|
By Alexandria Staubach On Monday, Wisconsin’s 107th legislative session kicked off with the swearing in of 34 new members, 90% of whom are Democrats. This is the first legislative session impacted by the new district maps signed into law by Gov. Tony Evers in early 2024, ending more than a decade of extreme partisan gerrymandering. Fifteen senators were sworn into office. Six are embarking on their first full term. Five of those six are women, all are Democrats, and two served in the Assembly last term. Thirty new members were sworn into the Assembly, 76% of them Democrats. The new session sees the narrowest advantage Republicans have held since 2011. The Senate includes 18 Republicans and 15 Democrats. The Assembly has 54 Republicans and 45 Democrats. The two bodies got straight to work. The Assembly took its first action of consequence, sending to committee AJR 1, a proposed constitutional amendment requiring valid photo identification to vote in an election. If the resolution passes, it will be the proposed amendment’s second trip through the Legislature. If it passes quickly, it could then appear on the April election ballot. Both chambers voted on structure and schedules. In the Assembly, Rep. Kalan Haywood (D-Milwaukee) unsuccessfully nominated Rep. Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) for speaker, as an alternative to Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester). Vos has served in the role for more than a decade. Haywood suggested the Assembly ditch Vos because the chamber should not be “an experimental national right-wing Republican testing ground.” He encouraged his peers to abandon “the stagnation of the status quo.” “Compromise is what will lead to productivity and results,” he said. “We’ve strayed so far from Wisconsin’s long-standing tradition of transparent government with the current leadership,” said Haywood. Vos was ultimately elected with 52 votes of the possible 54 Republican votes. Afterward, Vos gave a speech that included predictions about what will occur during this legislative session. He anticipates a tax cut “focused on those who pay taxes in Wisconsin” and emphatically stated the money set aside from any such cut would not be spent by the treasury. He vowed not to create any new government programs because “socialism, in any form does not make us more free.” Vos also said he would demand “accountability and measurable results for any funding we provide.” He predicted that the newly created Assembly Committee on Government Operations, Accountability and Transparency would “lead the way” in innovating how government operates in the state. Ceremonies took place simultaneously at the Capitol in the two legislative chambers. Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley administered the oath of office in the Assembly. District II Court of Appeals Judge Maria Lazar administered the oath of office in the Senate.
0 Comments
 Entry to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Dec. 17, 2024. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday voted to deny a rule change petition brought by Wisconsin Justice Initiative that sought to require municipal court judges to use professional interpreters in all municipal court proceedings. Although all justices said they believed the issue raised by WJI was important and one said she did not want to “kick the can down the road,” the court voted to refer the issue to the Wisconsin Judicial Council for its consideration, while acknowledging that the Judicial Council presently has no funding or staff. WJI’s proposed rule change would have eliminated the practice of municipal courts using a defendant's family member or friend, a police officer, Google Translate, or even other defendants present in the courtroom to interpret court proceedings for individuals who do not speak or understand English. A survey WJI conducted in August 2023 and presented to the justices during briefing showed that at initial appearances, a whopping 49% of municipal court judges who responded to the survey have defendants bring a friend or family member or use Google Translate to interpret courtroom proceedings. Even at evidentiary hearings and trials, which include testimony, 21% of municipal judges responding to the survey said they use a defendant’s friend or family member or Google Translate. Professional interpreters are currently required in municipal courts only for juveniles who meet poverty requirements. During argument on the petition Tuesday, the justices made much of the unknown scope of the problem, unknown costs associated with such a rule change, and competition with circuit courts for interpreters. While interpreters are already scarce in Wisconsin, WJI’s proposed rule mandated using such scarce resources in only very limited circumstances. WJI’s proposed rule change would have required “qualified interpreters,” meaning interpreters trained for court proceedings and who meet circuit court standards, only for evidentiary hearings and trials. Those occur in just a small percentage of the 400,000 to 450,000 municipal court cases per year—and under state statutes those qualified interpreters could appear by video or telephone. WJI attorney Parker White calculated on the fly during oral argument that such qualified interpreters would likely be needed in “less than 300 cases a year, spread over 219 courts throughout Wisconsin.” That means in less than 0.1% of municipal court cases. White and Evan Bondoc, both of the Foley & Lardner law firm, represented WJI in written briefs on the petition and oral arguments before the court. For the bulk of municipal court proceedings, municipal judges would have been allowed to use an audio or audio/visual service such as LanguageLine or Swits for interpreter services. “The vast majority would be satisfied by LanguageLine,” White told the court. According to several municipal judges, LanguageLine is simple and easy to use. WJI’s attorneys argued that it is also low cost, and the cost would be appropriate for the benefits gained by limited-English proficiency (LEP) defendants understanding their court proceedings. “Why don’t they just do that?” asked Chief Justice Annette Ziegler at the hearing. “Because it’s not required,” she then said, answering her own question. Seven organizations filed written comments supporting the petition. Five of them also appeared in person to argue their support: the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, Legal Action of Wisconsin, Judicare Legal Aid, the Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association, and the Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance. Even the two organizations and one individual opposing the petition acknowledged the importance of the issue. “All parties agree that LEP individuals have a right to meaningfully participate in the proceedings brough against them,” said Bondoc during oral argument. Tim Muth, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, argued that the issue raised by WJI is “a question of fundamental fairness and due process.” Susan Lund of Legal Action Wisconsin stated that “in an era of mass incarceration, . . . if we cannot meet basic fairness standards, perhaps we are not utilizing the court system appropriately.” Megan Lee of Judicare, Nancy Cruz of the Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association, and Fauzia Qureshi of the Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance spoke in favor of the petition, highlighting the need for proper interpreter services in municipal courts. During oral arguments, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley expressed great concern for the western part of the state, noting that in some towns 50% of schoolchildren come from homes where English is not the primary language. She also highlighted large populations of individuals who do not speak English, work in agriculture, and commonly find themselves before municipal courts for operating without a license. But the court failed to find its way around the unknown costs and lack of precise data on the scope of the interpreter problem WJI presented. Justice Jill Karofsky asked repeatedly for “hard numbers,” which, because record keeping of the number of friends or family members used as interpreters is not required in municipal courts, were virtually impossible for WJI to cite. She asked Muth how to weigh the petition against the court system’s already strained interpreter resources. “There could be unintended consequences,” said Ziegler during the oral argument. At an open conference following the arguments, Justice Brian Hagedorn moved quickly to deny WJI’s petition. Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley seconded the motion. She argued that the matter should be left for the Legislature to address. Ziegler said "there's nothing wrong with having interpreters in municipal court. Probably is a good thing." But she questioned whether it was feasible and said it was a matter for the Legislature. She later indicated her position that the petition should be denied outright. "I would do nothing further," Ziegler said. The court’s remaining justices, referred to as “the four” at one point by Grassl Bradley, wrestled with options other than denying the petition completely. Justice Janet Protasiewicz recognized that "there's an obvious need, and you look at people coming from all corners of the community to speak in favor of this." Nevertheless, she had concerns about unanswered questions and was "not in support of this today." She suggested sending the issue to a committee to review. Justice Rebecca Dallet said she did not want to deny the petition without referring the matter somewhere for additional review. Dallet recognized the importance of the problem raised by WJI and the desire for the court to do something about it. She suggested a rule recommending that municipal judges whenever possible use a professional interpreter service such as LanguageLine. "What can we do to maybe not solve the whole problem, but what can this court do? . . . Something lesser, that's still important, she said." Walsh Bradley discussed the history of the Judicial Council, its work regarding municipal courts in prior years, and its ability to recommend changes to both the Supreme Court and Legislature. Walsh Bradley said that if the court would not refer the matter to the Judicial Council she might vote to grant the petition. Karofsky said she did not like the feeling of “kicking this can down the road,” but she did not see granting or modifying WJI's proposed rule at this time. She at first hesitated sending the issue to the Judicial Council because it was unstaffed, the problem is complex, and the solution is unclear. In agreeing to a court referral she emphasized that she did not want to require the Judicial Council to take up the question but rather, as set forth in the council’s enabling statute, leave it to the council’s discretion. Hagedorn said that he wanted WJI, whose attorneys and representatives remained in the courtroom during the open conference, to know that the court indeed considers the issue of municipal court interpreters to be an important one. "I hope the petitioners understand . . . (that) we don’t think this is the right solution, but we appreciate that you raised the problem, and maybe we should see if there are other solutions to the problem," he said Following the court’s vote to deny the petition with a referral to the Judicial Council, White told WJI that he nevertheless was encouraged “to see all members of the Court recognize and grapple with the serious problems LEP individuals face in Wisconsin municipal courts today, even if we were disappointed with the Court's apparent disposition on the petition itself. Even the parties who spoke to oppose us uniformly acknowledged the need for some sort of action comparable to what we proposed. I'm hopeful our petition, and any forthcoming related work by the Judicial Council, will help close the gaps of due process and access to justice that hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites face today." Any action by the Judicial Council could take substantial time, as it has lacked staff since 2017, when it was defunded by the Supreme Court and Legislature. Legislation will take significant effort and substantial time as well. Nevertheless, WJI intends to continue pursuing the matter, whether with the Judicial Council, the Wisconsin Legislature, or the Supreme Court in a future revised petition. “We think everyone in municipal courts, not just indigent juveniles, deserves to understand the proceedings,” said WJI's Kirchner. “Access to justice requires at its heart that the person charged with a violation accurately communicate with the judge and at the very least understand the court proceedings,” she said. “We don’t have that with friends or family members—sometimes children—or even strangers in the courtroom interpreting,” Kirchner said. In municipal courts, where almost all defendants represent themselves, “add a language barrier and you have a double disadvantage,” she said. WJI Board Member Jim Gramling, a retired Milwaukee Municipal Court judge who was involved in WJI’s prosecution of the rule petition, stated that “if you accept, as you must, that municipal courts are a component of the state court system, you wouldn’t hesitate to require interpreters.” “Providing the means for basic understanding of legal proceedings is a requirement of having a court,” he said. A written order regarding the denial of the petition and referral is expected at some point in the future. The Judicial Council was created by statute in 1951 to study the rules of court practice and procedure and recommend changes to the Supreme Court and Legislature. Its 21 members come from all three branches of government, the state's two law schools, and the State Bar of Wisconsin. (Note: WJI Executive Director Margo Kirchner is a Judicial Council member representing the State Bar.) WJI extends many thanks to White and Bondoc and the Foley & Lardner law firm for their excellent pro bono representation of WJI in this matter.
By Alexandria Staubach Milwaukee police encounters involving an officer’s use of force in 2023 hit an all-time high since the current metrics for evaluating incidents were adopted in 2013, with nearly 80% of those use-of-force incidents occurring against Black people. The Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission shared the use-of-force data in an annual report presented at a meeting earlier this month. The Milwaukee Police Department recorded 2,285 incidents involving use of force in 2023. A total of 1,333 incidents involved the display or pointing of a firearm only, while an additional 952 involved “hands-on physical force or the discharge of a weapon” according to a presentation to the commission. An annual report a decade ago found 895 comparable uses of “hands-on” physical force or instances where a firearm was used. That number declined substantially in 2014, then remained generally constant until sharp drops in 2019 and 2020. The numbers rose significantly in 2021 and again in 2023, when incidents surpassed even 2013 numbers.  Slide shown by Barbara Cooley, research and policy analysist for the Fire and Police Commission, at the commission's Dec. 5 meeting, detailing those instances where physical force or the discharge of a weapon was involved over time. Black individuals accounted for 76% of all arrests and were the subjects of 80% of officers’ use of force. White individuals accounted for 10% of arrests and were the subject of 12% of the use of force incidents. According to current census data, Black and white Milwaukeeans command roughly equal shares of the city’s population. Per the report, a typical use-of-force encounter in 2023 involved a white male officer, 36 years old, with nine years of experience, on duty and in uniform. The person experiencing the use of force was typically unarmed, Black, male, 29 years old, and more likely than not resisting arrest.  Table taken from “An Analysis of Use of Force Incidents in the Milwaukee Police Department in 2023,” the annual report prepared for the commission by University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Professor Steven G. Brandl.
MPD District 3 had the greatest share of use-of-force incidents, with 241 incidents—more than 50 incidents higher than the next district. District 3 also accounts for one of the largest shares of arrests annually (2,339 arrests), essentially tied with District 7 (2,343 arrests). District 3 has jurisdiction over the southern section of Milwaukee’s 53206 zip code. Although a 2019 University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee study found the claim that 53206 is the most incarcerated zip code in America to be exaggerated, that “should not obscure the reality that mass incarceration is an integral component in the ‘ecosystem’ of concentrated disadvantage that continues to weigh on this beleaguered neighborhood," the study said in its key findings. At last week’s commission meeting, Barbara Cooley, a research and policy analysist for the commission, noted the sunsetting of the requirement in the Sterling Brown settlement agreement that required officers to generate a detailed report for instances where they display or point a firearm. Because the requirement has ended, that data will not be included in tallies going forward. MPD Chief of Staff Heather Hough said the information would still be captured, just not included in annual reports like this one. Commissioner Dana World-Patterson noted that an officer pulling a gun is “threatening” and said it seemed like data the commission would like to have. World-Patterson asked Hough how the commission would see the data going forward, a question Hough could not answer. Despite the significant jump in numbers, questions about the report’s findings and for Hough were few. Commissioner Ramon Evans said, “it seems like we’re going backwards.” The annual report was prepared for the commission by University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Professor Steven G. Brandl.  A panel at the Milwaukee Turners' Dec. 7, 2024, celebration of International Human Rights Day. L to R: Melody McCurtis of Metcalfe Park Community Bridges, UWM Professor Ted Lentz, WJI's Alexandria Staubach, and Pastor Walter Lanier. Photograph by Mel Bridges. On Saturday, the Milwaukee Turners hosted a forum at Turner Hall in honor of International Human Rights Day. International Human Rights Day is observed around the world on Dec. 10, recognizing the anniversary of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Milwaukee’s early celebration included comments from Mayor Cavalier Johnson, Milwaukee Equal Rights Commissioner Chair Tony Snell-Rodriguez, and Steve Watrous from the Milwaukee United Nations Association. Turners Executive Director Emilio De Torre opened the event saying “at home, people of the global majority are not safe in their own skin, and people are not allowed to love according to the dictates of their heart.” Johnson joined the opening remarks by recognizing that International Human Right Day presents an opportunity to reflect and consider how we can make Milwaukee a “more ethical and more inclusive city for the people who do and all the people who will call Milwaukee home.” Johnson recognized that historical injustices to human rights are easily identified in Milwaukee and that the much more difficult challenge is finding solutions to the problems we see. A panel addressed the international theme of “Equality—Reducing Inequalities and Advancing Human Rights.” The panel discussion was led by Pastor Walter Lanier. Panelists included Melody McCurtis, deputy director and lead community organizer for Metcalfe Park Community Bridges; University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Professor Ted Lentz; and Wisconsin Justice Initiative Policy Analyst Alexandria Staubach. Discussion included housing issues, local and state legislation that might alleviate inequities in the criminal justice system, and research being conducted to make the criminal justice system more transparent in Milwaukee. Plausible solutions were offered by McCurtis, but the city’s recent attempt to pass the “Grow MKE Plan” is not one of them, she said. The plan recommends updates to Milwaukee’s zoning code to permit additional styles of housing in all Milwaukee neighborhoods. But McCurtis said the plan will permit “bad actors” and private interests to benefit from eminent domain, turning housing historically owned and occupied by community elders into short-term rentals. Over the summer, Community Bridges fought adoption of the plan, bussing more than 100 residents to a Common Council meeting to stop the plan's adoption and winning a six-month extension so those who will be directly impacted by the plan have an opportunity to weigh in. Lentz highlighted a data project that presents a broad overview of Milwaukee’s criminal justice legal landscape, analyzing patterns and trends in data collected by a variety of agencies, offices, and facilities that make up the system. The findings recognize racial disparities within the system and the need for data-informed, community engaged approaches for criminal system reform. Lentz’s project continues, with another analysis underway. His full report can be found here. Staubach discussed efforts to pass criminal justice reforms at the state level and the array of roadblocks Milwaukee faces regarding state politics. She highlighted the importance of WJI’s work at the local level, especially in municipal courts, and the need to zero in on what can be done through ordinances and the Milwaukee Common Council. “We have to recognize when we’ve gotten it wrong and do something different,” Staubach said regarding city-funded incentives for derelict landlords, which, in her opinion, line pockets and do little to expand the pool of affordable housing. “We need to change the way we legislate—from top down to bottom up, but it requires the people affected by laws to activate and engage with their local representatives,” she said. Snell-Rodriguez said he “anticipates a pull back of federal civil rights” and said it will be “be time for cities like Milwaukee to rise to the occasion.”  Milwaukee Municipal Court, one of the courts issuing arrest warrants and writs of commitment for unpaid court forfeitures and fines, says a recent report by the ACLU of Wisconsin. By Alexandria Staubach
Warrants and civil commitments persist in municipal courts across the state of Wisconsin despite widespread investigation and advocacy against the practice, according to a report published last week by the ACLU of Wisconsin. Municipal courts are permitted by state law to employ “stay to pay” contracts. Under stay to pay, those with outstanding debts spend days in jail to satisfy their forfeiture. The maximum time of imprisonment is 90 days at a minimum rate of $50 per day. Jail time is being served for offenses like contributing to truancy, operating a vehicle without a license, non-registration of a motor vehicle, loud and unnecessary noise, and even a dog running at large, the report says. The use of such jail time is common in some courts. In Waukesha, for instance, 499 warrants were satisfied by defendants serving jail time between 2023 and 2024. Meanwhile, other municipal courts do not use jail time to enforce nonpayment at all. The report describes two systems of justice: one for the haves and one for the have-nots. Those unable to pay court fines and forfeitures suffer extra penalties such as jail time. Effects of incarceration include missed wages, having to appear in court time and again to assert an ongoing inability to pay, and even loss of housing. To demonstrate the extent of possible outcomes, the report details the story of one grandmother who, after experiencing homelessness, lost a public housing opportunity because of outstanding municipal warrants for failure to pay. “Monetary sanctions trigger a long series of consequences and barriers to full societal integration for families who cannot pay, which are very different from the effects of monetary sanctions on those who can afford them” the report says. While there are legal protections for those who can demonstrate an inability to pay, having an attorney to enforce those rights is the exception rather than the norm. The report found racial inequities consistent with those well documented in the greater criminal justice system. The report shows the most significant impact to those in low-income communities of color, with 71% of warrants and 49% of commitments issued against Black defendants in Milwaukee Municipal Court between January 2023 and August 2024. In La Crosse County, where the Black population represents 1.8% of the total population, 33% of those incarcerated on municipal warrants were Black. Jailing those who fail to pay municipal forfeitures actually costs the municipality money. The jail that hosts such stay-to-pay contracts submits a bill to the municipal court that ordered the time. The report says this practice can cost a municipal court more in enforcement than a forfeiture was actually worth. The report’s recommendations include eliminating warrants and incarceration for failure to pay fines; removing old outstanding warrants, especially in jurisdictions that have stopped incarcerating people for failure to pay; appointing counsel at hearings concerning the ability to pay; and improving municipal court record keeping to make municipal court revenue generating practices more transparent. Wisconsin municipal courts generated more than $35 million in revenue in 2023, the report says. A 2018 report from the Wisconsin Director of State Courts and the National Center for State Courts also recommended reducing the use of incarceration for failure to pay municipal forfeitures. Dr. Emma Shakeshaft, the author of the ACLU of Wisconsin report, is a WJI board member.  By Alexandria Staubach Milwaukee County’s 2025 budget shows how recent state legislation helped improve revenue, but analysis shows that spending is increasing even more. Last week, Milwaukee County unanimously adopted its 2025 budget. With reserves shored up by new taxes, the budget seems positive. Recent state legislation known as Act 12 permitted the county to raise Milwaukee County’s sales tax from 0.5% to 0.9% in 2024. However, the Wisconsin Policy Forum’s annual review warns that “the fiscal stability produced by Act 12 is likely to be short lived.” Budget gains anticipated from the tax for 2024 fell short of projections and are quickly gobbled up by required spending on law enforcement. In the 2025 budget, $161.1 million will be spent on public safety alone. According to the Forum’s review, year-over-year increases in costs demonstrate “if these trends continue—that public safety expenditure pressures will consume much of the annual revenue growth promised by Act 12, or all of it in years like 2025 when sales tax growth is modest.” The Forum warns that “unless new strategies are developed to control annual cost increases in the public safety function, the future impact of Act 12 in helping resolve the county’s structural deficit may be eclipsed.” Among the biggest beneficiaries of 2025’s budget is the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office, which according to the Forum’s review will receive “the largest percentage increase of any functional area in the budget besides non-departmental expenses.” A new $5 million have been allocated to the sheriff’s department, bringing its 2025 budget to $64.7 million. According to the Forum, that’s a 42.2% increase over 2021. The sheriff’s office funding will cover nine new bailiff positions plus $800,000 for salary and benefit increases under a new labor agreement with the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs' Association. Another $2.1 million are allocated for overtime expenses, as the department continues to struggle with staffing shortages. The Community Reintegration Center will see a boost to its budget, from $60.2 million in 2024 to $65.5 million in 2025. Here, too, $1 million has been allocated for overtime, as the center also struggles with staffing shortages, which reached 36% in 2022. $4.1 million is attributed to rising healthcare and food-service contract costs. The budget adds $2.7 million to the court system, some of which will fund eight new full-time positions in children’s court. A separate $1.7 million is allocated to pay attorneys taking cases that would otherwise be eligible for service from the State Public Defender’s Office, but for which that office has a conflict. Operating costs and costs allocated to acquiring or maintaining land, buildings, and equipment also foreshadow significant expenses moving forward. According to the review, the 2024 budget allocated $9.4 million dollars to start a much-needed project to replace the county’s decaying Safety Building. The 2025 budget includes another $6 million directed at planning and design of the new courthouse building, plus an authorization to transfer an additional $5 million if necessary. Another $23.7 million is anticipated for the same project in 2026, all before a shovel hits the ground. “Future short comings will be exacerbated by much needed but unprecedented spending to build a new criminal courthouse” in the coming years, the Forum review said.
By Alexandria Staubach WJI and a coalition of groups are working to get the word out: If you have a felony conviction and you’re “off paper,” you can vote. Wisconsin restores voting eligibility when someone is “off paper,” meaning after full completion of all portions of a sentence, including incarceration, supervision, and payment of all fines, fees, and restitution. In Milwaukee, the League of Women Voters, Souls to the Polls, and EXPO (Ex-incarcerated Persons Organizing) lead efforts to educate and register eligible voters with felony records. Disenfranchisement upon felony conviction is nothing new. Its history extends back to the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment and Southern Reconstruction. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses (laws allowing old activities to persist despite new laws) have largely been disavowed among the 50 states, but felony disenfranchisement remains. Christal Arroyo Roman of Milwaukee lost her right to vote because of conviction and incarceration, but has been off paper since 2020. Arroyo Roman, who serves on the WJI board, is now a paralegal, Marquette University student, and criminal justice organizer. In an interview with WJI, Arroyo Roman said that voting in 2020’s election “felt liberating.” For so long she felt her voice was suppressed. Prior to incarceration, she thought that politicians did not care about her community, so she did not vote. When she went to prison and felt the “laws and legislation that were being enacted against [her],” she became aware of the importance of voting. “Even if I feel like my community isn’t being heard, it feels good to have a voice,” she said. Arroyo Roman highlighted that the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) wants formerly incarcerated people to participate in pro-social behaviors like paying taxes. “If the government wants us to participate, we should be able to vote,” she said. Maine, Vermont, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico do not participate in felony disenfranchisement. But some form of felony disenfranchisement persists in 48 states, according to the federal government website vote.gov. Twenty-four states permit a person to vote immediately after release from prison, and 13 states may preclude one from voting even after full completion of a sentence. Wisconsin and 11 other states fall in the middle, restoring eligibility to vote after full completion of the terms of a sentence and being “restored to civil rights.” According to the Wisconsin Legislative Council, the Wisconsin Legislature constitutionally “may enact laws excluding a person who has been convicted of a felony from voting until he or she is restored to civil rights,” and the law “precludes permanent felony disenfranchisement but does not define or describe what constitutes restoration of civil rights.” By statute, a convicted individual must sign a DOC form acknowledging that they may not vote. DOC is required by law to transmit to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, on a continuous basis, a list of each living person who has been convicted of a felony and is ineligible to vote, plus the date on which DOC anticipates the person’s voting rights will be restored. The commission then forwards that list of ineligible people to municipal clerks. Clerks are responsible for notifying each person on the list in their municipalities that their voter registration is inactive until the person is eligible to vote again. Restoration under Wisconsin law occurs automatically upon completion of the terms of any sentence imposed, the Legislative Council says. No separate hearing or procedure occurs; no signed document from any entity is required or provided to prove restoration of the vote. Once a person is off paper, the person must re-register to cast a ballot. The DOC is required to inform an individual when their sentence is complete, civil rights have been restored, and they can vote, says the Legislative Council. An election clerk may nevertheless believe that someone with a felony record is ineligible to vote. In that case, the clerk must allow the person to cast a ballot. The ballot will then be marked for closer inspection, which could lead to a challenge. After an election, each election clerk generates and forwards a list of all persons who voted in their county to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The commission then checks that list against the information provided by DOC. The commission may refer any instance of voting by a disenfranchised person to the district attorney for prosecution in the county where the ballot was cast. Despite the lackluster framework around restoration of voting rights, providing false information on a voter registration form is a class I felony, as is voting in an election when one is not qualified. In recent years, organizations including EXPO, Wisdom, ACLU of Wisconsin, Project Return, Wisconsin Voices, Justified Anger (Madison), and Just Leadership USA, developed a package of legislation that sought to “Unlock the Vote.” The bill package addressed issues from prison gerrymandering (counting those in prison as residents of the prison location rather than as residents of their communities before incarceration) to restoring the right to vote to people who are out of prison yet still on supervision. The bills were introduced in 2022 by Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) and Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee), who earlier this year left the Legislature after appointment as a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge. The bills were referred to legislative committees but did not reach committee votes. The bills were not reintroduced in the next legislative session.  By Alexandria Staubach Last week the Wisconsin Court of Appels ruled in favor of a severely diminished and long-suffering man who fought an order for forced medication to restore his competency for trial. The appeals court vacated the trial court’s involuntary medication order, finding that the trial judge failed to ensure that the plan for the man’s forced medication was sufficiently individualized to him. The appeals court held that trial courts must consider whether “under the particular circumstances of each individual case, the State has an important interest in bringing that defendant to trial.” In the case before it, the state did not. Further, said the appeals court, until an order for involuntary treatment issues, an accused remains eligible for bail; the mere raising of the issue of competency does not end bail eligibility.  Geenen District 1 Judge Sara Geenen wrote for the three-judge panel, which included Presiding Judge M. Joseph Donald and Judge Pedro Colón. The appeals court reversed the order of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Milton L. Childs.
In its decision, the appeals court relied heavily on Sell v. United States. In Sell, the U.S. Supreme Court identified a four-factor test to determine whether an accused person’s constitutionally protected liberty interest can be outweighed by the state’s interest in forcibly medicating the person to regain competency to stand trial. The Sell factors are 1) the state’s “important” interest in proceeding to trial; 2) whether forcibly medicating the individual will significantly further that important interest; 3) whether forced medication is necessary to further that interest; and 4) the medical appropriateness of the medication. The appeals court found that Childs failed to consider the “special circumstances [that] undermine the importance of the State’s interest” in bringing J.D.B., referred to by the court as "Jared," to trial for battery to a law enforcement officer. Jared was 19 when he experienced an episode of psychosis that resulted in his alleged assault of an officer. The court described Jared’s multitude of underlying conditions, which include “partial left-side paralysis, a lumbering gait, compromised speech and cognitive abilities all stemming from a traumatic brain injury sustained from a self-inflicted gunshot wound when he was eleven years old.” Jared was diagnosed with schizophrenia and major neurocognitive disorder. Geenen described a one-paragraph criminal complaint stating that police responded to a call at Jared’s homein Milwaukee on Aug. 22, 2022, after his mother reported he was threatening to get a gun and kill everyone in the residence. Jared allegedly made threatening remarks to the responding officers and, while officers were arresting him, punched one officer in the face and threatened to kill that officer. Officers took Jared to a health care facility, which did not admit him. According to Geenen, where Jared was for the next four days was unclear. On Aug. 27, 2022, Jared was booked into the Milwaukee County Jail. At Jared’s first court appearance, on Aug. 31, 2022, his competency was raised as an issue, and the trial court ordered a competency examination. The competency exam occurred more than a month later, on Oct. 11, 2022. On that same day, the trial court found Jared incompetent to stand trial and ordered him into Department of Health Services custody. However, DHS did not take Jared into custody for another 106 days, during which time he remained in jail. According to Geenen, a 90-day commitment review was conducted while Jared remained at the jail. In January 2023, Jared was taken to the state psychiatric hospital in Mendota. Although he was then voluntarily taking medication, Jared allegedly swore and “spit at staff, urinated and defecated in his room, and continued to exhibit symptoms of schizophrenia,” Geenen wrote. By early April 2023, Jared was refusing medication. On April 11, 2023, Dr. Mitchell Illichmann initiated a request for involuntary medication with the trial court. The appeals court found that the forced medication plan Illichmann proposed failed to address many of Jared’s underlying conditions, omitting that he suffered from diabetes and was on a seizure medication. Without specifying duration or sequence, Illichmann’s proposed plan simply identified seven different oral antipsychotics the hospital would try. The plan recommended that if the oral medications did not work, another antipsychotic should be administered by injection. The plan also suggested another injected medication for agitation. The appeals court noted that at the hearing where Illichmann testified about the necessity of involuntary medication, there was no mention, question, or detail provided about “how often a dose of any particular mediation would be administered,” and no evidence or indication regarding the maximum amount of a particular medication to be administered in a given period of time. Illichmann testified at the hearing that he tried to discuss each of the seven oral medications in the plan with Jared, but Jared responded only that he did not feel he needed the medication. Childs found sufficient cause and ordered involuntary medication. Jared appealed, and the court of appeals stayed Childs’ order pending appeal. Geenen wrote in the appeals court’s subsequent decision that the “circuit court concluded that the first Sell factor, a requirement that the State have an important interest in prosecution, was satisfied because Jared was charged with a serious crime—assault of a law enforcement officer. However, Childs’ inquiry should not have stopped there, Geenen wrote. The trial judge was obligated, but failed, to consider whether any “special circumstances lessen the State’s interest in prosecution.” Both the potential for future civil commitment and length and duration of Jared’s pretrial detention should have mitigated and ultimately undermined the state’s interest in prosecution, Geenen wrote. She said “the facts highlighted in the complaint, considered in the context of Jared’s mental health diagnoses and the fact that he was seen at Aurora Health Center for ‘homicidal thoughts’ on the date of the alleged offense, generally support an NGI [not guilty by reason of insanity] defense and suggest that the alleged offense resulted from a mental health crisis that is currently being addressed through civil commitment proceedings.” “In this case there are distinct, non-speculative possibilities for Jared’s future commitment” that lessen the state’s interest in bringing Jared to trial, wrote Geenen. “Jared’s pretrial detention is also a relevant special circumstance,” Geenen wrote. Jared was not considered for bail but should have been, she said. The state argued that defendants become “ineligible for bail the moment competency is raised.” The court of appeals disagreed, finding that “the plain language of the statues makes clear that it is only after the circuit court orders the defendant committed for treatment and suspends the proceedings that a defendant loses his or her eligibility for bail.” Jared was detained almost two months without due process protections regarding bail, wrote Geenen, noting that “this statutory violation is significant, and it lessens the importance of the State’s interest in prosecution.” The appeals court also considered the timing of Jared’s relocation from jail to Mendota for restoration of competency. Jared was ordered to commitment in October 2022 but not transferred for treatment until more than three months later. “This, in our view, is a significant period of time that is incongruous with constitutional demands," Geenen wrote. Finally, regarding Jared’s medical plan the court expressed “serious doubts as to the adequacy of the explanations given to Jared of the advantages, disadvantages, and alternative to the medications proposed in the plan.” Geenen highlighted a lack of evidence that Illichmann ever told Jared about maximum dosages, the interaction of the drugs with his diabetes and seizure medication, or the cumulative effect of any combination of drugs. As a result, the trial court’s findings as to the sufficiency, warning, appropriateness, and necessity of forced medication were “clearly erroneous," Geenen said. “Because the circuit court determines whether the plan is sufficiently individualized and medically appropriate, the court must be provided a ‘complete and reliable medically informed record’ from which to make those findings,” and “because the record in this case is wanting in many critical respects” Jared’s proposed treatment plan was not adequately individualized, the appeals court held. A state appellate procedure rule that should alleviate some of the circumstances Jared faced took effect recently. The rule adopted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and effective July 1, 2024, governs prejudgment orders in criminal defendant competency cases, which include treatment to restoration and involuntary medication. Key provisions of the new rule include expedited time for parties to request transcripts and file briefs and for the court of appeals to render a decision, short but automatic stays of involuntary medication orders, expedited procedures for defendants to move the court of appeals for a continued stay, and anonymity in court filings. More about the new rule can be found here. By Alexandria Staubach
In honor of National Voter Registration Day and Constitution Day, WJI is highlighting two new complaints filed by Law Forward. WJI believes that fair and equitable access to the ballot box is a fundamental right of every citizen of Wisconsin. If you still need to register to vote we encourage you to do so here. The Law Forward impact litigation law firm has filed two complaints with the Wisconsin Election Commission (WEC) alleging that the Town of Thornapple and its town clerk violated state and federal law when conducting the April and August elections. The complaints seek orders forcompliance with the law for future elections. Both complaints request expedited review in time for November’s election. State and federal law require access to voting systems that permit those with disabilities to cast their ballots independently and securely. The new complaints to the Wisconsin Election Commission say Thornapple, in Rusk County, is breaking these laws after abandoning electronic voting. According to the complaints, the April election was conducted in Thornapple by paper ballot and then hand counted, with no alternative or accommodation for the visually impaired or those who otherwise cannot privately and independently vote on paper. After the April election, a July 8, 2024 letter from the U.S Department of Justice warned that Rusk County needed “at least one direct recording electronic voting system or other voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities available at each polling place.” Nevertheless, Thornapple's August election took place on paper as well. Wisconsin law provides for compliance reviews for any elector of a jurisdiction or district served by an election official who seeks to contest perceived abuses of election administration. One complaint requests a compliance review on behalf of Erin Webster, a Thornapple voter, who ran for Rusk County Board of Supervisors in the spring election and was provided a paper ballot on which her name did not appear, according to the complaint. Webster cast her ballot electronically in every prior election since 2009, and the town had otherwise used electronic voting machines. Under Wisconsin law, municipalities may elect to administer elections by paper ballot if they have populations below 7,500. Webster’s complaint alleges that the same law that permits paper ballots for municipalities under 7,500 people also prohibits reversion back to hand counting of paper ballots without the WEC’s permission, which Thornapple did not receive. The second compliance review complaint was brought on behalf of Disability Rights Wisconsin. The complaint alleges that federal and state law require a municipality to make voting accessible to voters with disabilities. Further, the complaint alleges, federal law requires any voting system to have a means to notify voters if they have selected more than one candidate for a single office, plus the opportunity to redress the error. “By ceasing to use electronic voting equipment and instead exclusively using paper ballots completed and tabulated by hand, Respondents are no longer using voting systems that are accessible for individuals with disabilities in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation (including privacy and independence) as for others,” the Disability Rights Wisconsin complaint asserts. It mentions visually impaired voters and those who may struggle to fill out a ballot by hand being disenfranchised by the paper system. The Ladysmith News, a local paper in Ladysmith, Wisconsin, this summer covered the Rusk County Board’s decision to count ballots by hand. The article described a July presentation given by Mark Cook of Hand Count Road Show, supposedly a one man “subject matter expert on election vulnerabilities who had traveled the county in his camper trailer, educating folks about election systems and how they can go wrong.” According to the reporter, “a number of local governmental officials were in the audience and saw how Cook showed exactly how voting machines can be easily manipulated.” The Webster complaint is available here. The Disability Rights Complaint is available here. By Alexandria Staubach An old convent is getting new life as a “House of Studies” for men who were formerly incarcerated and are now working to obtain their college degrees. Thrive for Life has arrived in Milwaukee, hoping to achieve the same success they’ve experienced with two similar homes in New York City. The first of its kind, according to Thrive for Life, Ignacio House opened in New York City in 2019 with a novel concept: a transitional supportive learning community, exclusively for the formerly incarcerated. A dorm, with a mission. Founded by Father Zachariah Presutti, a Jesuit priest and former chaplain at Rikers Island, Ignacio House currently serves 15 formerly incarcerated men who have scholarships to one of eight partnering universities, which include Columbia and NYU. The second house of studies, Abraham House, began in 1993 as an alternative-to-incarceration program under a different provider and since 2023 has been merging into Thrive. As at Ignacio House, residents receive comprehensive continuity of care, including therapeutic and wellness resources, personal and spiritual mentorship, and individualized learning plans, while adhering to stricter house rules. According to Thrive’s website, the two houses have served more than 3,000 formerly or currently incarcerated individuals, and 100% of their resident scholars have avoided recidivism and are on track to complete a trade school program or university degree. WJI recently visited Thrive’s Milwaukee House of Studies and spoke with Christa Pipitone, soon to be the senior regional coordinator for the Milwaukee Thrive for Life program. Located in Halyard Park, the house can accommodate a house manager and up to 11 scholars, whose stays will typically range from six months to two years. To get a room, individuals who were formerly incarcerated will need to apply and be accepted. Once they’re in, Thrive for Life provides a community of people committed to its men’s success, said Pipitone. “We are continuity of care,” said Pipitone.
Like the houses in New York, in addition to providing a roof over residents’ heads, the program will help residents with every aspect of making themselves “whole” and “healed,” Pipitone said. From health services to employment, the team at Thrive is “invested in the whole person, in demonstrating to these men that people care,” Pipitone said. “We’re likely giving many of these of guys a first chance,” she said. “We want to be that for them.” Thrive’s program is faith-based but nondenominational. “It’s important to us that the scholars have some higher power,” said Pipitone, but applicants need not be Catholic or even Christian. She highlighted that the houses in New York have welcomed both Muslin and Jewish scholars and that there are no rules around faith if applicants are grounded in a “higher power.” Community service in the Halyard Park neighborhood will also be part of the experience. Scholars will be expected to engage in service projects that serve the community they’re in. Abraham House in New York, runs a local food pantry, for example. The scholars will also be expected to participate in creating community among themselves. A sit-down Sunday dinner will be expected, a Catholic mass will be held in the house’s chapel (though attendance is not mandatory), and household chores will be allocated. It is communal living with purpose, said Pipitone. Residents will be expected to maintain employment. They will sign a “covenant agreement,” the terms of which include affordable rent, charged on a sliding scale based on take home pay. Like other aspects of the program, rent is not about the money. It’s about “giving the men a track record,” a rental history they can take with them to a new landlord, Pipitone said. Pipitone hopes it won’t feel like “all work and no play.” While alcohol and drugs are off limits, “the scholars will set the tone.” She hopes it will be a place where the men want to be—where they will enjoy Bucks and Packers games and study or play games in the common areas, investing in themselves and their shared experiences as students. Pipitone told WJI that Thrive hopes to strike a balance between structure and independence. The Milwaukee House is nearly complete. Pipitone anticipates it will host its first cohort beginning in October. She is actively searching for a house manager, who will hopefully live on site and help usher in the first class, and a social worker. Thrive has a strong preference for formerly incarcerated individuals to fill these roles. She encourages those interested to reach out to her directly at [email protected].
|
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed