|
Candidates Huma Ahsan and Ben Jones vie for the Branch 1 seat on the Dane County Circuit Court. The election is April 7. Ahsan is an immigration law attorney and owner of Madison Immigration Law. She graduated from Stetson College of Law (Florida) in 1999. A copy of her resume/CV is here. Jones is the incumbent, having been appointed to the seat by Gov. Tony Evers in 2025. WJI's "Evers' judges" post about him is here. He previously was a staff attorney then chief legal counsel at the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Jones graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2012. A copy of his resume/CV is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. The candidates are presented alphabetically by last name.
0 Comments
 The Wisconsin State Capitol. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
We continue our summary of justice-related bills and those with significant potential to impact the rights of marginalized populations in Wisconsin. Consistent with part 1 of this post, these are bills passed in the final weeks of the last substantive legislative of this term. Limited legislation will be produced until January 2027. At the end you’ll find bills that have passed in the Assembly and could still be taken up by the Senate when it convenes for a “limited-business” session in March. Six new laws create crimes or increase penalties for criminal conduct despite a failure (thus far) to pass legislation that could help ease the burden on an already stretched criminal justice system, even as Wisconsin creeps closer to record-breaking incarceration and overcrowding in its prisons. As of Feb. 20, the Wisconsin DOC in-custody population was 23,461, while prison population data shows that the system is designed to house 17,822 individuals. Nearly every adult institution continues to operate above capacity. Of specific note, Waupun Correctional Institution, a facility that has been the subject of federal investigation and several indictments over employee conduct and prisoner deaths since June 2023, is operating above capacity. It was previously the only maximum security institution operating below capacity but crossed that threshold in late January 2026, adding 46 new individuals to its population in the last 24 days. The summaries below come directly from descriptions of the bills written by the Legislative Reference Bureaus. Italics are additions by Wisconsin Justice Initiative, except as to SB 431. New crimes and increased penalties AB 677 Creating a crime of grooming a child for sexual activity Under current law, child enticement is a Class D felony. Child enticement is the act of causing or attempting to cause a child to go into any vehicle, building, room, or secluded place for various sexual purposes, including sexual contact or sexual intercourse; prostitution; to expose a person’s genitals, pubic area, or intimate parts to the child or to cause the child to expose his or her genitals, pubic area, or intimate parts; or to record the child engaging in sexually explicit conduct. This bill creates a crime of grooming a child for sexual activity. Under this bill, no person may engage in a course of conduct, pattern of behavior, or series of acts with the intention to condition, seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child for the purpose of engaging in sexual intercourse or sexual contact or for the purpose of producing, distributing, or possessing depictions of the child engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The bill provides examples of a course of conduct, pattern of behavior, or series of acts that could constitute grooming, including verbal comments, suggestions, or conversations of a sexual nature directed toward a child; inappropriate or sexualized physical contact; written, electronic, or digital communications to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child; and isolating a child. A person who is convicted of the crime of grooming a child for sexual activity is guilty of a Class G felony, except that, if the person is in a position of trust or authority over the child, the classification increases to a Class F felony; if the child has a disability known to the person, the classification increases to a Class E felony; and if the violation involves two or more children, the classification increases to a Class D felony. Additionally, the person is subject to consequences for committing a child sex offense such as the requirement to register with the Department of Corrections as a sex offender. The crime does not apply to a person who is 18 or under if it involves a child who is not more than four years younger than the person unless the violation involves force, coercion, or abuse of a position of trust or authority over the child. SB 431 Expansion of permitted discrimination based on arrest record under the Fair Employment Act This bill changes the circumstances under which an employer or licensing agency may consider pending charges against an individual under the fair employment law when making employment or licensing determinations. Under the current fair employment law, it is generally an unlawful act of employment discrimination for an employer or a licensing agency to refuse to hire, employ, admit, or license any individual; to bar or terminate an individual from employment; or to discriminate against any individual in promotion, in compensation, or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment or labor organization membership because of the individual’s arrest record. “Arrest record” is generally defined as information indicating that an individual has been questioned, apprehended, taken into custody or detention, held for investigation, arrested, charged with, indicted, or tried for any felony, misdemeanor, or other offense. In Oconomowoc Area School District v. Cota, 2025 WI 11, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the phrase “other offense” encompasses noncriminal offenses and that, therefore, the prohibition against arrest record discrimination extends to pending charges other than criminal charges. However, under certain exceptions to the foregoing prohibition, it is not employment discrimination because of arrest record to refuse to employ or license, or to suspend from employment or licensing, an individual because the individual is subject to a pending charge if the circumstances of the charge substantially relate to the circumstances of the particular job or the licensed activity. The bill eliminates the requirement, in the exceptions to the prohibition on arrest record discrimination, that the pending charge be a criminal charge. SB 610 Increasing the maximum penalty for certain controlled substance offenses if the violation occurs near a homeless shelter Current law prohibits a person from delivering or distributing, or possessing with the intent to deliver or distribute, cocaine, cocaine base, fentanyl, a fentanyl analog, heroin, phencyclidine, lysergic acid diethylamide, psilocin, psilocybin, amphetamine, methamphetamine, methcathinone, or any form of tetrahydrocannabinols. The penalty for violating the prohibition varies by substance and amount, but current law increases the maximum term of imprisonment for violating the prohibition by five years if the violation takes place on or in, or within 1,000 feet of, a park, a jail, a multiunit public housing project, a public swimming pool, a youth or community center, a school or a school bus, or the premises of a treatment facility that provides alcohol and other drug abuse treatment. This bill adds that the maximum term of imprisonment may be increased by five years if the violation takes place on the premises of a homeless shelter or within 1,000 feet of the premises of a homeless shelter. Because this bill creates a new crime or revises a penalty for an existing crime, the Joint Review Committee on Criminal Penalties may be requested to prepare a report. AB 109 Increased penalties for crimes against adults at risk This bill allows a term of imprisonment that is imposed for a criminal conviction to be increased in length if the crime victim was an adult at risk. Under the bill, a maximum term of imprisonment of one year or less may be increased to two years; a maximum term of imprisonment of one to 10 years may be increased by up to four years; and a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 10 years may be increased by up to six years. Under the bill, the term of imprisonment may be lengthened irrespective of whether the defendant knew that the crime victim was an adult at risk. The bill also increases the severity of crimes for sexual assault of an at-risk adult, permits asset seizure and freezing of a defendant charged with financial exploitation of an “elder person,” and matches the set of penalties that apply to physical abuse of an elder person to those for an adult at risk. AB 89 Retail theft aggregation and providing a penalty Under current law, the penalty for the crime of property theft varies by the value of the property taken. The penalty ranges from a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the property is not more than $2,500 to a Class F felony if the value of the property exceeds $100,000. Similarly, the penalty for the crime of retail theft varies by the value of the merchandise or service that is taken. The penalty ranges from a Class A misdemeanor if the value is not more than $500 to a Class G felony if the value exceeds $10,000. This bill specifies that, if, in a six-month period, a defendant commits more than one violation of property theft or more than one violation of retail theft, the value of items taken at each violation may be aggregated and the crimes may be prosecuted as one property theft crime or one retail theft crime. The penalty for the crime would be determined by the aggregated value of the items taken. SB 533 Intentionally disarming a correctional officer Under current law, a person is guilty of a Class H felony if they intentionally disarm a peace officer by taking from the officer a dangerous weapon or an item such as a tear gas bomb, hand grenade, projectile, shell, or pepper spray. This bill expands the crime so that it applies to intentionally disarming a correctional officer or juvenile correctional officer as well as a peace officer and includes items that the correctional officer requires for their duties, such as keys or radios. Voting and other issues AB 385 Campaign contributions by foreign nationals For campaign finance purposes, this bill prohibits a political committee, conduit, or political party from accepting any contribution made with a credit card via the Internet unless the contributor provides the credit card verification value or code and the billing address associated with the card is located in the United States. However, if the contribution is made by a U.S. citizen living outside of the United States, and the credit card billing address is not a location in the United States, the individual must provide the mailing address of the location in the United States that the individual uses for voter registration purposes. AB 223 Requirements for persons circulating nomination papers Under current law, any person may circulate nomination papers for a candidate if the person is eligible to vote in Wisconsin or is a U.S. citizen aged 18 or older who, if he or she were a Wisconsin resident, would not be disqualified from voting in the state. A person is eligible to vote in Wisconsin if he or she is a U.S. citizen aged 18 or older who has resided in an election district in this state for at least 28 consecutive days. Under this bill, a person must be eligible to vote in Wisconsin in order to circulate nomination papers for a candidate. However, under the bill, nomination papers and petitions for the candidacy of candidates for the offices of president and vice president of the United States may continue to be circulated by any person eligible to vote in Wisconsin or by any U.S. citizen aged 18 or older who, if he or she were a Wisconsin resident, would not be disqualified from voting in the state. Similarly, under current law, any person who is eligible to vote in Wisconsin or who is a U.S. citizen aged 18 or older and who, if he or she were a Wisconsin resident, would not be disqualified from voting in the state may circulate a recall petition. Under the bill, a person must be eligible to vote in Wisconsin in order to circulate a recall petition and have the signatures on the petition be counted toward a recall. SB 652 Eliminating race-based higher education program requirements This bill changes certain race-based programs or requirements in higher education. In general, the bill modifies these programs and requirements so they apply to disadvantaged students rather than minority students. Under the bill, the term “disadvantaged,” with respect to a student, means having experienced any unfavorable economic, familial, geographic, physical, or other personal hardship. The term may be further defined by rule but may not include the consideration of 1) a student’s race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or religion or 2) a student’s identity as a member of a group without regard to individual qualities. Impacted programs include: Minnority Teacher Loan Program, Minority Undergraduate Grants, Minority Student Enrollment at Medical College of Wisconsin and Marquette University School of Dentistry, Minority and Disadvantaged Student Programs, Lawton Grants, Minority Student and Participation and Retention Plan, Minority Student Participation and Retention Grants, Incentive Grants. Bills passed by the Assembly that the Senate could take up at their limited-business session AB 514 Criminal justice system expansion Under current law, Kenosha County has eight circuit court branches, Brown County has eight circuit court branches, and Menominee and Shawano Counties have two circuit court branches. This bill adds four circuit court branches: one in Brown County beginning August 1, 2027, one in Menominee and Shawano Counties beginning August 1, 2027, one in Brown County beginning August 1, 2028, and one in Kenosha County beginning August 1, 2028. This bill provides position authority for many court and criminal justice system employees in the 2027-29 biennium…. The bill requires the director of state courts, the district attorneys, and the public defender board to include a request for funding for the positions authorized under this bill in their 2027-29 biennial budget requests. This bill also requires the director of state courts, the public defender board, and the district attorneys to submit to the legislature by December 31, 2032 a report that analyzes the workload and assesses the personnel needs for their operations. You can read more about this bill here. AB 640 Supreme Court of Wisconsin maximum age Article VII, section 24 (2), of the Wisconsin Constitution authorizes the legislature to set an age, of not less than 70 years, beyond which a supreme court justice or judge of any court of record may not serve, unless the person is appointed on a temporary basis as a reserve judge. Under this bill, no person may be elected or appointed, other than as a temporary reserve judge, to serve as a supreme court justice or judge of a court of record if the date of election or appointment occurs on or after the date the person attains the age of 75 years. AB 856 Modifications to OWI provisions based on Supreme Court of Wisconsin rulings This bill modifies numerous provisions relating to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) to reflect holdings of the supreme courts of the United States and Wisconsin. Under current law, no person may operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in their blood, or with a prohibited alcohol concentration. Under current law, any person who operates a motor vehicle on public highways in this state is deemed to have given consent to one or more tests of their breath, blood, or urine, for the purpose of determining the presence or quantity in their blood or breath, of alcohol, controlled substances, controlled substance analogs, or other drugs (commonly known as “implied consent”). Under current law, if a person is involved in a motor vehicle accident that causes substantial bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death and a law enforcement officer detects the presence of alcohol, controlled substances, controlled substance analogs, or other drugs, the person may be requested to provide one or more samples of their blood, breath, or urine for testing. If the person refuses, their operating privilege must be revoked. In State v. Blackman, 2017 WI 77, 377 Wis. 2d 339, 898 N.W.2d 774, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that probable cause of an OWI violation is a prerequisite to revocation of an operating license for a refusal. The bill modifies provisions consistent with this holding. Under current law, a person who would be requested to provide samples for testing but who is unconscious or otherwise not capable of withdrawing consent is presumed not to have withdrawn consent and one or more samples may be collected (commonly known as the “incapacitated driver provision”). In State v. Prado, 2021 WI 64, 397 Wis. 2d 719, 960 N.W.2d 869, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the incapacitated driver provision is unconstitutional. The bill repeals provisions consistent with this holding. Under current law, there are separate but analogous implied consent and incapacitated driver provisions applicable to all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), utility terrain vehicles (UTVs), boats, and snowmobiles. Pursuant to Prado, these provisions are repealed. In addition, if a person refuses to submit to a test of their breath, blood, or urine related to their operation of an ATV, UTV, boat, or snowmobile, they are subject to a criminal penalty. In Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438, 136 S. Ct. 2160, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to criminalize a refusal to submit to a blood test incident to arrest for an OWI violation. The bill modifies relevant provisions to reflect this holding. The bill also modifies the text of the “informing the accused” form, which a law enforcement officer must read to a person from whom a test sample is requested, in part to reflect changes made by the bill. Bills that have likely failed SB 147 Interpreter action by telephonic or live audio visual means Under current law, in any civil or criminal proceeding other than a trial, a court may permit an interpreter to act by telephone or live audiovisual means. This bill removes the exclusion for trials, so that an interpreter may act by telephone or live audiovisual means in any civil or criminal proceeding. SB 194 Attorney fees and costs when an authority voluntarily or unilaterally releases a contested record after an action has been filed in court Currently, if a person requests access to a public record and the agency or officer in state or local government having custody of the record, known as an “authority” under the public records law, withholds or delays granting access to the record or a part of the record, the requester may bring a mandamus action asking a court to order release of the record or part of the record. Current law requires the court to award reasonable attorney fees, damages of not less than $100, and other actual costs to the requester if the requester prevails in whole or in substantial part in any such action. The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided in 2022 that a requester prevails in whole or in substantial part only if the requester obtains a judicially sanctioned change in the parties’ legal relationship, for example, a court order requiring disclosure of a record. See, Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha, 2022 WI 57. Under the supreme court’s decision, a requester generally is not entitled to attorney fees and costs if the authority voluntarily or unilaterally without a court order provides contested records after the requester files an action in court. This bill supersedes the supreme court’s decision in Friends of Frame Park. Under the bill, a requester has prevailed in whole or in substantial part if the requester has obtained relief through any of the following means: 1. A judicial order or an enforceable written agreement or consent decree. 2. The authority’s voluntary or unilateral release of a record if the court determines that the filing of the mandamus action was a substantial factor contributing to that voluntary or unilateral release. This standard is substantially the same as the standard that applies for a requester to obtain attorney fees and costs under the federal Freedom of Information Act. Candidates Elizabeth Gebert and Emily Nolan-Plutchak vie for the Branch 3 seat on the Wood County Circuit Court. The election is April 7. Gebert is an assistant district attorney for Monroe County and Marathon County. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2009. A copy of her resume/CV is here. Nolan-Plutchak is the incumbent, having been appointed to the seat by Gov. Tony Evers in 2025. WJI's "Evers' judges" post about her is here. She previously was an assistant state public defender and SPD attorney manager in Wisconsin Rapids. Nolan-Plutchak graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2005. A copy of her resume/CV is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. The candidates are presented alphabetically by last name.
Marquette University Law School poll shows that most voters not "tuned in" to Supreme Court race2/25/2026  Marquette University Law School's Lubar Center Director Derek Mosley (left) and Marquette University Law School Poll Director Charles Franklin (right) at the recent poll results announcement on Feb. 25, 2026, at the law school. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Margo Kirchner
The "punchline" of the latest Marquette University Law School Poll is that Wisconsin voters just have not "tuned into the races" this year, said poll director Dr. Charles Franklin at a lunch-time event at the law school today. Two-thirds of registered voters participating in the latest poll are still undecided regarding both parties' primary candidates for governor and the Supreme Court race, said Franklin. While the lack of interest in the partisan primary races could be explained by the length of time until they occur in the second half of the year, the nonpartisan Supreme Court election is less than six weeks away. Franklin compared the public's awareness of last year's Supreme Court race to awareness of this year's race. In February 2025, 39% of registered voters polled had heard quite a bit about the April 2025 election between Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel. This year, just 6% of registered voters in the poll conducted between Feb. 11 and 19 reported having heard much about the Supreme Court race between Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judges Chris Taylor and Maria Lazar. Out of likely voters, 15% reported a likely vote for Lazar, 22% reported a likely vote for Taylor, and 62% said they were undecided. Similar percentages of respondents (23% as to Lazar and 21% as to Taylor) had no clear idea what the candidate stands for, while about 60% said they had not heard enough to know. The poll report, which includes public opinion on candidates, elected officials, data centers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, online betting, and other topics, is available here. When Lubar Center Director Derek Mosley asked Franklin how the public stands regarding data centers specifically, Franklin responded: "We don't like 'em." The Supreme Court election is April 7. Franklin said he'll conduct another poll before then. Meanwhile, for voters wanting to know more about the Supreme Court candidates:
The Wisconsin Senate chamber (left) and Assembly chamber (right). Photographs by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
Even though 2026 recently started, the Legislature’s 2025-2026 session has for the most part come to an end. While a “limited-business” floor period is scheduled for April, and special sessions may be called, most of the work on legislation has finished and won’t pick back up in earnest until January 2027. A mixed bag of bills is headed to Gov. Tony Evers for signature, with culture-war issues continuing to pepper the Legislature’s business. Among them is a suite of five bills aimed at regulating transgender individuals, whose total state population is around 1.2%. A hard-fought win for advocates seeking postpartum Medicaid coverage occurred this session, after the popular bill struggled to get a vote for years. The Legislature passed three constitutional amendment referendums that will appear on November ballots. They appear in this post, but WJI will also provide more in-depth discussion on them in the fall. Competing visions for the continued funding of WisconsinEye, the state’s version of C-SPAN, ended in a stalemate between the Assembly and the Senate. WisconsinEye is a nonprofit entity separate from government. It has been experiencing financial difficulties and was offline at the end of 2025 and earlier this year after running out of operating funds. Earlier this month, the Assembly unanimously passed a bill to fund WisconsinEye by creating a $10 million endowment. But instead of taking up the Assembly’s bill, the Senate passed an alternative bill requiring the Department of Administration to seek bids for a new public affairs network in Wisconsin. The failure to pass either bill in both chambers means the network and its valuable archive could go dark again in March. Three other bills WJI has been tracking remain in limbo. One would expand court capacity, one could provide continuity of care for incarcerated persons approaching release, and a final one would provide an age cap on members of the high court. All hurriedly passed in the Assembly on the last days of the general session but failed to get a vote in the Senate before the floor period ended. In this first of two posts on the legislative wrap-up, we’ve included the constitutional referendums and bills impacting the courts. Part two will include other bills we’ve monitored, from new and modified criminal statutes to new requirements for circulation of candidate nomination papers. All summaries below are quotes from the analysis provided by the Legislative Reference Bureau unless italicized. Italics are WJI’s additions. The titles are WJI’s summaries of the often lengthy and sometimes misleading titles provided by the bills' authors. The constitutional amendment referendums go from the Legislature to the people, rather than the governor, for approval. Except for the constitutional amendments, the following are headed to the governor’s desk for signature or veto. For a refresher on the lifecycle of a bill, you can find that here. The general progression of a successful bill is: introduction → referral to committee → passage by committee → vote by full chamber → transfer to the other chamber to repeat the prior three steps → to the governor for signature. Constitutional referendums for the November ballot SJR 116: Concerning the governor’s partial veto power This constitutional amendment provides that the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto power over an appropriation bill, may not create or increase or authorize the creation or increase of any tax or fee. Currently, in exercising the partial veto power, the governor is limited only in that he or she may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences of the enrolled bill. In Bartlett v. Evers, 2020 WI 68, the Wisconsin Supreme Court further restricted the governor’s partial veto power, but there was no agreement by the court on the reasons for the new restrictions. The new restriction on the governor’s partial veto power contained in the amendment is in addition to the current restrictions in the constitution. AJR 10: Freedom to gather in places of worship during a state of emergency This constitutional amendment provides that the state or a political subdivision of the state may not order the closure of or forbid gatherings in places of worship in response to a state of emergency at the national, state, or local level, including an emergency related to public health. AJR 102: Prohibiting governmental entity discrimination (anti-DEI law) This proposed constitutional amendment prohibits governmental entities in the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration. Bills about the courts AB 225: Venue determinations Under current law, with certain exceptions, venue in civil actions or special proceedings must be in either the county where the claim arose, the county where the real or tangible personal property, or some part thereof, which is the subject of the claim is situated, the county where a defendant resides or does substantial business, or, if none of the foregoing apply, in any county designated by the plaintiff. This bill provides that, for the purposes of determining whether a county is a proper venue based on where a defendant resides or does substantial business, a court may not consider the participation of a party joined to the civil action or special proceeding because their joinder is needed for just and complete adjudication, as provided under current law, or a party joined to the civil action or special proceeding whose joinder is permissive, as provided under current law. Further, this bill provides that, for the purposes of determining where a business entity resides or does substantial business, a business entity shall be deemed to reside in the place of incorporation or organization and shall be deemed to do substantial business only in the county of its principal place of business. AB 443: Increasing the maximum fee for court costs collectible in a municipal court action Under current law, with certain exceptions, the municipal judge in a municipal court action must collect a fee of not less than $15 nor more than $38 on each separate matter. The fee is to be imposed whether there is a default of appearance, there is a plea of guilty or no contest, on issuance of a warrant or summons, or the action is tried as a contested matter. Current law requires that the municipal treasurer pay monthly $5 from each fee received to the secretary of administration for deposit in the general fund and retain the balance for the use of the municipality. The bill increases the maximum fee on each separate matter from $38 to $48. SB 448: The use of videoconferencing technology in certain civil actions Under current law, a circuit court generally may allow the use of videoconferencing technology during pretrial, trial or fact-finding, or post-trial proceedings, subject to certain technical standards and criteria. However, current law provides that a defendant in a criminal case (defendant) or a respondent in certain civil actions that could result in loss of liberty or fundamental rights with respect to the respondent’s children (respondent) is entitled to be physically present in the courtroom during his or her trial and at his or her sentencing or other dispositional hearing. Currently, if a defendant or respondent objects to the use of videoconferencing technology regarding a proceeding that the defendant or respondent has a right to attend in person, the court must sustain the objection. If a defendant or respondent objects to the use of videoconferencing technology regarding any other proceeding, current law allows the court to exercise its discretion in determining the objection. This bill establishes a new exception to provide that, for objections by a respondent relating to the testimony of an expert witness by videoconference technology in matters relating to certain admissions, placements, or commitments, including for involuntary commitment and protective placement proceedings, even if a respondent is entitled to attend the proceeding in person, the court may exercise its discretion in determining the objection. SB 459: Admissibility of expert witness testimony This bill updates the current statutory rule of evidence relating to testimony by experts to conform with recent changes made to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702 intended to clarify the court’s gatekeeping role with respect to expert testimony. Current law parallels FRE 702 prior to its amendment, allowing the testimony of an expert witness if the witness’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact at issue in the case, but limiting the testimony of an expert witness to testimony that is based on sufficient facts or data, that is the product of reliable principles and methods, and that is based on the witness applying those principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Similar to the changes made to FRE 702, the bill confirms that the proponent of the testimony is required to demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that the witness’s testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, that it is the product of reliable principles and methods, and, finally, that the witness’s opinion reflects a reliable application of those principles and methods to the facts of the case. Candidates Douglas Bauman and Michael D. Hughes vie for the open Branch 3 seat on the Marathon County Circuit Court created by Judge LaMont Jacobson's decision not to run for reelection. The election is April 7. Bauman is a court commissioner and staff attorney in the Marathon County Circuit Court. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1998. A copy of his resume/CV is here. Hughes is a partner at a Wauwau law firm. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2008. A copy of his resume/CV is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. The candidates are presented alphabetically by last name.
Current Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judges Maria Lazar and Chris Taylor vie for the open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court created by Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley's retirement. The election is April 7. Lazar is an appellate judge in District 2 (centered in Waukesha and composed of southeastern Wisconsin counties excluding Milwaukee County) and previously was a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge. She graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 1989. A copy of her resume/CV is here. Taylor is an appellate judge in District 4 (centered in Madison and composed of south central and southwestern Wisconsin counties) and previously was a Dane County Circuit Court judge. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1995. A copy of her resume/CV is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. The candidates are presented alphabetically by last name.
 The entrance to the Wisconsin Supreme Court at the Capitol in Madison. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
A hot bench of Wisconsin Supreme Court justices challenged a lawyer for the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty during oral arguments last week about his challenge to a state technical college grant program. At issue is whether the program is a permissible targeted solution to address racial inequities or impermissible race-based discrimination. WILL attorney Luke Berg argued that all race-based state action is unconstitutional, with exceptions only for addressing race riots in prisons and remedying specific past state-sanctioned discrimination. Berg drew his argument from a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding Harvard. That decision effectively banned race-based college admission policies across the country. Berg argued that the only question for the Wisconsin high court was “when, how, and by whom (the state grant law) gets struck down.” Justice Rebecca Dallet called Berg’s argument a “threat,” “offensive,” and “inappropriate.” The heated and unusual exchange took place during oral arguments in Rabiebna v. Higher Educational Aids Board, in which Berg's client challenges the race-based technical college retention grant statute that has been on the statute books in Wisconsin since 1985. Grants allocated by the statute range from $250 to $2,500 and are available to students who are Black, American Indian, Hispanic, and Southeast Asian (specifically individuals who fled Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia after 1975 or their descendants) and attending state technical college programs. Berg took the position that any race-based program initiated by the state is inherently unconstitutional as enacting “explicit racial discrimination into the law.” Dallet pushed back. “What if we had a maternal fetal health issue with Black babies dying at a higher rate than white babies,” she asked, adding “which, by the way, we do have significantly.” “Are you saying the state couldn’t target that because if they use the word race, if they say the word “Black,” we’re done?” Berg responded that the state would need to pass a program applicable to all babies instead. “The state can talk about that problem, (but) what it can’t do is enact into law an explicit racial discrimination,” he insisted. “They would pass a program that applies to all babies that need it and it would mostly apply to the Black babies if that’s the real problem, but there are some white babies in the world who might need that program, too, so you would make the program available to all,” he said. Other justices, too, questioned Berg on the scope of his desired result. “People of color contribute to the vitality of our state, and they are thanked by facing disparities when it comes to housing, access to medical care, transportation, incarceration, financial stability and education,” said Chief Justice Jill Karofsky. She asked Berg if he “agreed that education plays a central role in breaking the cycle of inequity.” “I think the worst form of discrimination is discrimination under the law,” Berg responded. Berg indicated that government cannot address race-based problems with targeted solutions. “Does the state have an interest in examining, addressing, and eliminating those disparities?” asked Justice Susan Crawford. “No,” said Berg. Berg suggested the law is so clearly in favor of his position that the Supreme Court should “D-I-G” the case, meaning dismiss it as “improvidently granted.” The Court of Appeals decision in Berg’s favor would then stand. Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge William Hue determined that the grant program survived WILL’s constitutional challenge. However, a unanimous District 2 appeals panel of Judges Mark Gundrum, Maria Lazar, and Shelly Grogan reversed. “(G)overnment funding or support designed to provide a benefit or cause a detriment to persons based even in part on their race, national origin, or ancestry cannot stand,” Gundrum wrote. At last week’s Supreme Court argument, Assistant Attorney General Charlotte Gibson called the District 2 decision “radical.” “I am not aware of any court in the county who has come up with a ban that would be this categorical, that would cover things like medical research that’s targeted at a particular group that is suffering from specific health outcomes,” said Gibson. She cautioned that “that is exactly the rule of law they’re looking for.” Gibson argued that the grant program is narrowly tailored to address the state’s compelling interest in improving retention rates for college students with disproportionately high attrition—a problem “race-neutral aid has failed to fix.” Proposed law would add more than 100 jobs in the criminal justice system . . . but not in Milwaukee2/11/2026  The Legislation mosaic in the Wisconsin State Capitol. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
A popular bill that would expand judicial, public defender, and assistant district attorney positions is making its way through the Legislature but includes no positions for Milwaukee. Milwaukee was excluded from the bill, AB 514, because “politics sometimes gets involved,” said one of the bill’s lead sponsors, Sen. David Steffen (R-Howard), at a public hearing last week. The Assembly’s Committee on Judiciary was first presented with a bill that made allocations to Milwaukee. But those were struck by amendment in a 6-2 vote before the committee recommended passage of the bill. Committee members Ryan Spaude (D-Ashwaubenon) and Andrew Hysell (D-Sun Prairie) voted against the amendment. Steffen called the bill “work product that in order for me to get unanimous support in my caucus and unanimous support in committee” required “certain things” be done. Excluding Milwaukee drew sharp criticism from Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee), who told Steffen at the hearing that his caucus had “a few members who are holding public safety hostage.” Johnson wanted the public to “clearly understand that when we are given opportunities such as this to add additional resources to protect the public, that politics plays a part.” Steffen said the bill was “clearly and clinically based on needs and assessments” that initially included an allocation for Milwaukee. More than 20 individuals appeared at the last week’s Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety to speak in support of that chamber’s version of the bill, SB 546. The bill creates four new judicial branches, four new court reporter positions, 64.5 assistant district attorney positions, 23 public defender attorney positions, and 41 public defender staff positions over the next two years to help address the statewide backlog of more than 12,000 cases. That condition is one that “cannot be allowed to continue” and “must be addressed,” said Washara County Circuit Judge Guy Dutcher, chair of the state chief judges’ committee, at the hearing. “This is a crisis that does not know geographic boundaries,” said Dutcher. Steffen celebrated the creation of “hundreds of new crimes, enhancers and penalties” in his tenure. “For 30 years, with very little interruption, Republicans have done a very good job of making law and order, public safety, our top priority,” said Steffen, who sees the bill as addressing the “second stage of criminal justice.” “We ordered the steak, we ate the steak, we just haven’t paid for the steak,” he said. “With every piece of legislation we can do nothing, we can do something, (or) we can do everything,” he said. Dutcher, though, was skeptical of simply adding more workers to the stressed system. We “can’t continue to expend resources toward the same process that has proven to be ineffective,” he said. According to Dutcher, case filings are down across the state, yet the backlogs persist. Dutcher suggested further inquiry into three areas: the mechanisms by which the State Public Defender’s Office determines conflicts of interest, outdated models for workload assessment implemented by the SPD, and the “unattractive” pay for private attorneys who may need to take public defender cases owing to conflicts. Such conflicts can arise when a poor defendant qualifies for the services of SPD, but the office cannot take a case because it represents a codefendant or had past involvement with a witness or victim. Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney, who appeared at the hearing as the president of the district attorneys’ association, echoed Dutcher’s concern about the SPD conflict policy. Toney suggested that private practice attorneys should not be paid at the same rate for a trespassing case or a homicide case. State Public Defender Jennifer Bias spoke at the hearing in support of the bill. She said the new positions will address the workload her office sees associated with not just an “explosion of criminal charging” but also with processing hours of evidence generated by body cameras and other technological developments that have increased the volume of work associated with each individual case. Having passed through the Assembly committee, the bill is now eligible for a floor vote in that chamber. The three contestants for Dane County Circuit Court Branch 1 participated in Wisconsin Justice Initiative's candidate forum last week, providing voters with important information ahead of the Feb. 17 primary. Huma Ahsan, Nathan Wagner, and Ben Jones (L to R in the photo below) vie for the seat. Judge Jones is the incumbent, appointed by Gov. Tony Evers in May 2025. Ahsan and Wagner are attorneys in Dane County. Unsure how you will vote? Want to get to know the candidates better? Interested in judicial races in our state? In this one-hour video the three candidates introduce themselves and take questions from audience members. Questions at the forum touched on immigration agents in courthouses, the types of cases in circuit court and the candidates' experience for handling them, how a candidate would address a situation when law might not align with personal beliefs, and judicial discretion. WJI thanks the von Briesen & Roper law firm for donating the use of their conference room for the event and WJI Action board president and WJI board member Jim Gramling for acting as emcee and timekeeper. This was WJI's first in-person event held in Madison, and the room was packed.  |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed