|
By Gretchen Schuldt
Little progress was made this last legislative session to ease the state’s tough criminal justice laws, while Gov. Tony Evers — who took office talking about reducing the prison population — signed several bills creating new crimes and harsher penalties. An oft-introduced bill that would have eased expungement rules and another bill that would have provided juveniles sentenced to life in prison with a chance at reduced sentences failed to get to the governor’s desk. The Legislature has no more floor periods scheduled until the next legislative session begins in January 2025. Here’s a look at what was signed into law. Senate Bill 292, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 1 The law lets municipalities adopt ordinances allowing law enforcement officers to grab up and impound a vehicle if all of the following conditions are met:
The ordinance can call for the vehicle to remain impounded until its owner pays off the earlier forfeiture and for the costs of impoundment, including “towing or other transportation costs and storage costs.” If the owner does not claim the vehicle for 90 days after the disposition of the ticket, the municipality can treat the vehicle as abandoned. Senate Bill 75, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 3 This law was enacted to implement two changes to the state constitution approved by voters in April 2023. Before the amendments, the constitution limited monetary bail to the amount needed to assure a defendant’s appearance in court or to protect members of the public from serious bodily harm. Voters approved changing the constitution’s wording from “serious bodily harm” to “serious harm” as defined by the Legislature defined it in law. The Legislature in this new law adopted a broad definition of “serious harm” after the amendments were adopted. "Serious harm" now includes damage to property over $2,500; economic loss of $2,500; or physical pain, injury, illness, any impairment of physical condition, or death, plus any related mental anguish or emotional harm. Voters also approved allowing a court to impose cash bail for those accused of a "violent crime" as defined by the Legislature, “based on the totality of the circumstances, taking into account whether the accused has a previous conviction for a violent crime as defined by the legislature by law, the probability that the accused will fail to appear in court, the need to protect members of the community from serious harm as defined by the legislature by law, the need to prevent the intimidation of witnesses, and the potential affirmative defenses of the accused.” The new law defines "violent crime" with a long list of crimes and conforms statutory law to the constitutional change. Assembly Bill 55, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 9 Prior to the new law, penalties for reckless driving ranged from a $25 forfeiture to a maximum penalty of 3½ years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The new law stiffens the penalties and adds surcharges. The penalty changes include:
People found guilty of reckless driving also will be assessed a $435 driver improvement surcharge and a $50 safe driver surcharge. Senate Bill 76, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 10 This law increases the penalty for carjacking while possessing a dangerous weapon, by use of force, or by the threat of the weapon. The maximum penalty jumps from 40 years in prison and a $100,000 fine to 60 years in prison. Senate Bill 101, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 29 The penalty for causing the death of another by the unlawful distribution of a Schedule I or II drug or their analogs, ketamine, or flunitrazepam (“roofies”), or by illegally administering or helping to administer those drugs increases from 40 years in prison and a $100,000 fine to 60 years in prison. Assembly Bill 47, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 31 Parole Commission transparency is increased under this bill. It requires the Department of Corrections to post, on the Parole Commission website, the individuals “granted parole, denied parole, and returned to prison following the revocation of parole.” DOC must post monthly and annual aggregate numbers showing:
The law mandates the agency post any guidance documents the Parole Commission uses in making parole decisions. The law allows family members of victims, who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime but who are now adults, to request notification of when the offender is requesting parole or is released on parole or supervision. The measure also increases, from three weeks to 90 days before a parole hearing, the deadline for notifying certain people that an incarcerated person has applied for parole. Assembly Bill 166, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 61 There are new actions that constitute “sexual contact” in determining crimes against children and sexual assault. Those actions include “touching by the complainant of the ejaculate, urine, or feces of any person upon the intentional instructions of the defendant, upon the use or threat of force or violence by the defendant, or upon an intentional act of the defendant.” Senate Bill 485, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 133 The definition of financial institution robbery is expanded under this law to include robbery accomplished “by creating circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe use of force was imminent.” The definition previously was limited to robbery “by use of force or threat to use imminent force” to take property owned or in the custody or control of a financial institution. Senate Bill 313, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 154 The penalty for failing to stop for a school bus when it is stopped and flashing red warning lights is increased under this law. The forfeiture rises from a $30 to $300 range, to $1,000. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation also must assess demerit points for any infraction. Senate Bill 460, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 159 This law adds railroad construction and maintenance areas to other areas (such as highway construction areas) where workers are at risk from traffic. The law doubles fines for certain traffic violations committed where workers are present in a railroad construction or maintenance area. Senate Bill 333, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 200 A new crime, sexual misconduct against a pupil, is created under this law. The new law prohibits certain conduct by a school employee or volunteer, including verbal conduct of a sexual nature, meaning “communications made intentionally for the purpose of sexually degrading or sexually humiliating the pupil or the actor, or sexually arousing or sexually gratifying the pupil or the actor,” according to a Legislative Council amendment memo. It also prohibits physical contact of a sexual nature. The Department of Public Instruction must revoke the licenses of those convicted of sexual misconduct. Assembly Bill 437, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 212 This law increases, from $1,000 to $5,000, the forfeiture for a fraud-involved violation of an insurance statute or rule. Senate Bill 875, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 217 Testing materials involved in detecting the drug xylazine or a xylazine analog are exempt from the definition of illegal “drug paraphernalia,” under this law. The law also provides civil and criminal immunity to anyone who distributes such testing material if a person dies or is injured as a result of the material’s administration. The person administering the testing material also is provided immunity, “except for civil liability for negligence in the performance of the act.” More to come in part 2.
0 Comments
By Gretchen Schuldt Gov. Tony Evers on Wednesday signed a bill allowing Wisconsin judges to take court action against people or businesses that post on the internet publicly available judicial officers’ personal information without the judges’ consent. Even their marital statuses could be off limits. Generally, under the First Amendment, governments cannot tell people what information they can or cannot post or share. But this law gives individual judges the private right of action to have the information removed from the Internet. Judges from around the state supported the bill in public testimony, as they did the other two bills in the three-bill package. State Supreme Court Chief Justice Annette Ziegler said the law was patterned after similar protections for federal judges and judges in other states. The governor signed all three bills in the package, including a constitutionally questionable bill, Assembly Bill 965 (now Act 234), that prohibits even peaceful demonstrations near a judge’s residence if the demonstrators are trying to disrupt the courts or influence the judge. The measure would criminalize violations, with a maximum punishment of up to $10,000 and nine months behind bars. WJI covered that bill here. The third approved bill, Assembly Bill 967 (now Act 236), exempts judicial security forms from public records disclosures. The forms are used to create security plans for judges. The internet prohibition, Assembly Bill 966 (now Act 235), requires “all persons, businesses, and associations” to “refrain from publicly posting or displaying on the Internet publicly available content that includes the personal information of the judicial officer or the judicial officer's immediate family,” according to the Legislative Reference Bureau summary of the measure. The law singles out data brokers as being included in the prohibitions. Individual judges would have to request nondisclosure, and that request would be good for 10 years. The law allows those judges to request the personal information be removed from the internet and gives the posting party 10 days to comply. Judges could seek an injunction or declaratory relief from a fellow judge if violations occur. If the filing judge wins the case, the posting person or entity “responsible for the violation shall be required to pay the judicial officer's costs and reasonable attorney fees,” the law says. Prevailing respondents in those cases would not be guaranteed the same financial compensation. The posting party would be required to “ensure that the judicial officer's personal information is not made available on any website or subsidiary website controlled by that person, business, or association; and identify any other instances of the identified information that should also be removed,” the law says. The law prohibits the sharing of information "through any medium" after a judge requests nondisclosure unless the information is voluntarily posted by the judge or immediate family member or if the judge requests the information be shared. “Publicly available content” is defined in the law as any document or record “that provides information or that serves as a document or record maintained, controlled, or in the possession of a government agency that may be obtained by any person or entity, from the Internet, from the government agency upon request either free of charge or for a fee, or in response to a public records request.” An exception would be made for information voluntarily posted on the internet by judges themselves, information the judges consent to have released, or information received legally from a federal or state government source. Immediate family members could release personal information about themselves. The government may step in under some circumstances. The legislation makes it a felony to post information if it is done to create or increase a threat to the health and safety of the judge or immediate family or if injury or death "is a natural and probably consequence" of posting the information, according to the law. Also under new law, candidates for judicial office or circulating or signing nomination papers would not have to list their names and addresses. Instead, they would file a confidential certification of residency with the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The protections apply to Supreme Court justices or former justices; municipal, circuit, tribal, reserve, and appellate judges and former judges; and court commissioners and former court commissioners. “Immediate family” is defined in the law as a judicial officer's spouse; a child of the judicial officer or of the judicial officer's spouse, including a foster child or an adult child living with the judicial officer; a parent of the judicial officer or the judicial officer's spouse; or any other person who resides at the judicial officer's residence. Personal information, as defined in the law, includes a home address; home or personal mobile telephone number; personal email address; Social Security number; driver's license number; federal tax identification number or state tax identification number; bank account or credit or debit card information; license plate number or other unique identifiers of vehicles regularly used by a judicial officer or a family member; identification of minor children; a full date of birth; employment location, including the name or address of an employer and employment schedules; and marital status. Employment information does not include information about employment by a government agency.  Gov. Tony Evers signing AB965, AB966, and AB967 on Wednesday, March 27, 2024 By Gretchen Schuldt The number of paroles granted last year was down 82% from a peak just three years earlier, Department of Corrections figures show. The number plummeted from 201 in 2020 to just 37 in 2023.  Source: Wisconsin Department of Corrections What happened?
“We’re trying to figure that out, too,” said Mark Rice, Transformation Justice Campaign coordinator at WISDOM. The nonprofit has long been active in criminal justice reform efforts. DOC did not respond to a request for reasons behind the decline. Inmates eligible for parole are those who were convicted of crimes that occurred before the state's 1999 truth-in sentencing laws took effect. Those laws eliminated parole. The drop seems part of reduced efforts to lower prison populations, Rice said. Gov. Evers and DOC Secretary Kevin Carr took steps to cut populations during the Covid pandemic but now “it’s back to business as usual,” Rice said. The number of parole-eligible inmates declines each year as more die or serve out their sentences, but the drop in grants also appears linked to Evers' 2019 hiring and then de facto dismissal in mid-2022 of Parole Commissioner Chair John Tate II. The rise and fall in grant numbers neatly matches the dates of Tate’s employment. The Republicans ran ads attacking Tate's use of parole to release incarcerated individuals, Rice said. “Some of it was total lies” and there were “a lot of attempts to dehumanize people,” he said. Tate’s Parole Commission, which granted parole to some serious offenders, brought Evers under heavy political pressure as he sought reelection in 2022. First Evers intervened in May 2022 to successfully request Tate to rescind a decision to parole convicted murderer Douglas Balsewicz, who stabbed his wife to death in front of their children. Less than a month later, in June, Tate was gone after Evers asked him to resign. He was replaced by former State Sen. Jon Erpenbach, who assumed office in January 2023. Parole grant numbers followed the events: there were 43 grants in the first quarter of 2022, before the Balsewicz controversy blew up; then 31 in the second quarter, as the drama unfolded and Evers requested Tate's resignation. The number of grants dropped after Tate left to 19 in the third quarter and 18 in the fourth, according to DOC figures. Meanwhile, those who were paroled during Tate's tenure generally are doing well and making positive contributions in their communities, Rice said. "No human being is irredeemable," he said. Evers ran on pledges to reduce the prison population, but he and Carr have not done what is within their power, including commuting sentences and granting more compassionate releases to seriously ill inmates, he said. In Wisconsin prisons, Rice said, "The problem isn't understaffing. It's overpopulation." By Gretchen Schuldt
The so-called “Parent’s Rights” bill pending in the Legislature probably does not stand a chance of getting past Gov. Evers’ veto pen, but still drew way more written public comments – 153 pages of them – than is typical for any sort of legislation. There were about 100 comments in opposition to the bill, AB510, and 17 in support. Those numbers are estimates because some of the comments, filed with the Assembly’s Family Law Committee as public hearing testimony, were included twice in the record of the hearing. WJI tried to eliminate the second inclusions, but may have missed some. The committee recommended adoption of the bill on a 6-3 party-line vote, which was followed by a 62-35 party-line Assembly vote in favor of the bill. Two Republicans, Loren Oldenburg of Viroqua, and Travis Tranel, of Cuba City, did not vote. The measure is now pending in the Senate. (The Senate companion bill is SB489). A chart showing the sponsors of the bill is at the bottom of this post. As a brief refresher, the bill would provide parents or guardians with 16 specific rights and would allow a parent or guardian to sue if any of the new rights are violated. The new rights would include the right to:
The bill would allow parents/guardians who feel one of the rights was violated to sue "a governmental body or official" and, if successful, collect up to $10,000 plus any "reasonable attorney's fees and costs." Here are excerpts from some of the submitted comments/testimony. For adoption: In recent years, many parents have become more actively involved in the education of their children. Unfortunately, public school districts have not always respected parental rights. – State Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Racine). Against adoption: This legislation proposal claims to be about parental rights, but is more truthfully about disrupting the processes, protocols, and programs of both private and public schools. It grants parents the power to interfere in the day-to-day affairs of education, dictating what educators are allowed to teach. … We assert that this bill was created with the intention of censorship and has no connection with meaningful, constructive parental involvement or engagement toward improving community life. – Rev. Breanna lllene, director of ecumenical innovation and justice initiatives, Wisconsin Council of Churches Election workers could face fines, jail time for directing observers to stand more than 3 feet away1/25/2024 By Gretchen Schuldt Election workers could face criminal penalties for directing election observers stand more than three feet away from certain tables, under legislation approved by both the Assembly and Senate and awaiting action by Gov. Evers. The Legislature also approved a bill that would prohibit "sexual misconduct" against a student by a school employee or volunteer. That measure also is awaiting Evers' signature or veto. More information about the bills is below. Assembly Bill 543 – Fines and jail time for election workers Under this legislation election workers would face up to 90 days in jail and fines of up to $1,000 if they direct election observers to stand more than three feet away from the table where people can register to vote and from the table where voters announce their names and addresses and are given a voter number. The bill, as adopted, also says that municipalities should provide observers equal access “to all stages of the election process, including the certification of election technologies, absentee voting in person, canvassing, elector appeals, vote tabulation, and recounts.” The ACLU of Wisconsin, the City of Milwaukee, Common Cause in Wisconsin, Disability Rights Wisconsin, the League of Women Voters Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired, and Wisconsin Voices all registered against the legislation. No organization registered in favor. The bill passed the Senate on a party-line vote of 22-10. Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee) did not vote. The Assembly approved the bill without a roll call vote. A chart at the end of this post shows the Senate vote. Senate Bill 333 – Sexual misconduct by a school employee or volunteer This bipartisan bill would make it a felony for a school employee or volunteer to engage in verbal or sexual misconduct that is aimed at a student. The legislation defines “sexual misconduct” as verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB). The maximum penalty for violating the law would be 3½ years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Both the Senate and Assembly approved the measure without a roll call vote. State law now requires the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to revoke the license of anyone convicted of certain crimes. That person can seek reinstatement of the license after six years if “the person shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she is entitled to reinstatement,” the LRB’s analysis of the measure said. The bill would add additional crimes to the automatic suspension statute, including sexual misconduct against a student, certain crimes against student privacy, and theft of property from a school. The bill also would create a lifetime license revocation for some offenses. The Badger State Sheriffs' Association, the FFRF Action Fund (affiliated with the Freedom from Religion Foundation), the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, Wisconsin Family Action, the Wisconsin Nurses Association, the Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association, and Wisconsin Voices all registered in favor of the legislation. No organization registered in opposition.  By Gretchen Schuldt A bill adopted by the state Senate and pending in the Assembly contains some vague language about reporting election irregularities that some organizations are concerned about. Another bill would allow people in prison or jail to choose up to three people to be notified in case of lockdowns or other disciplinary measures that would affect a particular inmate's ability to visit or communicate. More information about each below. A chart showing the sponsors of each bill is at the bottom of this post. Senate Bill 291/Assembly Bill 300 – Increasing penalties for battery to an election worker; whistleblower protections Concerns about the vagueness of whistleblower protection language in this bill, which also would increase penalties for battery to election officials, have prompted some organizations to express concerns about the measure and call for clearer language. Other organizations, however, backed the measure, which was adopted by the Senate without a roll call. It is pending in the Assembly. That battery section of the legislation would increase the penalty for simple battery to an election worker from a misdemeanor to a felony and would increase the maximum penalty from nine months behind bars and a $10,000 fine to 3½ years of incarceration and a $10,000 fine. “Since 2020, we have witnessed shocking instances of violent behaviors and intimidation directed towards election officials in Milwaukee County, in Wisconsin, and throughout the nation,” Milwaukee County Clerk George Christenson said in testimony submitted to the Assembly Campaigns and Elections Committee. “These threats show up by way of emails, voicemails, and personal verbal and physical threats against the dedicated public servants who stand at the front door of our democracy.” The bill, he said, “demonstrates the serious nature of these unacceptable behaviors and makes it clear that such attacks on election officials in Wisconsin will not be tolerated.” Brown County Clerk Patrick Moynihan Jr. also wrote in support of the bill, including the whistleblower language. “The recognition and importance of protecting and strengthening our election official’s person and self-confidence is paramount,” he said. “So too, the Whistleblower provisions as detailed within the bill provide reasonable assurances against any potential unlawful retribution.” That language says that no election worker may be disciplined or retaliated against because the worker “lawfully reported, or is believed to have reported, witnessing what the clerk or election official reasonably believed to be election fraud or irregularities.” Rock County Clerk Lisa Tollefson was generally supportive of the bill, but added in written testimony, “The only piece of the bill that concerns me is in the Whistleblower section. Each time I read the bill I have a different take on it. Some clarification in this section of the bill may be needed." She asked, "Can the reporting of an election irregularity act as a shield to protect an election official from something else that would cause them to be disciplined or release(d)…from employment?" and "What is lawfully reported?" The ACLU of Wisconsin, in registering against the bill, said the organization has concerns with the bill, “as the process for ‘lawfully reporting’ is not outlined, and the terms ‘reasonable belief’ and ‘irregularities’ are not defined.” All Voting is Local Action, also registered against the bill, said “Spoke with Governor's Office, RE: Concerns with the Whistle Blower section, no structure for reporting.” And Edgar Lin, Protect Democracy’s Wisconsin policy advocate and counsel (and also a WJI Board member), identified three specific areas that need strengthening. First, he said in testimony, there should be a process for “lawfully reporting.” To whom does a bad act get reported and who reviews the allegation? What happens if a false “bad act” is reported? When must these acts be reported? “Without a clear process, a whistleblower event – regardless of merit – could descend into chaotic litigation, which could further undermine the confidence in our election system,” he said. Second, he said, “an election worker’s 'reasonable belief' about fraud or irregularities should be defined. Is it a reasonable election worker standard? A reasonable person standard? Or simply that election worker’s own subjective belief?” Finally, he said, “ ‘irregularities’ should be defined. The current language states that a person could lawfully report “election fraud” or “irregularities.’ ” While election fraud is defined in state law, “ ‘Irregularities’ is not defined,” he said. “Instead of ‘irregularities’ – a vague and broad term that could be widely interpreted depending on perspective – the bad act should be grounded by existing laws, rules, regulation, and/or guidance,” he wrote. The Wisconsin Counties Association, the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, and the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Inc. registered in support of the bill. Those organizations did not indicate why they supported the bill. Senate Bill 904 – Public information on lockdowns The public would have access to information about prison and jail lockdowns in facilities around the state, under a Democratic bill introduced in the state Legislature this week. The bill would require the Department of Corrections (DOC) to publish on its website certain information about each prison and county jail in the state. That information would include whether there is any restriction in place impacting the ability of an inmate or a group of inmates to participate in visitation or communication and, if there is such a restriction, a statement giving the reason for it, how long the restriction has been in place, the number of inmates in solitary confinement, and the total number of inmates held in the facility. The bill also would require DOC and sheriffs to establish a notification system to inform certain individuals within 24 hours of an inmate's being put under any type of restriction limiting availability for visitation periods or other communication. Each inmate would be allowed to select up to three people to receive the information.  By Gretchen Schuldt
A Rock County judge blew off an appeals court order for a new trial and instead sentenced a man on a charge that was already dismissed, according to a new appeal. The state has not yet responded in the case. The defendant, Carl Lee McAdory, "must now face the fact that winning one battle does not mean victory in war," Circuit Judge Karl Hanson said in granting the prosecutor's motion to reinstate the dismissed charge. Hanson eventually sentenced McAdory to three years of incarceration followed by six years of extended supervision. Hanson also vacated the charge on which McAdory originally had been sentenced and for which a District IV Court of Appeals panel ordered a new trial. McAdory was charged with eighth-offense operating under the influence and eighth-offense operating with a restricted controlled substance. Blood testing showed he had cocaine and marijuana in his system when he was arrested. A jury found him guilty on both counts. Because the counts duplicated each other and the law says McAdory could only be sentenced on one, the prosecutor moved to dismiss the latter charge. In ordering a new trial, the Court of Appeals found that the state repeatedly misled the jury about what the state had to prove for a conviction on the under-the-influence charge. The law requires a showing that there were enough drugs in McAdory's system to actually impair his driving. That law is different than the restricted-controlled-substances law, which makes it illegal to drive with any detectable amount of drugs in the blood, whether or not it actually affects the person's driving ability. In addition, Circuit Judge John M. Wood, who presided over the trial, eliminated part of the jury instructions that made clear what was required for conviction on the under-the-influence charge, according to court documents. The appellate court noted that the Circuit Court prosecutor could have avoided the entire issue if she had dismissed the impaired driving offense and stuck with the easier-to-prove restricted-substances offense. The panel even held oral argument to discuss the dismissal of that charge. The appeals panel sent the case back to Rock County for a new trial, McAdory's lawyer, Brent A. Simerson, wrote in a brief filed in the new appeal. "However, a new trial was never convened," Simerson wrote. Instead, at the request of the state, Hanson vacated the under-the-influence count, on which McAdory had been sentenced, reinstated the dismissed restricted-controlled-substances conviction, and sentenced McAdory to three years in prison and six years of supervised release. Hanson said the appellate court did not find any error in how the restricted-controlled-substances charge was handled, Simerson wrote. The judge also said that McAdory “ 'had no expectation of finality in his case when the trial court imposed a sentence only on count [one], the OWI conviction,' ” Simerson wrote. But Hanson exceeded his authority when he ignored the appeals panel's order for a new trial, Simerson said. State law requires trial judges to do what appellate courts tell them to do. The law also requires circuit judges to schedule trials when an appellate court orders new ones, he wrote. And, as the state conceded, nothing in state law authorized the reinstatement of the charge, Simerson wrote. "Absent a source of authority in Wisconsin law, the Circuit Court should have, instead, concluded that it did not have the authority to revisit Mr. McAdory’s judgment of conviction," he said. Instead, the court should have pursued any relief through the appeals process. Reinstating the conviction also violated double-jeopardy protection, Simerson said. Jeopardy generally attaches after a jury is empaneled and sworn and prohibits a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, he said. "Under the Circuit Court’s decision, the state could wait indefinitely long before asking the Circuit Court to 'reinstate' a charge," he said. "After all, what limitations period would govern? Without an endpoint specified by law, the timing would be left to the vagaries of prosecutorial whim. All the while, the defendant would be forced to live his life in fear, worry, and frustration about when, if ever, the State might suddenly decide to file its reinstatement motion. This cannot be." By Gretchen Schuldt A dispute over the right of an unmarried couple to adopt a child is at the center of the first case the state Supreme Court will hear in September. Most of the case, which bypassed the Court of Appeals, is confidential. But one document, a reply brief filed by attorneys representing the unmarried couple, is available. It names as a defendant Ashland County Circuit Judge Kelly J. McKnight, who rejected an unmarried couple's request to adopt a child. The couple, referred to as A.M.B. and T.G. in the brief, are appealing. McKnight, wrote the couple's lawyers, John R. Carlson and Carla J. Smith, "chooses to focus first and foremost on 'protecting marriage' – an institution in which the child does not even participate." The judge "obfuscates the core intent and interest of the legislature – the best interest of the child." McKnight, who as a judge is a state official, is represented by Assistant Attorney General Lynn K. Lodahl. "The Legislature makes its intent clear in the first few sentences of Chapter 48 (the Children's Code) – 'the best interests of the child or unborn child shall always be of paramount consideration," the lawyers wrote, emphasizing the key words. "A sentence with no qualifications, conditions, or exceptions." The law identifies the secondary, qualified goal of preserving the unity of the family "whenever appropriate," they said. "And the word 'traditional' never appears anywhere in the legislative intent section." M.M.C., as the child is called in the brief, never had a relationship with her biological father and his parental rights were terminated. There is no ability to preserve the unity of M.M.C.'s family, Carlson and Smith said. "The legislative intent of 'preserving the unity of the family' should not be mistaken for what the Court tried to do – force two unwilling participants into a marital contract – an event that was not centered on the child or her best interest, but focused solely on a technicality that would have no effect on M.M.C.’s day-to-day life," they said. McKnight "determined that the best interest of the child was wholly irrelevant in determining whether to approve an adoption," they said. The law specifically allows "an unmarried person" to adopt, they said. "If the legislature were seeking to 'promote marriage, stability for children and families…[and] protect the traditional unitary family,' it does not make sense the legislature would explicitly permit unmarried individuals to adopt under Wisconsin law," they wrote. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for 9:45 a.m. Sept. 11.  By Gretchen Schuldt Gov. Tony Evers signed a bill sharply raising the penalty for first-degree reckless homicide involving drugs from 40 years in prison to 60 years in prison. The governor did not justify or explain his action in the press release announcing the signing, though he addressed reasons for signing another bill. The measure was introduced as SB101, and is now Act 29. First-degree reckless homicide is charged when someone dies of an overdose after taking drugs, virtually always voluntarily. The charge can be issued against a drug dealer or even a friend who was with the user when the user purchased the drugs. Technically, the law prohibits causing the death of another person "by manufacture, distribution, or delivery of, or by administering or assisting in administering," certain drugs. Opponents of the bill say it will prevent people who are with the victim at the time of the overdose from seeking help before death occurs because they are worried about prosecution. Evers did not address that possibility. Evers also signed a bill requiring increased transparency from the Parole Commission, including the requirement that additional statistics and information be published on the Department of Corrections' website. That bill, AB47, is Act 31. Evers was more forthcoming about his reasons for signing this bill than he was in explaining why he signed the overdose bill. “Ensuring transparency, accountability, and appropriate support and notification for victims, survivors, and their families is absolutely vital to the success of the Parole Commission and of our criminal justice system as a whole,” Evers said. Justice-related bills pending in the Legislature include those below. A chart showing the sponsors of each is at the bottom of this post. SB302/AB301 – Sexual contact lawsuits This bill would allow more time for a childhood victim of incest, sexual assault, or sexual contact to sue the alleged perpetrator. Currently, the victim must bring an action before reaching the age of 35; this bill would raise the age to 45. In addition, it would apply to all adult offenders, not just clergy members. SB313/AB313 – Failure to stop for a school bus The minimum penalty for failing to stop for a stopped school bus with flashing red lights would increase 10 times, from a forfeiture $30 to $300, under this legislation. The maximum penalty would jump from $300 to $1,000. The bill also would require the Department of Transportation to assess three demerit points against the record of a person convicted of failing to stop for a school bus. Under the demerit system, repeated traffic violations can lead to the suspension of a person's driver's license. SB314/AB315 – Possession of child pornography Under this bill, the depiction of actual children engaged in real or simulated sex no longer would be necessary to be charged or convicted of possessing child pornography. Instead, possessing pornographic images of someone who looks like a child or of computer-generated or hand-drawn pictures of children would be enough. The bill, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau, would make it illegal to knowingly receive, distribute, produce, possess, or access, with the intent to look at, obscene photographs, film, motion pictures, or digital or computer-generated images or pictures that contain a visual representation that appears to depict an actual child engaged in sexually explicit conduct although the representation does not depict an actual child. (Imagine the arguments over whether that 16- or 17-year-old looks like a child or an adult!) Violations would be punishable by up to 25 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. The bill includes a three-year mandatory minimum sentence. SB321/AB329 – Child sex dolls It would be illegal to possess child sex dolls, under this bill. Such dolls are defined as "anatomically correct doll, mannequin, or robot, with features that resemble a minor that is intended for use in sex acts, for sexual gratification, or for manipulating children into participating in sex acts, instructing children how to participate in sex acts, or normalizing sexual behavior with children," according to the Legislative Reference Bureau. Penalties for violations would vary depending on how many dolls are involved, past offenses, and past convictions for crimes against children. A first offense involving fewer than three dolls, for example, would be punishable by up to 3½ years in prison and a $10,000 fine. For a second offense involving at least three dolls, the penalty would be up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine; for a third offense, up to 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine. The penalties are tougher if the doll is intended to represent a specific child or if the offender has been previously convicted of intentional child abuse of a child, first-degree sexual assault of a child, sexual exploitation of a child, use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime, or possession of child pornography. The bill also makes it a felony to provide premises for the use of a child sex doll, or to transfer, advertise, or display a child sex doll, instructions on how to create one, or materials intended to create one. The bill also prohibits intentionally making a child sex doll. Exempted from the created prohibitions under the bill are law enforcement officers, physicians, psychologists, attorneys, court officers, and others involved in law enforcement or child therapy, as long as their sex-doll activity is done in the lawful performance of their duties.  By Gretchen Schuldt Supreme Court rules don't support Chief Justice Annette K. Ziegler's complaint that the new liberal court majority ignored them when it dismissed at-will employee Randy Koschnick as director of state courts and changed the way the court runs. The Koschnick decision, Ziegler said, "was made without regard for the Constitution, case law, or Supreme Court rules." But here's what the court's own operating procedures (emphasis added) actually say: The court continually reviews its procedures to improve the efficient processing of its caseload and the effective discharge of its administrative responsibilities. Accordingly, these procedures may be changed without notice as circumstances require. It should be reemphasized that these are not rules. They do not purport to limit or describe in binding fashion the powers or duties of any Supreme Court personnel. These internal operating procedures are merely descriptive of how the court currently functions. Any internal operating procedure may be suspended or modified by majority vote of a quorum of the court. The rules say the courts director "is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of" the Supreme Court. Ziegler also said the majority's decision to set up a new committee with new administrative powers and to increase court transparency was made in an "illegitimate closed meeting." It was the then-conservative majority who in 2012 voted, 4-3, to close many Supreme Court administrative meetings. Ziegler voted in favor of secrecy. The new majority voted this week to open those meetings again. And did the majority "gut" Ziegler's constitutional authority as administrator of the court, which she alleged in a statement? In a word, no. Here's what the constitution says: "The chief justice of the supreme court shall be the administrative head of the judicial system and shall exercise this administrative authority pursuant to procedures adopted by the supreme court." (Emphasis added.) Finally, Ziegler said changes like those the court majority has announced are made "when seven members of the court convene with an agenda prepared by the Chief Justice and at a time set by the Chief Justice during the court’s business year, which is September-June." Ziegler, in other words, believes the court should consider only the rules that Ziegler likes at a time that Ziegler likes. But now the court's new four-member majority constitutes a quorum of the court and will actually have a say in how things run. The court's own procedures and the state constitution make that clear.  |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed