|
By Alexandria Staubach
More than 60 people appeared at a virtual Department of Corrections hearing Tuesday morning to comment on the Department of Corrections’ failure to implement a decade-old law that could change revocations statewide. Attendees raised personal, ethical, and legal arguments about the DOC’s proposed new administrative rule to implement 2013 Wisconsin Act 196. DOC proposed the new rule two weeks ago. As WJI reported last week, Act 196 requires the DOC to develop a list of sanctions that may be imposed for the most common violations, offering “clear and immediate consequences for violations.” The law also mandates that any rule developed by DOC take into account the impact of revocation on an offender’s employment and family. Advocates say that the DOC until now has largely ignored Act 196, which passed with bipartisan support. Participants at today’s hearing said the proposed rule remains insufficient to bring DOC into compliance with the law. The Wisconsin Legislative Council has said that the current rule “does not set forth a list of sanctions for the most common violations, nor does it explain what specific evidenced-based responses may be applied to a violation (e.g., when revocation is the required response). Instead, it implies that the list of sanctions and responses will be contained in a document somewhere outside the administrative rules.” Many at today’s hearing shared personal stories about how lengthy and unpredictable terms of supervision have impacted them. “It feels arbitrary and excessive,” said JenAnn Bauer, who has served eight years of supervision, which she said was more than 75% of any possible prison sentence. She said that despite making significant payments toward restitution, fees for extended supervision and her financial obligations to the court system keep growing. “I feel trapped in a cage made of numbers, not bars,” she said. Sean Wilson, Senior Director of Organizing and Partnerships at Dream.org, also expressed concerned about the impact of fees accrued during supervision. He said the proposed rule would actually codify profits into supervision, giving private vendors control over fees. A section of the proposed rule says “a vendor is authorized to charge a fee to probationers, parolees, and persons on extended supervision to cover the cost of supervision and administration of the contract.” Wilson called the DOC’s proposed rule a “missed opportunity” because the rule continues to be “focused on managing people rather than their success.” He said he recognized that DOC faces significant issues in staffing, but elsewhere in the nation departments use technology like kiosks to reduce the burden of check-ins on supervisees who are least likely to reoffend. Marianne Olson, an advocate with Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing who has been on supervision for eight years and has another 18 to go, said “people are being sent back (to prison) not to protect public safety but to punish past behavior,” in violation of federal law. Supervision “should be an opportunity for restoration, not retaliation” she said, calling extended supervision “retaliation disguised as support.” Shannon Ross of The Community criticized the DOC for seemingly not engaging any formerly incarcerated people in developing the rule. “A lot of us would be great in those rooms at the end of these things,” he said. WISDOM's Tom Gilbert, who has met with DOC about this issue since 2019, said the decisions that the DOC and its “agents make every day regarding people under your supervision, widely affect families, employers, health care providers, social services providers, schools—in other words, whole communities and this whole state.” The public comment period on the proposed rule will remain open through August 8. Instructions for submitting comments can be found here.
0 Comments
By Alexandria Staubach
The Wisconsin Department of Corrections will hold a virtual hearing on July 8 for public comments on proposed new rules that could improve supervision and avoid revocations, though an advocate says the rules could be even better. More than a decade ago, the Legislature passed 2013 Wisconsin Act 196, which says the DOC “shall” create rules for a system of short-term sanctions for violations of supervision conditions, with “a list of sanctions to be imposed for the most common violations.” The rules were to give flexibility in imposing sanctions while providing “offenders with clear and immediate consequences for violations.” Implementation of the law had the potential to eliminate harsh revocation prison sentences and dramatically reduce the prison population. Instead, in 2019, the DOC created an administrative rule that an advocate says gives lip service to the law and continues opaque standards that prop up incarceration as the primary vehicle for revocation sanctions. “The rule was one sentence,” WISDOM’s Tom Gilbert recently told WJI. “It said they will adopt an evidence-based response to violations, which is what they had before the law was passed.” Gilbert calls the current administrative rule “wasted words and paper.” He strongly believes that the current rule does little to address the requirements imposed by the law. “I understand the difference between the word ‘shall’ and the word ‘may,'" Gilbert said. “When I learned about Act 196 and its potential for changing the way things are done and the consequences, I thought this could be a game changer,” said Gilbert. On behalf of WISDOM, Gilbert has been meeting with DOC about the law and rule since 2019. WISDOM is a statewide network of faith-based organizations and others advocating for racial, social and economic justice. In 2024, more than 8,000 people were admitted to Wisconsin’s prisons, and roughly 60% of those admissions were based on revocations, per DOC data. Act 196 was designed to ensure that short-term sanctions for individuals who violate the rules of their probation, parole, deferred sentence, or community supervision are tailored and take several individual factors into account. While correcting the offender’s behavior, providing proportionate consequences, and protecting the public are all objectives, the law requires DOC also to ensure “that efforts to minimize the impact on an offender’s employment” and “efforts to minimize the impact on an offender’s family” are made when imposing sanctions. Gilbert said that if DOC followed the law and considered the impacts on a person’s employment and family, it would be a radical departure from its current Electronic Case Reference Manual, which “says very little about these things.” The statute also requires DOC to be transparent about specific sanctions for the common types of rule violations. Before Act 196 passed, and continuing today, DOC has determined revocation sanctions using an evidenced-based, but proprietary, tool called “the Compass,” Gilbert said. “Because it’s a proprietary tool, no one can see how (DOC) arrives at their decisions." Defendants and defense attorneys have no way of knowing what sanctions will be imposed for what violations or how decisions to revoke are made, he said. Proper implementation of Act 196 through an improved rule could require DOC to set forth a clear list of sanctions for the most common offenses. “People would know in advance,” and “that kind of transparency is sadly lacking in supervision today,” said Gilbert. This year, DOC proposed new rules, which are the subject of the July 8 public hearing. After the hearing, interested individuals will have 30 days to submit written comments. Gilbert said the proposed rules “still will not implement the law” because they merely quote the eight requirements of Act 196 and fail to develop the mandated system of short-term sanctions. He called this a “conscious omission, not an oversight.” However, “the release of the proposed Act 196 rules for public comment provides a real opportunity to communicate our vision of a community corrections system that focuses on restoration, both of affected individuals and the communities in which they and we live,” Gilbert told WJI. More information about the hearing and how to make public comments can be found here.  The packed meeting of Milwaukee's Equal Rights Commission at Milwaukee City Hall on June 18, 2025, regarding Milwaukee Police Department's use of facial recognition technology. Photograph by Emilio De Torre. The Milwaukee Police Department claimed in a recent hearing that it is being transparent with the public about its plan to license facial recognition technology, but the department has been using the technology behind closed doors for more than two years. MPD has been borrowing the technology from neighboring police departments. Milwaukee’s Equal Rights Commission held a public hearing on June 18 regarding MPD’s proposal to acquire two licenses for facial recognition technology. MPD Chief of Staff Heather Hough began her remarks by telling ERC commissioners and the packed hearing room that “Post Act 12, the Milwaukee Police Department . . . does not have to be engaged in these conversations,” but said the department wanted to take the plan to the community. Hough likened the department’s use of the technology to date as sharing passwords on the streaming service Netflix. “We asked our neighbors for too many cups of sugar,” said at the hearing. MPD’s use of the technology currently operates without a standard operating procedure or oversight. While community members attending the ERC hearing held neon signs that stated “FRT is inherently biased,” Hough spun to a different aspect of bias. As though inspired by the phrase “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” Hough said the technology is only biased when the user is biased. She insisted that the two individuals with sole access to the two licenses would not use it in a biased way. MPD showed slides noting more than a dozen instances of prior use of facial recognition technology to assist in apprehending a criminal suspect. The department also shared details of at least three cases when the information led to criminal charges. MPD Major Crimes Division Captain David Anderson described identification of one suspect using facial recognition technology. The results included three individuals who were a positive match rating 97%, 95% or 93%. The individual ultimately charged corresponded with the 93% match. ERC Commissioner (and WJI Policy Analyst) Alexandria Staubach replied that three matches for one individual rating 97%, 95% and 93% demonstrate the real bias issue and called the technology “notoriously inaccurate,” especially for Black and brown individuals. Staubach said MPD’s example shows that the results are “inherently unreliable.” ERC Vice Chair Jacqueline Cook shared Staubach’s concern and said that the facial recognition software on her phone permits her daughter to open it. Hough initially disclosed MPD’s use of the technology at a Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission meeting in March. That meeting centered on MPD’s new drone program. FPC Commissioner Krissie Fung had posed a hypothetical in which MPD’s drones could be updated with facial recognition technology and asked Hough how MPD would deal with software updates they could not control. Hough responded then that the department was already using facial recognition technology on “a case-by-case basis,” but that the technology was a separate issue from the drones. Fung attended last week’s ERC hearing and spoke in opposition to MPD’s use of facial recognition technology. Fung highlighted that MPD has been using the technology “for years” and that “MPD did not choose to be transparent until they were forced to,” referencing Hough’s comments that the department could no longer borrow licenses from partner jurisdictions and now wanted to acquire their own. When asked at the ERC hearing whether MPD had formally brought their prior use to the attention of the Fire and Police Commission, FPC Executive Director Leon Todd said they had not. 2023 Wisconsin Act 12, mentioned by Hough as allowing MPD to purchase the facial recognition technology licenses without another body’s approval, largely gutted oversight of the MPD by the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission. Nevertheless, the statute says the FPC must “conduct at least once each year a policy review of all aspects of the operations of the police and fire departments of the city.” And Milwaukee’s Common Council can reverse any MPD policy or standard operating procedure with a two-thirds majority vote. While the common council has not altered any standard operating procedure since Act 12 took effect, ERC Commissioner Tony Snell shared at the hearing that several alders had in fact written to Chief of Police Jeffrery Norman opposing the department’s plan to obtain facial recognition technology.  Attendees and WJI Policy Analyst and commission member Alexandria Staubach at the Milwaukee Equal Rights Commission meeting at Milwaukee City Hall on June 18, 2025, about Milwaukee Police Department's plan to purchase facial recognition technology licenses. Photograph by Emilio De Torre. By Alexandria Staubach It is difficult to find two of the three Milwaukee Municipal Court judges on the bench doing work visible to the public. That is Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s conclusion after visiting the court several times from November 2024 through last week. Specifically in branches 1 and 3, the lights may be on but often no one is home. The reasons could include a combination of a 77% drop in case load since 2018 and the two judges continuing to hold court virtually, even post-pandemic. Cases filed in the court have declined from a peak of nearly 86,000 total filings in 2018 to less than 24,000 in 2024. WJI staff visiting Milwaukee Municipal Court found that in contrast to visits to Milwaukee County Circuit Court, there was never a line to get in, and the waiting room was generally empty. While the municipal court officially begins at 8:30 a.m., Branch 3, assigned to Presiding Judge Phil Chavez, was often locked, closed, with the lights off sometimes as early as 9:00 a.m. In Branch 1, assigned to Judge Valarie Hill, WJI staff often found the same thing: the door locked with nothing happening inside. When these judges were on the bench, they consistently appeared virtually by Zoom. WJI never observed Hill or Chavez physically present in the courthouse. Branch 2 Judge Molly Gena generally appears in person, hearing cases from the bench in her courtroom, even when defendants have elected to appear virtually. During the pandemic, the court adopted a policy that permitted virtual appearances, and it seems Hill and Chavez never came back to court. They appear virtually for everything from initial appearances to trials. Whether based on a formal policy of the court or merely the desires of Hill and Chavez, it is often only the defendant and bailiff in the courtroom, and sometimes a clerk. The judge appears on screen. Observers must attend in person. There is no public facing forum for the public to join or view hearings by Zoom or live streaming.  Presiding Judge Phil Chavez on the bench (on Zoom) on June 6, 2025. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. While virtual appearances provide a convenient means to deal with citations for individuals without reliable transportation, who struggle with childcare, or who might have to take significant time off from work to go downtown, it is unclear what benefit is conveyed to the general public for the judges to be out of the courtroom. Milwaukee County Circuit Court also permitted virtual appearances during the pandemic but has generally returned to in-person proceedings with a judge on the bench. Much about Milwaukee Municipal Court procedure changed due to the pandemic and continues that way. For example, a defendant in 2019 could walk into Milwaukee Municipal Court and expect to resolve an outstanding case, whether or not they were officially on the court’s docket. The court’s website still reflects that walk-ins are suspended and will “remain suspended until further notice.” In October of 2024, when the court’s website indicated that walk-in appearances were suspended, WJI asked the court whether it was possible to walk in and resolve a case. A court services assistant said “Milwaukee Municipal Court is not doing walk-ins for court. You can appear at the reception window and fill out any forms needed regarding your case, they will be submitted to the Judge and the Judge will correspond accordingly.” However, people have not stopped coming to the court with the expectation that they can resolve their cases. WJI spoke last week with Corina Wage, owner of CJ’s Pub. She came in to pay an old citation. “They told me ‘no,’” Wage said, adding “that I have to reopen my case on paper.” What Wage did not know is that Chavez was present in his courtroom, albeit virtually, poised to finish a docket before 10:00 a.m. The court’s current policy is that one must have an appointment to come to court. The website reflects the following method to schedule defendants: “The date of your first court appearance is written on your citation (ticket), summons or complaint. The Court conducts hearings virtually and in person. Prior to the court date, you will receive a letter with steps to register. You MUST register in advance and notify the Court if you will appear virtually or in person.” Meanwhile, the municipal court docket has shrunk. The year-end total of filed cases for 2024 was 23,698, while the total in 2018 was 85,984. The year before the pandemic, total charges filed were just under 60,000, and the court returned to approximately that number in 2022. But case numbers have dropped substantially since then.  ​Chart created by Alexandria Staubach using data from Milwaukee Municipal Court available at https://municipalcourt.milwaukee.gov/resources/reports-and-statistics. The decrease in case load is consistent with a Wisconsin Policy Forum report issued earlier this year that showed dramatic decreases in overall Milwaukee Police Department arrests for more serious matters, “proactive” policing, and citations for driving offenses.  Chart created by Alexandria Staubach using data from Milwaukee Municipal Court available at https://municipalcourt.milwaukee.gov/resources/reports-and-statistics. While the court’s docket has decreased, its judges’ pay has increased. Milwaukee’s three municipal judges were each paid $133,049.02 in 2015. They now make $153,006.62 annually. Then as now, they are among the highest paid elected city officials. Their pay is exceeded only by that for the mayor ($169,436.28) and city attorney ($169,436.02).
 Judge Valarie Hill on the bench (on Zoom) on May 9, 2025, at 9:28 a.m. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach.
By Alexandria Staubach The Wisconsin Policy Forum last week released the findings of a comprehensive look at Milwaukee’s Criminal Justice Council, a relatively unknown collaborative group of city and county officials who wield power in the Milwaukee County criminal justice system and strive to improve intergovernmental cooperation. The Criminal Justice Council is nearing its 20th anniversary, yet many in the Milwaukee area are unfamiliar with its existence or work. The forum's "In the Interest of Justice" report said that the council's long-term impact is threatened by a lack of public awareness about the council, unstable funding streams, and the council’s lofty goals when weighed against its capacity. “Many of the idea and action items that emanate from subcommittees fail to materialize because of a lack of CJC staff capacity and limited help from partner organizations,” the report said. A rash of retirements, including those of former Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm and Wisconsin State Public Defender Regional Attorney Manager Tom Reed, resulted in loss of “’key longstanding CJC leaders,’” according to unnamed sources quoted by the forum. The forum wrote that “(o)ne individual we spoke with noted that the ‘key drivers of action’ in regard to the Milwaukee CJC are the Chief Judge, the District Attorney, the Public Defender’s Office, and the Department of Corrections.” Participation by other justice system leaders, in particular the Milwaukee mayor, Milwaukee County executive, Milwaukee police chief, and Milwaukee County sheriff, “has ebbed and flowed over the years,” said the report. “(E)nsuring more consistent and active participation from these stakeholders may be a worthwhile goal for the CJC in the months ahead,” the report said. The forum recommends opening the council to business leaders and interests, developing a separate and independent nonprofit organization to continue on as the CJC, developing funding for staff from the city and county, and enhancing public communications about the council’s activities and initiatives. The CJC relies primarily on funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, or “JAG.” As is the case for all federal funding now, “changes in JAG funding levels or policies might eventually preclude (CJC) from accessing these funds,” the report said. Further, “that concern has served as a deterrent to further investment in staff and other resources.” The CJC currently has three staff members, including an executive director. All work out of and are employed by the Wisconsin Policy Forum through grants made to the CJC. According to the forum, “the decision to house the positions in an independent nonprofit organization and have them be employees of WPF—as opposed to one of the justice system agencies that participate in the CJC—stemmed from the Executive Committee’s sentiment that placing the positions in a department of either county or city government would convey that one of those governments had greater control over the council.” The report indicates that one of the council’s key early initiatives was to investigate how the criminal justice system could better use work-release programs. The council also oversaw the creation and implementation of risk-assessment tools used to set bail at the initial appearance in every criminal case in the county. While the CJC’s early days focused on data collection, community engagement, external communications, and jail population, its 2024 strategic plan added “new priority areas that include violence prevention, housing, mental health and trauma, and youth justice,” according to the report. The report indicates that the CJC may have grown out of a 2007 resolution of the Board of County Supervisors at the request of then-Sheriff David Clarke, to deal with a consent decree that mandated a population reduction in the county jail system. Some individuals who were around at the council’s inception, however, credit “an outgrowth of efforts already underway among justice system leaders to better understand the work of their peers and encourage greater collaboration,” the report said. The first meeting was attended by Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge Kitty Brennan, Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn, Milwaukee County House of Correction Superintendent Ron Malone, Clarke, and Chisholm. The report cited an unnamed senior county staff member as saying “it was remarkable to have leaders of such distinct political and ideological backgrounds meet on such a frequent and productive basis.” Later additions to the council included the presiding judge of Milwaukee Municipal Court, representatives from the State Public Defender’s Office and Wisconsin Department of Corrections, the chair of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors’ Judiciary Committee, the director of the Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services, Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel, a representative from the Eastern District of Wisconsin’s U.S. Attorney’s Office, the leader of the Milwaukee Homicide Review Committee, and a citizen representative. Current CJC executive committee members: Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman Milwaukee Municipal Court Presiding Judge Phillip Chavez Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita Ball Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern (Council Vice Chair) First Judicial District (Milwaukee County Circuit Court) Chief Judge Carl Ashley (Council Chair) Milwaukee County Supervisor Willie Johnson, Jr. Milwaukee County Community Reintegration Center Superintendent Chantell Jewell Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services Director Shakita LaGrant-McClain Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel Scott Brown Milwaukee County Circuit Court Clerk Anna Hodges Wisconsin State Public Defender Regional Attorney Manager Angel Johnson Wisconsin Department of Corrections Community Corrections Regional Chief Niel Thoreson U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Wisconsin representative (Richard Frohling currently Acting U.S. Attorney) Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission and DataShare Director Constance Kostelac Community Representative Walter Lanier  By Alexandria Staubach After a loss in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals by service provider JusticePoint, Milwaukee’s municipal court diversion program seems poised to sunset, despite strong community support for the program and a two-year court battle to keep it going. JusticePoint has long facilitated the Municipal Court Alternatives Program, helping those who cannot afford to pay Milwaukee municipal tickets complete community service options and connecting defendants with housing resources and drug and alcohol treatment. JusticePoint provided such services for four decades, but Milwaukee Municipal Court notified JusticePoint in spring 2023 that it was terminating the contract under a “convenience” clause. JusticePoint fought the termination under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law. It initially won a temporary restraining order continuing services, but then lost on the merits in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. A stay from the Court of Appeals kept the court alternatives program in place during JusticePoint’s appeal. JusticePoint lost that appeal last month. The appeals court decision hinged on whether JusticePoint distributed its own services or instead provided services on behalf of the city.  White Chief Judge Maxine White authored the opinion, joined by Judges Pedro Colón and Sara Geenen.
JusticePoint argued that it was distributing services on behalf of the city. If so, the fair dealership law would have raised the city’s obligations for termination of the JusticePoint contract and required “good cause, proper notice, and an opportunity to cure,” White wrote. However, the appeals court found that the contract between JusticePoint and the city “appears to be a typical vendor-vendee relationship,” and “JusticePoint was selling and distributing its own services.” Thus, “the circuit court properly dismissed JusticePoint’s complaint and denied Justice Point’s request for an injunction,” White wrote. "As it has been since the beginning, our primary interest is to ensure that these services remain available to the residents of Milwaukee. If nothing else, our lawsuit has kept these services in place for the past two years," said Edward Gordon, chief operating officer of JusticePoint, in an email to WJI last week. The city argued that applying the fair dealership law to the JusticePoint contract would “effectively swallow public procurement law” and “would make it nearly impossible for a government entity to ever terminate a contract that it determines is no longer serving the public good,” according to the appeals court decision. The city attorney’s office represented Milwaukee Municipal Court in the lawsuit. “We applaud the Court of Appeals affirmation of the Circuit Court in their holding that no dealership relationship existed in the city’s contracting for services with JusticePoint. Such a precedent would be harmful to Milwaukee—and all local governments—and limit the ability to provide the very type of innovative, community-based programming that’s needed,” City Attorney Evan Goyke told WJI yesterday. “The city has always acknowledged the importance of programming and alternative resolutions for eligible individuals in the Municipal Court system,” Goyke said. Concerns remain about who or what will replace the alternatives program if it now sunsets. WJI board member Jim Gramling, who served as a Milwaukee Municipal Court judge for 21 years before retirement, filed a “friend of the court” brief in the JusticePoint appeal. "A significant percentage of defendants coming through the court live in poverty or struggle with addictions or mental health challenges," he told WJI this week. "Nearly 95% of the defendants proceed without an attorney.” Gramling said he was unaware of any provider ready to step in to replace JusticePoint. “Without the services provided by MCAP, those defendants are destined to be ground up in the system,” he said. When the city first attempted to terminate the JusticePoint contract in 2023, WJI asked then-chief court administrator Sheldyn Himle whether services would continue with a different provider. At the time, Himle responded that “Milwaukee Municipal Court’s intervention/alternatives program will continue, just not with the current vendor.” WJI reached out to current Milwaukee Municipal Court chief administrator Tea Norfolk following the court of appeals decision. She declined to comment on when or whether services would resume with another provider.  Entrance to the Wisconsin Senate in the Wisconsin State Capitol. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach The Wisconsin Senate recently voted along party lines to codify several types of specialty courts, including a controversial business court. The bill, having previously passed in the Assembly along party lines, now heads to Gov. Tony Evers for signature or veto. Treatment courts, such as drug courts and mental health courts, have long held bipartisan support. The creation of special civil courts to deal with large business and commercial case has been more controversial. Passage of the bill puts the Legislature’s stamp of approval on them. At the bill’s May 15 reading in the full Senate, Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison), criticized the bill as creating a “rocket docket for guys like Elon Musk,” without providing funding for any of the specialty courts, especially the treatment courts. “We don’t need a system where the powerful, the wealthy, the best connected among us get to have their own court system, their own handpicked judges, and then the rest of us can sit around and wait for our day in court to resolve really important critical matters,” said Roys. To date, specialty courts have generally been created by the courts themselves. For instance, Milwaukee County Circuit Court last summer started a specialty court for cases in which a defendant’s competency is at issue. Specific judges have been assigned to a specific type of case, sometimes with training in that legal area. AB 73 would recognize in statute the following specialty courts: adult drug treatment court, juvenile drug treatment court, operating-while-intoxicated treatment court, mental health treatment court, family dependency treatment court, veterans’ treatment court, hybrid treatment court, and tribal healing-to-wellness court. Treatment courts have long been used throughout the state. The bill also statutorily recognizes a specialized docket for commercial cases, the subject of Roys’ concern. A special court for business interests is relatively newer and will not immediately affect every county in Wisconsin. We don’t need a system where the powerful, the wealthy, the best connected among us get to have their own court system, their own handpicked judges, and then the rest of us can sit around and wait for our day in court to resolve really important critical matters. Wisconsin Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) Wisconsin’s commercial courts were born out of a 2017 Supreme Court rule that characterized the specialty docket as a “pilot project.” That pilot project lasted more than seven years in only certain trial courts in the state.
Last year, the Supreme Court evaluated the pilot project and declined to extend it for another two years. The court divided along ideological lines. Referencing the same courts that were part of the pilot project, the bill provides procedures for establishing commercial courts in the following judicial districts and their corresponding counties: the second district (Kenosha, Racine, Walworth), the third district (Dodge, Jefferson, Ozaukee, Washington, Waukesha), the fifth district (Columbia, Dane, Green, Lafayette, Rock, Sauk), the eighth district (Brown, Door, Kewaunee, Marinette, Oconto, Outagamie, Waupaca), and the tenth district (Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Chippewa, Douglas, Dunn, Eau Claire, Iron, Polk, Rusk, St. Croix, Sawyer, Washburn). Judges would be assigned to those counties with prior or existing commercial courts by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, “after considering the recommendation of the chief judge of the encompassing judicial administrative district,” according to the bill. The bill can be retroactively applied to any county that chooses to develop a commercial court. The first district, composed solely of Milwaukee County Circuit Court, which is the busiest judicial district, was not part of the pilot program and does not currently have a commercial court. Roys at the May 15 floor session strongly supported recognition of treatment and diversion courts, saying that they were “win-win.” She suggested that the Legislature dedicate state funds to run them. “Without an appropriation, without money, programs can’t run,” she said. Recognition and funding of the treatment courts is “one step that we can take to address the shameful fact that Wisconsin incarcerates two to three times more people than our neighboring state of Minnesota, and I refuse to believe that Wisconsinites are two to three times worse than Minnesotans,” Roys said. But she proposed that the Legislature delete the provision recognizing business courts. The commercial courts do “nothing to help everyday Wisconsinites,” she said. Sen. André Jacque (R-New Franken) disagreed with Roys, saying the bill “was not about creating a rocket docket for anything” and that “these are all specialty courts that have been in operation in Wisconsin, and very successfully I might add.” Jacque sponsored the bill in the Senate, along with Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), Sen. Dan Feyen (R-Fond du Lac), and Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater). In written testimony filed with the bill, Jacque said the commercial courts would “aid the effective resolution of commercial disputes and help provide more certainty for our economy.” Before declining to extend the pilot project last year, the Supreme Court held a public hearing in September 2024 at which those involved in commercial litigation overwhelmingly supported continuing the business court. Retired Judge Richard G. Ness was a rare voice against the project. Ness said at the September hearing that the program is the “creation of a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.” He said that in his 13 years on the bench, he never encountered an inability to effectively deal with civil business cases. Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley asked how business court differed from juvenile court, sexual assault court, probate court, criminal courts, and other civil courts. She told Ness that he was holding the commercial courts to a “very different standard” than the other specialty courts. Ness, who testified that he also spent 26 years representing big business, previously said in an op-ed for Wisconsin Watch that the project “has granted large commercial interests outsized influence over our court system’s handling of their cases, exactly as intended.” By Alexandria Staubach The number of students experiencing homelessness in Wisconsin increased from 13,499 in the 2020-2021 school year to a record high of 20,195 in the 2023-2024 school year. This is the third consecutive year of increase after hitting an all-time low during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Wisconsin Department of Education has tracked its students’ housing data since 2019. The numbers come from an April report by the Wisconsin Policy Forum. The high 2023-2024 number is a 9.1% increase over the previous year, despite increased enrollment of only 1.1%, the report says.  Graph from the Wisconsin Policy Forum report "Student Homelessness at a New High," April 2025. The prevalence of homelessness cuts along sadly predictable lines. English learners and students with disability experience homelessness at a rate of 5.6% and 3.9% respectively. The rate for students of color is 5.5%, according to the report. While the report shows an increase in young students experiencing homelessness, it also shows the rate increasing dramatically as students age and are more likely to be “unaccompanied.” Unaccompanied students are those without a parent or other adult to supervise them. The Milwaukee Public School system alone serves 23.7% of the total population of students experiencing homelessness and 40.7% of the state’s unaccompanied unhoused students. Other urban districts account for 37.9% of the state's students experiencing homelessness, while school districts in suburbs, towns, and rural areas total 38.3%.  Graph from the Wisconsin Policy Forum report "Student Homelessness at a New High," April 2025. To understand the relationship between criminal justice involvement and youth homelessness, WJI talked with DeShanda Williams-Clark, chief program officer for Pathfinders. Pathfinders provides direct services to youth experiencing homelessness, based on individual need. Williams-Clark said that some youths find themselves involved in the criminal justice system while trying to avoid homelessness. “Young people who are facing instability, so they don’t end up in the street, they are creative with how they meet the cost of living without support,” she said. Williams-Clark said that in Milwaukee, Pathfinders sees youth who are “criminalized for survival.” She has seen instances where young people are coerced or forced into behaviors that they might not even know are against the law. “A lot of youth are just trying to survive in the community alone” and butt up against law enforcement because of it, she said. For example, while Milwaukee does not have encampment laws, youth located outside the city are sometimes criminalized for sleeping in tents when they may have no place else to go, she said. The rising costs and general unavailability of housing contribute to the problem, Williams-Clark said. “Criminal justice involvement doesn’t help end homelessness and results in hopelessness,” said Williams-Clark. She said homelessness coupled with criminal justice involvement makes it more difficult for young people to see a path forward. “As a community it costs us even more,” she said. According to Voices of Youth Count, a national study documenting the prevalence of youth homelessness, 46% of youth who experience homelessness had also been in a juvenile detention facility, prison, or jail. The study found that unhoused youths nationally are more susceptible to status offenses—conduct that would not be a crime but for age. They are more likely to be ticketed for offenses like breaking curfew or running away than their housed counterparts. The same study showed that unhoused youths who have been in foster care demonstrated a greater likelihood of being involved in the juvenile justice system and were more likely to identify as LGBTQ+. Those findings are consistent with what Pathfinders sees in Milwaukee. Williams-Clark said that the majority of the youths Pathfinders works with identify as Black or African American. Many young clients have a mental health issue, and a sizeable portion are part of the LGBTQ+ community. By Alexandria Staubach An advocacy coalition today called on Milwaukee’s Common Council to adopt and implement a Community Control Over Police Surveillance ordinance. Already adopted in 26 cities throughout the nation, CCOPS ordinances are designed to ensure that people living in municipalities have a meaningful opportunity to participate in decisions on the purchase and use of surveillance technologies. Cities that have adopted a CCOPS ordinance include Madison, Wisconsin; St. Louis, Missouri; and Detroit, Michigan. The ordinance would not ban the use of surveillance technology. Instead, the ordinance is “a mechanism to democratize the decision-making process surrounding Milwaukeeans’ personal privacy and surveillance and to ensure transparency and accountability in programs funded or administered by local government," the coalition's letter to the Common Council said. The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin leads the coalition. Wisconsin Justice Initiative is a member, as are the Milwaukee Turners and Black Leaders Organizing for Communities organizations. "Law enforcement surveillance should always be the exception, and never the norm,” said WJI President Craig Johnson regarding CCOPS and the coalition's letter. “As new and more surveillance technologies emerge, WJI believes the people of Milwaukee deserve full transparency as to the means, methods, and costs associated with police surveillance. Excessive surveillance can negatively impact the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens," Johnson said. "CCOPS is a critical tool for revealing information about how and when law enforcement surveils us and shifting power back to the community,” Milwaukee Turners’ Executive Director Emilio De Torre told WJI. “That information, and that decision, belong to the public—both because we are the ones being surveilled and because it is paid for by our taxpayer dollars,” said De Torre. The model ordinance takes a three-pronged approach to ensure community control over the adoption and implementation of surveillance technologies. First, it would require a public hearing and approval of the Common Council before any municipal entity funds, acquires, or uses new or existing surveillance technology. “This gives community members and elected officials the opportunity to discuss the risks and alleged benefits of these technologies, instead of law enforcement making these decisions unilaterally and in secret,” the coalition letter says. Second, law enforcement operating in Milwaukee would be required to prepare an annual report to the Common Council on each form of surveillance technology used in the city and whether that information was shared with external parties. The report would include law enforcement’s summary of complaints received about the surveillance technology and a geographical breakdown of where the technology was used. Third, the ordinance would establish a community advisory committee on surveillance. “In recent years, we’ve seen states impose bans and criminal penalties for seeking reproductive healthcare and gender-affirming care; we’ve seen state and local law enforcement officials enforce immigrant deportation schemes; and we’ve seen surveillance used to suppress free speech and intimidate leaders of political movements,” wrote the coalition. “(L)ocal police departments and their surveillance mechanisms will likely target individuals seeking or providing these services,” the letter warned. The letter noted that U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement is known to use mass location surveillance data collected on the local level to target individuals for investigation and that without “robust oversight,” law enforcement use of surveillance technology would risk regressing to a time when “surveillance was used to suppress political dissent and target minority groups.” “At a minimum, people who live, work, visit, or attend school in Milwaukee deserve to know if and how they’re being surveilled and who has access to that surveillance data,” the coalition wrote. CCOPS guidelines also will help build trust between police and the communities they serve, the letter said. “Now, more than ever, we need to have community involvement and transparency with surveillance technology. We have seen surveillance technology be used and weaponized against organizations, protesters, and racial profiling,” BLOC Executive Director Angela Lang told WJI. “Listening to people directly impacted is important and leads to further context about why this is harmful for us all,” she said. When asked why the Turners joined the coalition, De Torre said his organization remains “in opposition to the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement, and we see CCOPS coexisting with, and contributing to, restrictions on increases in surveillance technology." The coalition consists of ACLU of Wisconsin, Black Leaders Organizing for Communities, Citizen Action of Wisconsin, Com Force MKE LLC, The Difference Principle, Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing, Fair Wisconsin, League of Women Voters Milwaukee County, Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, Milwaukee Turners, NAACP Milwaukee Branch, National Lawyers Guild–Milwaukee, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, Voces de la Frontera Action, WAVE Educational Fund, Wisconsin Council of Churches, Wisconsin Justice Initiative, Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance, and Zao MKE Church. By Alexandria Staubach
Prolific overcrowding at Wisconsin’s adult institutions is nothing new, but the problem is close to setting records. The state’s Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimated in June 2023 that Wisconsin’s prison population would reach its highest peak ever, at 24,800 individuals, in July 2025. While the system is not there quite yet, it is getting close. According to the Department of Corrections’ May 2 population report, a total of 23,266 persons are held in custody, with nearly every adult institution operating above capacity. The highest prison population to date was in the year before the COVID-19 pandemic, when the number reached 24,116 individuals, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Recent prison population data show that the Department of Corrections' current stated capacity, including beds it contracts from other jurisdictions, is 17,642. Dodge Correctional Institution is operating at 153% capacity, with 623 more individuals than the facility was designed to house. At Green Bay Correctional Institution, the DOC houses 382 more people than the facility was designed to house. The minimum-security Oakhill Correctional Institution is operating at more than 200% capacity. Waupun Correctional Institution, which made national headlines last summer over dire conditions, is the only maximum-security prison currently under capacity. Overcrowding is not exclusive to men’s facilities. Taycheedah, the women’s prison, is operating at 150% of capacity, while the Robert E. Ellsworth Center, a minimum-security women’s facility, is operating at more than 214% capacity. During the pandemic, from 2021 to 2022, the average daily adult prison population dropped to 20,138. The fiscal bureau anticipated significant growth from that number as courts resolved the cases that were backlogged during the pandemic. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, Wisconsin’s prison population grew by 11% between 2021 and 2023, and growth has not meaningfully slowed since then. WJI calculates that from May 2023 to the present the growth rate remains at about 10%. From May 2016 to May 2018, the growth rate was only 4%. This evening WJI hosts Nicole Porter of The Sentencing Project for a talk about reducing Wisconsin’s prison population. Porter, senior director of advocacy with The Sentencing Project, will discuss current efforts to reduce the nation’s prison population, the history of decarceration, and the political climate impacting the nation’s incarceration rate. Door admissions available at Milwaukee’s Turner Hall at 5:00 p.m. See www.wjiinc.org/events for cost and details. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed