly total numbers of those granted and denied parole and returned to prison following parole revocation. The yearly totals would be categorized by the crime of conviction; the sex, race, and age of the person convicted; and the location of conviction. Victims would be notified by mail at least 90 days in advance of the hearing, a substantial increase from the three weeks' notice now required. The Legislature amended the bill to remove several changes that were originally included. The bill, as adopted, maintains the commission's authority to go into closed session to consider applications for probation, extended supervision, or parole. The original bill eliminated that authority. The adopted bill also does not require public notices of the commission's meetings to be published on the DOC's website and include the names of individuals being considered for parole. The Senate vote on the amended measure was 28-5. A chart showing the vote is below. The Assembly did not take a roll call vote on the amended measure, but concurred in its adoption.
0 Comments
Legislative update: stripping courts of power, obscenity charges for teachers, eliminating defenses6/26/2023 By Gretchen Schuldt Chief circuit court judges would be stripped of their power to appoint judges to preside over many cases involving businesses, under a bill pending in the state Legislature. That power would shift to the chief judge of the state Supreme Court, who would only have to "consider" recommendations from the chief judges of the state courts' administrative districts, according to the Republican-backed measure. The bill is a significant legislative intrusion into the internal workings of the court system. Another Republican bill would put teachers and school officials at risk of arrest under the state's obscenity laws and strip from them the immunity they now enjoy if their violations occur in their capacity as employees or officials. And a bill backed by Democrats would eliminate common defenses in criminal cases if a crime allegedly was motivated by issues related to sexual orientation or gender identity. More detail about the bills is below. A chart showing the sponsors of each is at the bottom of this post. SB275/AB 280 – Business courts The chief justice of the state Supreme Court would hand-pick circuit court judges across the state who would hear commercial cases, under this bill. Judicial assignments at the circuit court level now generally are decided at the lower court level. The chief justice, in appointing commercial docket judges, would "consider" but not be bound by recommendations from chief judges of administrative districts. The bill also would leave the decision to create specific commercial courts up to the chief justice, who would act on the recommendations of the director of state courts, an unelected bureaucrat. At a minimum, under the bill, the chief justice would be required to appoint four judges for business cases in each of the court system's second, third, fifth, eighth, and 10th administrative district. Judges hearing commercial cases also could hear other types, according to the bill. Wisconsin courts administrative districts "The commercial court docket is designed to operate within the framework of the existing state court system with minimal impact on the balance of court operations," the bill states. "It is intended to leverage judicial expertise in commercial law and disputes with commercial litigants' desire to tailor case management practices best suited for resolving substantial business disputes fairly and expeditiously." The Supreme Court, at the direction of then-Chief Justice Patience D. Roggensack, established a commercial court pilot program in 2017 and directly appointed the judges who heard those cases. Retired Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess criticized it, saying "the (judicial appointment) process largely bypasses the voter-controlled and otherwise random judicial assignment of cases. It creates a two-tiered court system — one controlled by business interests and one for everybody else." Roggensack "stacked" a committee she appointed to develop the court "with lawyers representing business interests," Niess wrote. "The committee included no labor or consumer advocates, no one representing the viewpoints of the public, and no one speaking for the other stakeholders in our circuit court system." "The committee included no labor or consumer advocates, no one representing the viewpoints of the public, and no one speaking for the other stakeholders in our circuit court system." Under the bill, which would expand the business courts, commercial docket judges would have jurisdiction over a wide variety of cases, including cases involving the internal governance or internal affairs of business organizations.
The specialty courts would hear cases involving laws governing partnerships, business corporations, cooperatives, banks, savings and loans, and other fiduciaries. They would also hear cases involving allegedly improper business conduct, including unfair competition; private suits alleging violations of the state mark-up law for gasoline or tobacco; deliberate injury to a business; wrongful interference with a business; non-compete clauses; confidentiality agreements; business mergers and consolidations; securities law and securities fraud; intellectual property rights; trademarks; trade secrets; copyright; patent rights; franchise law; the state Fair Dealership Law; sales representative commissions; some Uniform Commercial Code claims exceeding $100,000; receivership cases of more than $250,000; and commercial real estate construction disputes exceeding more than $250,000. The bill would make some case types ineligible for the new dockets. They include small claims, governmental actions seeking to enforce laws or regulations, most cases involving consumer transactions, landlord-tenant disputes, domestic relations, civil rights, taxes, some arbitration issues, construction (except for the commercial disputes above), and environmental claims. SB305/AB308 – Targeting teachers with obscenity statute Public and private school employees would lose their immunity from prosecution under the state's obscenity laws, under a Republican-backed bill in the Legislature. Currently, the law protects from prosecution employees, board members, or trustees of some educational institutions and libraries, as long as they are acting within the scope of their jobs. The obscenity statute explains the reason the immunity was granted: The Legislature "finds that the libraries and educational institutions ... carry out the essential purpose of making available to all citizens a current, balanced collection of books, reference materials, periodicals, sound recordings and audiovisual materials that reflect the cultural diversity and pluralistic nature of American society. The legislature further finds that it is in the interest of the state to protect the financial resources of libraries and educational institutions from being expended in litigation and to permit these resources to be used to the greatest extent possible for fulfilling the essential purpose of libraries and educational institutions." The bill would make elementary, secondary, and tribal school employees and officials subject to prosecution. The immunity still would apply to employees and officials of libraries, technical colleges and tax-exempt colleges and universities. The obscenity statute makes it a crime to import, print, sell, possess for sale, publish, exhibit, play, or distribute any obscene material; to produce or perform in any obscene performance; to distribute, exhibit, or play any obscene material to a person under the age of 18 years; or to possess with intent to distribute, exhibit, or play to a person under the age of 18 years any obscene material. First-offense violations of the statute are punishable by forfeitures of up to $10,000, and every day the obscenity violation continues is be a new violation. Under state law, “Obscene material" is any writing, picture, film, or other recording that: 1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find appeals to the prurient interest if taken as a whole; 2. Describes or shows sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and 3. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational or scientific value, if taken as a whole. The law also prohibits prosecutions without the express permission of the attorney general. SB307/AB307 – Eliminating defenses Defendants in criminal cases would be unable to plead they acted in self defense or were provoked into committing their alleged criminal actions if the action stemmed from learning or knowing about the alleged victim's gender identity or expression or sexual orientation or the potential disclosure of those factors. The defense elimination would apply in situations where the victim "made a romantic or sexual advance without use or threat of force or violence toward the defendant or in which the victim dated or had a romantic or sexual relationship with the defendant," according to the Legislative Reference Bureau explanation of the bill. It would apply, too, when the alleged victim dated or had a romantic or sexual relationship with the defendant. The bill also would eliminate the ability of a defendant to plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect if the state were brought about by the factors listed above. By Gretchen Schuldt
A rare mix of Democrats, Republicans, law enforcement, and the state Public Defenders Office came together this month to support a bill that would prohibit minors from being charged with prostitution. Thirty-one people in favor of the bill appeared at a public hearing and another 10 registered in support. No one appeared or registered in opposition. The measure, Assembly Bill 48/Senate Bill 55, would bring the state in line with federal law, which recognizes children engaged in commercial sex acts as victims, not criminals, State Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) said. It also would align with laws in Illinois, Minnesota, and Michigan, she said. "My hope is that it will make it easier for law enforcement and child welfare authorities to convince these children that they have done nothing wrong and are in no way responsible for the horrific acts they were forced into by their traffickers," she said. "Sexually exploited children exist in my district and in your district," State Rep. Jill Billings (D-La Crosse) told the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety. "The trafficking of children is happening in urban areas, rural areas, and has been reported in all 72 Wisconsin counties." State Sen. Jesse James (R-Altoona) said the average age a girl enters the sex trade is 12 to 14 years old. For boys, he said, it is 11 to 13 years old. "At times, there is a disconnect between the language we use and how we treat victims in the legal system," the state Public Defender's Office said in testimony. "A person under 18 years of age in the State of Wisconsin is presumed to be unable to give consent to engage in a sex act. In most circumstances a person under the age of 18 may not legally enter into a contract. Both are required under the legal definition of prostitution. More importantly, children engaging in sex acts for money are forced or coerced by the traffickers to engage in these acts. Treating children as delinquents/criminals only furthers the process of victimization." "This bill would prevent the prosecution or adjudication of individuals under the age of 18 for acts of prostitution, recognizing that they are often coerced, manipulated, or forced into these situations," said Donelle Hauser, president and CEO of Lad Lake. The organization said it has been working with underage victims of trafficking for more than 10 years. "By reframing the approach to address the underlying victimization rather than perpetuating a cycle of punishment, we can help these young individuals escape the exploitative environment and provide them with the necessary tools and support to rebuild their lives." "Child victims of sex trafficking are indeed victims — these are minors who cannot consent to sex and have been exploited and deserve to be protected," said Nila Grahl, Manager of Children's Wisconsin's Racine & Kenosha Child Advocacy Centers in written testimony. "Youth victims of sex trafficking need supportive health care, services and support — not fear of being charged with a crime. Unfortunately, sometimes the juvenile justice system is the only place youth are engaging with formal systems." "Treating sex-trafficked children as delinquents or criminals is self-defeating and harmful," the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault said in testimony. "The current approach increases distrust of law enforcement and child protective services, which hinders efforts to prosecute those responsible for child sex trafficking. Most importantly, the isolation of detention and the stigma of being treated as a delinquent serve only to exacerbate individuals’ feelings of guilt and shame, ultimately re-traumatizing child victims." The bill is pending in committees in the Assembly and Senate. By Alexandria Staubach
In theory, Wisconsin law currently permits expungement of certain felony and misdemeanor convictions. In practice, expungement is rare and difficult to obtain. Senate Bill 38/Assembly Bill 37 could change that. Iterations of the bill were introduced, but failed, in past legislative sessions. However, SB 38/AB 37 has broad, bipartisan support. (WJI discussed details of the bill in a previous post here.) “We are hopeful we can reach an agreement soon, pass the bill through the Senate, onto the Assembly and Governor's desk,” said Rep. Evan Goyke (D-Milwaukee), an advocate for expungement and a co-sponsor of the bill. “What we’ve been able to do with expungement is cultivate and continue to work with a broad and bipartisan coalition that doesn’t traditionally work together. My hope is that this can be an example of what can move criminal justice reform forward in Wisconsin.” A criminal conviction has implications far beyond the conviction itself. Collateral consequences include licensing exclusions that prohibit whole categories of employment, limits on voting, inability to access educational loans, and limits on public benefits. Expungement of a criminal record results in a conviction being sealed from public records. Bill sponsor Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) stated in testimony to the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee that expungement allows “people who have served their time . . . to fully contribute to their communities, without the discrimination of having an, albeit minor, case open to public record.” Current law is highly restrictive, and the practical effect is that very few people qualify, says Natalie Lewandowski, clinical director of the Milwaukee Justice Center’s Expungement/Pardon Mobile Legal Clinic. The current law permits expungement for an offense with a maximum penalty of six years, as long as the offense is not a violent felony, the person was under 25 years old and had no prior felony record, and the person requested expungement at the time of sentencing. A later court may then grant a request for expungement after the person has successfully completed their sentence. In 2020, the Court of Appeals held that even minor, technical violations of community supervision rules will bar expungement. In its Spring 2023 session, the Expungement/Pardon Mobile Legal Clinic assessed 60 convictions for expungement. Of those convictions, only four were found eligible for expungement, and zero were successfully expunged. Two of the four requests were denied due to probation revocations, one person ultimately failed to meet the age requirement, and one person owed a balance on court costs and fines. To date in its Summer session, the clinic has assessed 16 convictions and found only three qualified for expungement. Only one of the three was found eligible at a hearing, but expungement was nevertheless denied because of an earlier probation revocation. The pending bill eliminates the under-25 age requirement — the most exciting and expansive component, says Lewandowski. She is optimistic that SB 38/AB 37 will significantly expand access and result in more successful outcomes for clients. The clinic estimates that roughly 87% of individuals who previously obtained pardons through the clinic would now be eligible for expungement if the legislation is adopted. The bill also eliminates the requirement that the person must have asked for expungement at the time of sentencing. A sentencing court would retain its ability to grant or deny expungement, but the person could petition for expungement after successfully completing their sentence even if the matter was not addressed. Under the bill, if a petition for expungement is denied, the person could file again after two years and payment of $100. Only one expungement per person would be permitted, and a person could petition just twice per crime. The new SB 38/AB 37 specifies additional offenses that are ineligible for expungement, including traffic crimes, criminal trespass, criminal damage to a business, and violation of restraining orders in domestic abuse cases. The bill would apply the changes retroactively to convictions that occurred before adoption. A 2020 Cato Institute study of data from Michigan found that petition-based expungement policies resulted in only 6.5% of eligible individuals receiving expungements in the first five years of eligibility, people who receive expungements tended to have very low rates of recidivism, and expungement recipients exhibited better employment outcomes quickly. By Margo Kirchner
A bill before the Legislature would eliminate the need to find a notary public before filing certain court documents. Under the bill, Senate Bill 29/Assembly Bill 27, a person could submit a court document signed under penalty of perjury, and the document would have the same effect as an affidavit sworn in front of a notary public. The bill aligns Wisconsin law with a federal law in place since 1976 and with laws in other states. The Senate has already passed the bill. It awaits action by the Assembly’s State Affairs Committee. In testimony to the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee in support of the bill, Attorney Thomas Shriner of Foley & Lardner said the bill will create an “inexpensive and convenient” means for submitting evidence in Wisconsin courts and agencies. Shriner testified on behalf of the Wisconsin Judicial Council, which recommended the change. The Uniform Law Commission, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization advocating for consistent laws across states, also supported the bill before the Senate. The bill, if passed, will simplify submission of evidence for summary judgment motions and other points in civil litigation when affidavits are used as evidence. Attorneys will not have to coordinate getting their clients’ signatures notarized in the midst of meeting a motion deadline, for instance. A person submitting evidence to a court or agency without a notary’s signature and stamp would simply need to write and sign at the end of a document: “I declare under penalty of false swearing under the law of Wisconsin that the foregoing is true and correct.” Attorney Sarah Zylstra of the Boardman Clark law firm told Wisconsin Justice Initiative of the proposed rule's advantages for civil litigation attorneys and clients. The use of the rule in federal courts has shown that sworn declarations “are just as effective as affidavits, but with the benefit of being less costly and much more convenient for witnesses and attorneys,” she said. “It is not always convenient to find a notary to notarize an affidavit, and many notaries charge for their services.” The rule “is particularly important for those in rural areas, those who have transportation challenges, and when documents need to be signed quickly, on an emergency basis,” she said. The bill should make procedures simpler for litigants who represent themselves, too. Having documents notarized is one of many steps that self-represented people must accomplish to file court documents. Mary Ferwerda, executive director of the Milwaukee Justice Center, said in response to questions from Wisconsin Justice Initiative that getting a signature notarized is challenging for many people. “Most banks have a notary public on staff, but not everyone possesses bank accounts, and notary public services may not be available to those without an account. And, while courthouses do have notaries public, many people throughout the state do not live adjacent to a courthouse,” she said. Those who lack transportation or live with disabilities that limit their ability to travel are especially affected, she noted. Plus, when notaries charge for their services, “even nominal sums can be difficult to pay,” said Ferwerda. (Ferwerda takes no position on the pending bill.) If the bill passes, oaths of office, depositions, and real estate documents will still require a sworn statement before a notary. Under Wisconsin law in place since 2009, a declarant who is located outside of the United States is allowed to sign documents under penalty of perjury without finding a notary. The bill would mean that declarants within the United States may do so as well. The bill was introduced by Sens. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), Joan Ballweg (R-Markesan), and Eric Wimberger (R-Green Bay), and Reps. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison), Nik Rettinger (R-Mukwonago), Jeffrey Mursau (R-Crivitz), Elijah Behnke (R-Oconto) and Marisabel Cabrera (D-Milwaukee). Rep. Darrin Madison (D-Milwaukee) has since signed on as another co-sponsor. The change is part of a move toward uniform laws across the states and is known as the “Uniform Unsworn Declarations Act.” Gov. Evers this week signed bills imposing harsher sentences for reckless driving and carjacking.
“Reckless driving and other dangerous behaviors are putting our kids, families, and communities at risk all across our state, and we must do more at the state level to address dangerous behavior on our roads,” he said in a press release. Senate Bill 76, now Wisconsin Act 10, increases the maximum penalty for carjacking from 40 years in prison to 60 years in prison. It also recognizes and defines carjacking as a separate crime. Assembly Bill 55, now Wisconsin Act 9, increases penalties for several driving-related offenses. WJI has written about both measures previously, here and here. Evers also complained that the Joint Finance Committee stripped some traffic-related items from his proposed state budget. Those measures, he said, included:
By Gretchen Schuldt Senate Bill 125/Assembly Bill 119 – Teaching police interaction etiquette the way police want it Law enforcement would help develop a model school curriculum on how students should properly interact with law enforcement, which school districts then would be required to teach unless they specifically opted out, under a bill introduced by Republicans. The bill would require the Department of Public Instruction, in consultation with law enforcement, to "promulgate rules to develop a model curriculum for pupils in grades 5 to 12 to instruct pupils on how to interact with law enforcement with mutual cooperation and respect." The bill does not provide funding to school districts to cover the costs of developing the curriculum. It does require that the lessons include the role and responsibilities of law enforcement officials in providing for public safety, the responsibilities of an individual to comply with directives from law enforcement officials, and the legal rights of an individual in interactions with law enforcement officials. It also would require school boards and charter school operators to teach the curriculum in at least two grades in fifth through eighth grades and two grades from ninth through 12th grades. School districts and charter schools could opt out. A charter school governing body could elect not to include the language in its operating contract. School boards would be required to adopt a resolution specifically opting out of the curriculum. Legislative sponsors of this bill are listed in the table at the end of this post. Senate Bill 169/Assembly Bill 180 – Employment hotline This bill would require the Department of Workforce Development to establish and staff a hotline to assist employers who want to hire people with criminal records, according to notes attached to the bill that were provided by the Joint Legislative Council. DWD would provide information and assistance relating to available incentives and programs for hiring people with records, including those on certain work-release programs. The bill was introduced by the Legislative Council on behalf of its Study Committee on Increasing Offender Employment. Senate Bill 170/Assembly Bill 181 – Earned release expansion More incarcerated people could be eligible for the earned release program under this bill. It would make eligible some inmates who complete an employment readiness training program, defined as an "education, job training, employment, or other equivalent evidence-based program intended to lead to employment and reduce recidivism." Under the earned release program, incarcerated people can serve larger portions of their sentences under community supervision, instead of remaining incarcerated. The law now limits eligibility to incarcerated people who complete a substance abuse program. There are, unsurprisingly, many conditions attached to the proposal. To qualify, a person's conviction cannot be for a violent crime and an individual cannot be released from incarceration before serving at least two-thirds of the prison portion of a bifurcated sentence. Like the substance abuse earned release program, the employment readiness version would require the sentencing court to find the individual qualified for the program. The earned release training program, however, would allow inmates, with DOC's approval, to later petition the court for eligibility. The bill was introduced by the Legislative Council on behalf of its Study Committee on Increasing Offender Employment. Senate Bill 171/Assembly Bill 182 – Housing help for the formerly incarcerated Landlords would gain a degree of immunity from lawsuits and would be eligible for state funding of repairs for damage caused by recently released inmates who hold a certificate of rental readiness issued by the Department of Corrections, under this bill. DOC would be required to include rental readiness training in its prelease programming. The bill authorizes the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority to run a bond program to fund repairs for damage to rental property caused by a certificate holder. Coverage would be limited to a single lease period, not to exceed one year, and only during the first two years after a person's release. Landlords who lease to certificate holders would be immune from civil liability (lawsuits) "for the death of or injury to any individual or any damages caused by intentional acts or omissions of the tenant who holds the certification of rental readiness," according to the proposed bill. The bill was introduced by the Legislative Council on behalf of its Study Committee on Increasing Offender Employment. Senate Bill 172/Assembly Bill 183 – Community reentry centers The Department of Corrections would be required to contract with at least one nonprofit organization to establish a community reentry center for people reentering the community from prison, according to the bill. The center or centers would provide assistance and services as listed below, according to the bill. 1. Health: assistance in identifying and accessing appropriate health care services and mental health services based on the individual's needs. 2. Identification: assistance in obtaining identification documents such as the individual's birth certificate, social security card, state identification card, or driver's license, if eligible, including any necessary forms and instructions. 3. Financial: assistance in creating a bank account, including obtaining a debit card at the time of the individual's initial contact with the community reentry center. 4. Housing: assistance in obtaining access to emergency housing options for homeless individuals and contacting landlords that rent to formerly incarcerated individuals. 5. Employment: assistance in creating a resume, electronically submitting the resume where needed, and contacting relevant employment agencies to secure employment. 6. Education: assistance in identifying whether and how to proceed with the next level of education or vocational training the individual may want or need. 7. Supervision: a secured office space for department supervision agents to meet with individuals on community supervision. The bill does not fund any centers. The bill was introduced by the Legislative Council on behalf of its Study Committee on Increasing Offender Employment. Senate Bill 191/Assembly Bill 202 – Occupational licenses and criminal records The state agency that helps determine whether individuals are qualified for occupational licenses would be allowed to overlook certain arrests and convictions when investigating whether a person's criminal record is substantially related to the work covered by the requested credentials. The Department of Safety and Professional Services is allowed to refuse or revoke credentials if a person's crimes are substantially related to the licensed activity covered by the license. Under the bill, DSPS, while investigating, could overlook:
The bill was introduced by the Legislative Council on behalf of its Study Committee on Occupational Licenses. Senate Bill 230/Assembly Bill 237 – Psych evaluation: Another pre-release requirement This bill requires incarcerated people to undergo a psychological evaluation before being released on parole or discretionary extended supervision. The authority considering whether to grant the release would be required to consider the report in its deliberations. The bill also would require the Department of Corrections to send notice to victims at least 30 days before an incarcerated person's release on parole and supervision. It specifies that victims are allowed to make oral statements and use visual aids at court hearings related to a person's eligibility for parole or discretionary extended supervision. The bill grants law enforcement the power to notify the public of an individual's release into the community if the sheriff or police chief believes that is necessary to protect the safety of the public. Legislative sponsors of this bill are listed in the table below. Bill sponsorsBy Gretchen Schuldt
A bill to reform the state's restrictive expungement law is supported by a broad range of groups, from the conservative Americans for Prosperity to the progressive ACLU. Versions of the bill, Senate Bill 38/Assembly Bill 37 have been introduced but died in past sessions. They all would allow more people to have their criminal records expunged. "The expungement laws as currently written are outdated and actually increase likelihood of recidivism and family separation by unnecessarily complicating the opportunity of expungement for nonviolent offenders," AFP-Wisconsin Supervisor of Grassroots Operations Jamiroquan Kittler said in testimony to the Senate's Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. "Criminal records live on well after a person has done their time, functioning as a penalty that follows people forever as they navigate a world in which meaningful opportunities for growth and self-improvement are closed off to them," the ACLU said. Under current law, a record can be expunged if the maximum potential prison sentence is six years or less, the crime involved was not a violent felony, the person committing the crime was under 25 years old, and the person had never been previously convicted of any felony. In addition, expungement must be requested when a person is sentenced, meaning the judge is expected to decide whether the person is eligible for expunction before there is a track record of the person's post-conviction behavior. If the judge does not state at the time of sentencing that expungement will be allowed, the person cannot apply for it later. Under the new bill, the age restriction would be lifted. Certain other restrictions would remain, including those related to past felonies, violent felonies, and the six-year maximum prison sentence. The law, if passed, would also make some offenses ineligible for expungement, including traffic crimes, violating a domestic abuse injunction or restraining order, criminal trespass, and criminal damage to a business. Eligibility for expungement still could be granted or denied by the judge at sentencing, but if the court does not grant eligibility, the person could petition for expungement after completing the imposed sentence. If the petition is denied, the person would not be eligible to file another petition for two years and then must pay the county $100. A person would be limited to a maximum of two petitions per crime. Only one expungement per person would be allowed. The bill would be retroactive to include those convicted of crimes before its adoption. "For those who say this bill is 'soft on crime,' I challenge that," State Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) said in testimony. Cabral-Guevara is the lead Senate sponsor of the bill. "This bill is about providing a second chance to those who have already paid their debt to society. These are people who now actively contribute to their communities. This is not a hand-out, it is a hand-up." And State Rep. David Steffen (R-Green Bay), the Assembly author, said the "support for reforming Wisconsin’s outdated expungement law has only continued to grow as employers grapple with growing workforce needs." The Badger Institute said the state's expungement law "forces judges to make poor decisions with limited information, encourages uneven and often nonsensical administration of justice, and does little to help employers, victims, or low-level, non-violent offenders we should all want in jobs rather than cells." The bill includes procedures that are the product of input from a variety of stakeholders, said State Rep. Evan Goyke (D-Milwaukee). "The process balances pressures on caseloads with the individual rights of victims and defendants. The result is a process that ensures victim input through the district attorney’s office, while judges retain discretion to be the ultimate decision makers," he said. Registering in favor of the bill were AFP, the ACLU, the Badger Institute, the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, the Badger State Sheriffs' Association, the City of Milwaukee, Dane County, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, the Milwaukee Police Association, NAIOP Wisconsin (a commercial real estate group), National Association of Independent Business, the Outagamie County Board, the State Bar of Wisconsin, United Migrant Opportunity Services, the Waukesha County Business Alliance, the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, the Wisconsin Counties Association, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, the Wisconsin Economic Development Association, Wisconsin Independent Businesses, Wisconsin Professional Police Association, and the Wisconsin Restaurant Association. No organization has registered in opposition to the bill, which is pending in both the Senate and Assembly. By Gretchen Schuldt
What a busy April! Elections, Easter, spring vacations! All this means we fell behind with our legislative updates, so we are catching up. The Parole Commission would be required to make public information about the cases it considers and what happens to them, under a bill approved, 77-20, by the Assembly. The commission also would be required to publicly publish statistical reports and the guidance documents it uses when considering parole applications. All of the representatives voting against the bill were Democrats. In addition, 15 Democrats joined the Republicans to vote in favor of the bill. A chart showing individual votes is at the bottom of this post. Issues involving the commission, "including a lack of transparency and accountability,...create a serious threat to public safety," Rep. John Spiros (R-Marshfield) said in public testimony. The commission paroled a person in 2022 without notifying the victim's family, a violation of law and the Marsy's Law victim's rights amendment to the state constitution, he said. When legislators requested information from DOC and the Parole Commission, they got different responses or were ignored. "They do not value transparency or respect state law, and their public notices do not list individuals whose applications are to be heard, something which is standard practice for the Governor's Pardon Board," Spiros said. "The Parole Commission's meeting minutes do not Include statutorily required votes to enter Into closed session, and the Commission often fails to notify victims' families of upcoming parole hearings. Additionally, neither DOC nor the Parole Commission provide any statistics on who is being paroled." Opponents of the bill did not speak during discussion on the Assembly floor last month. The bill, Assembly Bill 47, is pending in the Senate. The Assembly approved Assembly Bill 57, which would require prosecutors to seek permission from judges to dismiss certain charges against defendants, even if a prosecutor learns the defendant is innocent of the charge or believes the evidence does not support the charge. The bill would also prohibit prosecutors from offering deferred prosecution agreements to individuals charged or who could possibly be charged with certain crimes. The vote was 62-35. All Republicans supported the measure. All Democrats opposed it. For more information on the bill, check out WJI's previous post here. That bill, too, is pending in the Senate. Finally, the Assembly approved, 62-35, a bill establishing a mandatory minimum prison term for people convicted of felon-in-possession of a firearm if they previously have been convicted of a violent felony. The original bill, Assembly Bill 58, would have mandated a bifurcated sentence that includes at least five years of initial confinement if there was a prior history of any felony conviction. An amendment, however, increases the maximum penalty from five years years in prison and five years of supervised release to a total of to 12½ years, and allows an incarceration period of up to 7½ years followed by five years of supervised release. The five-year mandatory-minimum provision and the amendment would both apply only to those whose previous records include "violent felony" convictions. A bill that would establish much tougher sentences for those convicted of making or supplying certain drugs that lead to the death of another person (known as the "Len Bias" law) was approved by the Senate. The maximum prison term under the bill would increase from 40 years to 60 years. The vote on Senate Bill 101 was 28-3. The Senate last week gave final approval to a bill doubling many penalties for reckless driving.
The Senate vote was 30-2, with only Sens. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) and Diane Hesslebein (D-Middleton) voting against it. The Assembly approved the bill, 85-12, last month. Some aspects of the bill, Assembly Bill 55, will affect few people. WJI previously reported on the bill's contents and impacts here. Both houses have approved a bill toughening penalties for carjacking, increasing the maximum prison penalty by 20 years, from 40 years to 60 years. The bill, Senate Bill 76, also would create a separate carjacking offense. That bill was approved by the Senate in March on a 23-8 vote. It was approved last week in the Assembly, 80-18. The bills now await final action by Gov. Evers. Earlier this month, Evers signed a bill allowing local governments to adopt ordinances authorizing police to impound a reckless driver's vehicle if the driver owns the vehicle, has a prior reckless driving citation, and has not fully paid the forfeiture for that offense. The measure is now 2023 Act 1. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|