 By Alexandria Staubach The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently rejected a new Fourth Amendment warrant exception for canine searches, but different facts could lead to a different result in the future. The state argued in the case that an “instinct exception” permits canine searches that naturally extend into a vehicle during a traffic stop if the canine conducts the search “instinctively,” meaning without an officer’s direction, assistance, or encouragement. The appeals court concluded that regardless of whether an instinct exception to the warrant requirement exists in Wisconsin, the state failed to establish a necessary element of any such exception—that the canine act unprompted. The appeals court remanded the case to Sawyer County Circuit Court with an order to grant Ashley Campbell’s motion to suppress.  Gill District III Judge Gregory B. Gill wrote for the court, joined by Judges Lisa K. Stark and Thomas M. Hruz. Campbell pleaded no contest to possession of marijuana after Judge John M. Yackel denied her motion to suppress the marijuana found during a warrantless search of her vehicle. Yackel accepted the state’s argument for the instinct exception, which had not otherwise been adopted in the state of Wisconsin. Trooper Mitchell Kraetke initiated a traffic stop of Campbell’s vehicle after noticing that the vehicle did not have a front license plate and the passenger was not wearing a seat belt. As Kraetke stopped the vehicle, he called for Sergeant Al-Moghrabi to arrive with his canine to assist. After initially talking with Campbell and her passenger, Kraetke conducted a record check and discovered that Campbell’s license was suspended for failure to pay a forfeiture. Her passenger’s license was revoked due to a prior conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Al-Moghrabi arrived, talked briefly with Kraetke and then approached Campbell’s vehicle. He asked Campbell and her passenger if there was any illegal contraband in the vehicle, and both responded there was not. Al-Moghrabi then ordered both individuals out of the vehicle. Campbell did not close her driver’s side door when she exited, and it remained open. Kraetke then met with Campbell and her passenger behind the vehicle to discuss the traffic infractions. Meanwhile, Al-Moghrabi retrieved his canine from his squad car and walked the dog to the hood of Campbell’s vehicle, allowing the dog to “scan” it. “Scanning,” meant that al-Moghrabi allowed the canine to sniff independently instead of identifying certain areas of the vehicle for the dog to check. The canine’s leash had slack. Dashboard camera video from the trial court showed that Al-Moghrabi walked from the hood of Campbell’s vehicle, around the open driver’s side door, and up to the door’s entrance. Al-Moghrabi then stopped and allowed the canine to enter the vehicle. Al-Moghrabi was not pulling the leash or attempting to get the canine to exit the vehicle at any point. Al-Moghrabi testified that the dog began “sniffing intently at” a purse on the floor of the vehicle. According to Al-Moghrabi intent sniffing indicates an alert. The dog exited the vehicle and Al-Moghrabi repeated the steps. He walked the canine up to the door’s opening, stopped, and allowed the canine to enter the vehicle. Al-Moghrabi testified that on the canine’s second entry, it again began “sniffing intently” at the purse. Al-Moghrabi returned the dog to his squad car then searched the purse, finding marijuana inside. “(R)egardless of whether an ‘instinct exception’ to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement exists when a canine ‘searches’ a vehicle, the exception does not apply under the facts in this case to excuse the State’s obligation to obtain a warrant prior to searching Campbell’s vehicle,” wrote Gill. “Here, the canine did not instinctively enter Campbell’s vehicle because the officer had full control of the canine and implicitly encouraged it to enter through the driver’s side door. We therefore conclude that even if the instinct exception were to be recognized in Wisconsin, the exception would not apply to the canine’s searches in this case,” Gill wrote. Jurisdictions recognizing the instinct exception have split on whether reasonable suspicion that narcotics be present is required prior to the dog’s unprompted alert. The state argued in Campbell’s case that no independent basis for reasonable suspicion that narcotics are present is required. 
0 Comments
By Alexandria Staubach
On Wednesday, a Dane County Circuit Court judge heard oral arguments on whether she should dismiss a case challenging two cash-bail constitutional amendments passed by voters in April 2023. The lawsuit asks the court to toss the results of the election on procedural grounds. The plaintiffs allege that the Legislature and Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) failed to timely file the Republican-backed resolutions calling for the voter referendums, so the questions should not have appeared on the ballot. One amendment expanded the situations in which cash bail could be imposed, while the other expanded conditions for release on cash bail. Notably, in the same year that Wisconsin voters expanded cash bail, Illinois became the first state to abolish it. The plaintiffs are WISDOM—a statewide network of mainly faith-based organizations—and EXPO Wisconsin. Both groups work to end mass incarceration. They “advocated strenuously” against the amendments, according to court filings. WISDOM and EXPO allege they were deprived of opportunities to organize against the resolutions. State law requires the Legislature to file ballot questions “with the official or agency at least 70 days before the election,” making the deadline for the Apr. 4, 2023 election Jan. 25, 2023. The lawsuit involves questions about who the appropriate “official or agency” is and the stricture of the 70-day rule and whether substantial compliance is enough. WISDOM and EXPO allege the law required the Legislature and WEC to submit ballot questions to county clerks and the Milwaukee County Board of Election Commissioners (MCBEC), as the entities who prepare ballots, on or before the deadline. The ballot questions were not received by county clerks and MCBEC until Jan. 26, 2023. Oral arguments occurred before Judge Rhonda L. Lanford at the summary judgment stage of litigation. Plaintiffs maintain that procedural impropriety motivates the suit. “Those who run our elections have to follow the law,” said Jeff Mandell of the LawForward law firm, which represents EXPO and WISDOM. WEC’s attorney, Charlotte Gibson, argued that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the lawsuit and that the Legislature substantially complied with the requirements for filing. The 70-day deadline is “not mandatory,” she said. “The gerrymandered Wisconsin Legislature must respect the proper procedures for amending the state constitution,” and “attempts to push through constitutional amendments without the established legislative process are yet another example of legislative overreach,” said Mandell after oral arguments. Many working to end mass incarceration remain strongly opposed to the amendments. "The problem with the recent constitutional and statutory changes on bail is they move us away from an evidence-based system and more toward a system in which the charged offense drives the bail decision,” said criminal defense attorney Craig Johnson (who also is WJI’s board president). “Even a person accused of a serious offense maintains a presumption of innocence. If the evidence shows they carry a low risk of re-offending or missing court, they should be entitled to release. We always have to keep in mind that holding people on cash bail unnecessarily can cost them their jobs, their housing and their families. The cash bail system also unfairly impacts indigent and low-income defendants," Johnson told WJI. The nonprofit LawForward began in 2020 “with a mission of protecting democracy,” according to the firm’s website. Since then it has been involved in litigation regarding voting rights and ballot access, redistricting, and election administration, among other issues.  Photograph of the Wisconsin State Capitol by Margo Kirchner By Alexandria Staubach
Last week, conversations about elections loomed large at the Capitol in Madison, involving all three branches of government. Judicial branch On May 13, the Wisconsin Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Priorities, USA v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, a case that could restore the use of drop boxes in Wisconsin after they were banned by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2022. Oral arguments hinged on the question of whether state law makers and the law itself effectively banned the use of drop boxes by omitting them from a set of mandatory requirements applicable to absentee ballots. Chicago attorney Misha Tseytlin represented the Wisconsin Legislature as he has in numerous other high stakes cases, including Wisconsin’s most recent redistricting case. Tseytlin argued that “two years ago the Court made this decision,” so the court should be precluded from making any determination in the new case. Justice Janet Protasiewicz highlighted that the Legislature was not part of the case decided two years ago and at the time took a position “assuring federal and state courts that drop boxes were permitted” and “safe and secure.” Plaintiffs Priorities USA and Wisconsin Alliance for Retired Americans argued that the court’s prior interpretation of the law places an unnecessary restriction on casting absentee ballots and in practice is “unworkable.” They argued that under the court’s prior decision municipal clerks and voters are unable to decipher what they can and cannot do. According to the plaintiffs, the law only mandates specific minimum requirements and does not state every possible option for the return of ballots to clerks, leaving such decisions to the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) historically. Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley asked several times how clerks should be limited in their discretion and what prevented them from administering elections in “whatever way they choose.” WEC’s attorney, Faye Hipsman, responded that regardless of the use of drop boxes, clerks remain bound by all other election statutes, including statutes that require them to “conduct elections that are proper and secure.” Advocates for drop boxes held rallies around the state on the day of the oral arguments. At a rally in Milwaukee, ACLU-Wisconsin Deputy Advocacy Director James Stein said that “Drop boxes make it easy for folks to drop off their ballots hassle-free." He said that “for rural voters who have to drive far and wide to vote on election day, voters in large cities who have limited ballot return options, voters with disabilities, and voters who work long hours or have caregiving responsibilities that make it difficult to return a ballot to a single clerk’s office during shortened hours in the middle of the work day, drop boxes are essential. For voters who receive their absentee ballots late, drop boxes are critical for making sure their ballot can get returned in time to be counted." Stein noted how widespread drop box access was associated with extraordinary voter participation in 2020 and that in the 2022 general election over 760,000 Wisconsinites (almost 30% of voters in that election) cast their ballots absentee. “By fighting for ballot drop boxes, we're fighting for the very soul of our democracy," he said. At a rally in Madison, ACLU-Wisconsin Campaign & Political Manager Conor Miller said, “Over the past decade, we have witnessed several attacks on the fundamental right to vote. . . . “Enough is enough.” Executive branch On May 14, Gov. Tony Evers signed an executive order calling for a special election in the 4th Senate District to fill the seat of Sen. Lena Taylor. Taylor resigned as state senator following her appointment to Milwaukee County Circuit Court in January. The special election will take place on July 30. A primary will occur on July 2 if necessary. Legislative branch On May 16, the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections and the Senate Committee on Shared Revenue, Elections, and Consumer Protection held a joint informational hearing about measures currently in place and investigations that may occur in the future to ensure election integrity. The committees' purpose was to “remove any conjecture that may be out there about what is occurring with elections,” said Rep. Scott Krug (R-Nekoosa). He added that the committee would continue to hold public hearings throughout the summer despite inconvenience to its members, to avoid “another 2020.” The committees heard testimony from the Department of Transportation regarding voter identification cards issued under current law. Ashley Reichert and Lida Tollefson, county clerks in Washington County and Rock County, respectively, discussed systems implemented in their jurisdictions to ensure election integrity. Fond du Lac District Attorney Eric Toney advised the committees that he was unaware of any significant voter fraud. Toney said his office has prosecuted only three voter fraud cases since 2020 and indicated that, at times, voter fraud is a crime that people do not necessarily know they are committing. For instance, persons under felony supervision may vote believing their rights have been restored. Testimony centered around three issues central to the committees: (1) non-citizen voting (2) voting by persons ineligible due to felony convictions, and (3) voting by persons who have been deemed incompetent to exercise the right to vote. Rep. Donna Rozar (R- Marshfield) inquired about the possibility of a shared database of incompetent voters. Tollefson and Reichert indicated that such information is provided by the WEC only to municipalities where incompetent individuals reside. They acknowledged the hypothetical possibility that a person who has been deemed incompetent could move to another municipality and be permitted to vote absent a readily available statewide list. Although not discussed at the hearing, the scenario raised by Rozar is the subject of a lawsuit making its way through the courts, Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Kristina Secord. Wisconsin Voter Alliance (WVA) brought two failed lawsuits seeking to overturn the results of 2020 presidential election. The Walworth County registrar denied WVA’s open records request for notices sent to election officials (as required by current election law) when a court determines a person is incompetent. Walworth County believes the notices are not subject to disclosure under public records law. WVA argues that the public has an interest in the information, as shown by alleged discrepancies between notices issued to the WEC and the volume of notices published on WEC’s website. A Walworth County Circuit Court judge dismissed the case. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, ordering the records released, though with birthdates and case numbers redacted. In March, the Supreme Court agreed to review that ruling. This afternoon WJI petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to require trained interpreters in municipal court proceedings involving low-English-proficiency (LEP) individuals.
WJI’s proposed new rule of procedure would bring municipal courts more in line with circuit courts, which are required to use “qualified” interpreters in proceedings involving LEP individuals. Qualified interpreters must meet certain requirements regarding their capabilities and accuracy. The current rule requires qualified interpreters in municipal courts only in matters involving juveniles. Otherwise, municipal judges are allowed to ask a party to bring a friend or family member—sometimes even a minor child—to court to interpret legal proceedings. “I’ve even seen a judge ask the gallery—the defendants awaiting their own cases to be called—if anyone spoke Spanish and could interpret proceedings when a woman did not bring someone with her to court,” said WJI Executive Director Margo Kirchner. The proposed new rule for municipal courts tracks the circuit court rule, with a major difference. The proposed rule divides proceedings into 1) evidentiary hearings that involve testimony and 2) other proceedings. Qualified interpreters would be required for all evidentiary hearings, including trials. In other proceedings, such as initial appearances or status conferences, the municipal court could use a telephonic, video, or computerized service approved by the director of state courts. Interpretation of legal proceedings by untrained friends, family members, or strangers would no longer be permitted. WJI wrote in its brief supporting the petition that “LEP individuals in Wisconsin today are not receiving proper access to qualified interpreters in municipal court proceedings.” Family members and friends acting as interpreters may not be proficient in the languages being used and may have conflicts of interest. “Even assuming they are proficient, these individuals almost certainly lack professional training as interpreters, let alone the specialized legal training necessary for properly interpreting court proceedings,” WJI wrote. “The ability to understand the words of the judge and the opposing party during a legal proceeding is a crucial element of due process. Without the help of a qualified interpreter, LEP individuals cannot meaningfully participate in their own legal proceedings This deprivation of due process rights has serious legal and practical consequences,” WJI wrote. WJI added that holding proceedings without providing qualified interpreters may also amount to national origin discrimination. “Very few defendants in Wisconsin's municipal courts have attorneys. This problem is compounded for those who do not understand the language being spoken in the courtroom,” said WJI board member and former Milwaukee Municipal Judge Jim Gramling about the need for the petition. “Municipal courts handle drunk driving cases, building and health code violations, charges of disorderly conduct, vandalism, marijuana possession, assault and battery. Forfeitures can reach into the thousands of dollars. Defendants in these cases deserve full interpreter services,” Gramling said. “Every court in Wisconsin, by law, must provide full interpreter services for defendants with one exception—the 230 municipal courts which handle over 400,000 cases every year,” Gramling said. “Municipal courts fly under the radar for the public and media, but that is where many people interact with the court system. As we say in our brief, municipal court cases involve real charges and real consequences," Kirchner said. “Those charged with offenses in municipal court, just as in circuit court, should be able to understand what is said and argue their case to the judge with accurate interpretation.” The petition is part of WJI’s broader effort to improve municipal court outcomes for defendants, especially low-income and minority individuals. “Since 2016, WJI has educated the public about municipal courts, monitored municipal court proceedings, and advocated for an end to jail and driver’s license suspension in response to unpaid municipal court forfeitures,” said Kirchner. “While monitoring municipal courts, we saw the frequent use of friends and family members when interpreters were needed,” said Kirchner. WJI has published public education information to help defendants understand municipal court proceedings. The materials include a Spanish-language video and pocket guide. Under the proposed rule, interpreters would be provided at municipal expense. WJI argues that the cost is reasonable and necessary in light of the important interests at stake. WJI awaits review of the petition by the Supreme Court. Note: We are crunching Supreme Court of Wisconsin decisions down to size. The rule for this is that no justice gets more than 10 paragraphs as written in the actual decision. The “upshot” and “background” sections do not count as part of the 10 paragraphs because of their summary and necessary nature. We've deleted footnotes and headings. We’ve also removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading but have linked to important cases cited or information about them if helpful. Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which are also italicized. The case: A.M.B. v. Circuit Court for Ashland County Majority: Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley (23 pages), for a unanimous court Concurring: Grassl Bradley (12 pages), joined by Chief Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler and Justice Brian Hagedorn Concurring: Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet (7 pages), joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Janet Protasiewicz Concurring: Justice Jill J. Karofsky (7 pages)  Grassl Bradley The upshot A creature of statute, adoption confers legal rights and duties on adopted children and their adoptive parents. The legislature has made policy choices regarding the circumstances under which children may be adopted and by whom. A.M.B. is the biological mother of M.M.C. and wishes to have her nonmarital partner, T.G., adopt M.M.C. Under the adoption statutes, T.G. is not eligible to adopt M.M.C. because T.G. is not A.M.B.'s spouse. A.M.B. and T.G. allege the legislatively drawn classifications violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in denying T.G. the right to adopt M.M.C. and in denying M.M.C. the right to be adopted by T.G. Because the adoption statutes do not restrict a fundamental right or regulate a protected class, we consider whether any rational basis exists for the legislative limits on eligibility to adopt a child. Among other legitimate state interests, promoting stability for adoptive children through marital families suffices for the statutes to survive this equal protection challenge; therefore, we affirm the circuit court. Background A.M.B. is the biological mother of M.M.C. and maintains a cohabitating, nonmarital relationship with her male partner, T.G. After more than a decade in a relationship with A.M.B., T.G. has become a father figure for M.M.C. and has assumed a variety of parental duties for her. The parental rights of M.M.C.'s biological father have been terminated. Based on T.G.'s fatherly bond and relationship with M.M.C., T.G. filed a joint petition with A.M.B. to adopt M.M.C. Prior to the adoption hearing, the county department of human services generated a "Home Study Report," which included a background check of T.G., a review of T.G.'s relationship with M.M.C., and an interview with M.M.C. The interview with M.M.C. revealed she did not have a meaningful relationship with her biological father and views T.G. as her father. The report concluded with a recommendation to grant the adoption. On June 20, 2022, the circuit court held a hearing on the adoption petition. At the outset, the court raised concerns over its authority to grant the petition given the criteria for adoption under applicable statutes, despite having determined the adoption would be in the best interests of the child, M.M.C. The circuit court cited this court's decision in Georgina G. v. Terry M., which the circuit court summarized as precluding "an adoption to a third party who is not the spouse of the parent." Because T.G. was not married to A.M.B., the circuit court determined T.G. was not statutorily eligible to adopt M.M.C. and denied the adoption petition. A.M.B. and T.G. appealed. The case bypassed the court of appeals on its way to the Supreme Court.  The guts Chapter 48 of Wisconsin Statutes establishes legal adoption and specifies the circumstances under which a child may be adopted as well as who is eligible to adopt. Under the statutes, a child who is present in the State of Wisconsin when the adoption petition is filed may be adopted under any of the following four scenarios: (1) the parental rights of both parents have been legally terminated; (2) both parents are deceased; (3) the parental rights of one parent have been terminated and the other parent is deceased; or (4) "[t]he person filing the petition for adoption is the spouse of the child's parent with whom the child and the child's parent reside." Subsection (4) applies only if the child's other parent is deceased or his parental rights have been terminated. Colloquially called the "stepparent" exception, this provision permits a stepparent to adopt his spouse's child while the spouse's parental rights remain intact. The adoption statutes additionally identify three classifications of individuals who may adopt an eligible child: "A husband and wife jointly," "either the husband or wife if the other spouse is a parent of the minor," or "an unmarried adult." The statutes do not allow two unmarried adults to jointly adopt a minor. Nor do the statutes permit a nonmarital partner to adopt his partner's child. Omitting those categories of unmarried individuals from the list of eligible persons who may adopt means the law does not qualify them as adoptive parents." . . . *** The court discussed why the adoption statutes do not implicate a fundamental right under federal or state constitutions and do not affect a protected class of individuals. If a fundamental constitutional right is not at stake and a protected class is not disadvantaged by the statute, the court applies rational basis review. A "relatively relaxed standard," rational basis review reflects the court's respect for the separation of powers and recognizes "the drawing of lines that create distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one." In applying rational basis review, the court will uphold the statute provided the classification bears a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. *** The state has a legitimate interest in ensuring children are adopted into "safe and stable families." The state may achieve this goal by encouraging married couples to adopt children and the legislature recognized the essential link between marriage and the welfare of children in "The Family Code." Marriage in the State of Wisconsin creates a legal bond between two persons who "owe to each other mutual responsibility and support." This legal bond creates a series of rights and obligations between the two individuals, dissolvable only by death or divorce. Wisconsin law imposes on each spouse "an equal obligation" in accordance with financial ability "to contribute money or services or both which are necessary for the adequate support and maintenance of" the couple's "minor children and of the other spouse." The state deems "[t]he consequences of the marriage contract" to be "more significant to society than those of other contracts." Unlike a nonmarital relationship, the legal union between two individuals through marriage cannot be terminated impulsively or spontaneously; the law requires a court proceeding to terminate the contractual relationship. If a child already has a legal parent, the state reasonably concludes it would be more beneficial for that child to be adopted into a marital family, rather than by an unmarried partner of the child's legal parent. As the state argued in its brief, the fact that marriage requires legal proceedings to terminate provides "some level of assurance" the adoptive stepparent "will remain committed to the family unit and the child’s upbringing." A child joining a family with married parents enjoys a greater likelihood of a financially stable upbringing compared to a household with two unmarried parents. In the event of a divorce, Wisconsin statutes create a presumption guaranteeing both marital partners leave the relationship on financially equivalent footing. This presumption "effectuates the policy that each spouse makes a valuable contribution to the marriage and that each spouse should be compensated for his or her respective contributions." Nothing comparable exists for unmarried couples. If an unmarried partner decides to sever the relationship, he may freely leave without an equal division of financial assets, to the financial detriment of the remaining parent and the adoptive child. Rational basis review is a "low bar" for the government to clear in an equal protection challenge. In this case, the state has met this burden because it is reasonable for the legislature to have concluded that a married couple would provide a more secure and financially stable home environment for adoptive children than an unmarried couple. While A.M.B. and T.G. may provide a safe, stable, healthy, and loving home for M.M.C., the judiciary is powerless to craft an exception to the adoption law on a case-by-case basis. "A legislative classification satisfies rational basis review if any conceivable state of facts could provide a rational basis for the classification." Petitioners cannot overcome the rational basis for the classifications established in the adoption statutes. Wisconsin has a legitimate interest in preferring the stability and security of a marital household for the upbringing of adopted children. The statute's classifications for whom may adopt a child reflects the state's interest in preferring stable and financially secure households for adoptive children. Petitioners argue the state draws an arbitrary and irrational distinction by permitting a single, unmarried adult to adopt a child but not a cohabitating, unmarried partner. We disagree. The legislative classifications bear a rational basis because the state may reasonably prefer a child to be adopted by a single, unmarried adult rather than be placed in foster care or another impermanent living arrangement. Because a child with one parent has permanency, the state has a legitimate interest in restricting adoption to the child's stepparent, who is more likely to provide a stable family and better outcomes for the child. Allowing married couples to adopt but not unmarried couples is consistent with the "public policy" of the state "to promote the stability of marriage and family." By allowing married couples to adopt but not unmarried couples, the state provides a benefit to married couples not afforded to unmarried couples. States "have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities." Precluding an individual from adopting his nonmarital partner's child merely makes marriage a basis for the adoption right, a classification rooted in our nation's history. Limiting adoption to married couples and single adults is neither irrational nor arbitrary because the state has legitimate reasons for the legislative classifications established . . . . Under rational basis review, the court does not judge the wisdom of the legislative classifications. Instead, we must uphold the statute's classification if there exists some rationale to justify it. In establishing eligibility to adopt or to be adopted, the legislature chose to prioritize the stability of marriage for adopted children with one parent, while preferring an unmarried adoptive parent to impermanency for a child with no parents. A rational basis exists for these legislative policy choices. We hold that the statutes do not violate the Equal Protection Clause because they serve the legitimate state interest in promoting the adoption of children into stable, marital families. Grassl Bradley concurrence For most of the history of the United States, constitutional-rights litigation occurred predominantly in state courts and centered on state constitutional rights. It's no wonder why. The individual rights protected by the United States Constitution did not originally apply to the states. Regardless, all individual rights protected under the Constitution originated from the guarantees of liberty embodied in state constitutional provisions. Even the practice of judicial review—the main vehicle by which citizens vindicate their liberties—originated in state courts. Invoking state constitutional rights, however, has been out of vogue for some time. Such claims have sometimes been relegated to "second-tier status," and an afterthought in legal briefs. Many commentators have noted the decline in the centrality of state constitutional claims as the United States Supreme Court federalized constitutional rights during the Warren Court era. Over the course of the twentieth century, and especially in the 1960s, the Court incorporated most federal constitutional rights against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. As incorporation occurred, the Court also developed expansive—and novel—interpretations of the Constitution. As Justice William Brennan put it, the Court "fundamentally reshaped the law of this land" by "nationaliz[ing] civil rights." As a result, the relevance of state constitutions appeared to fade. Litigants stopped arguing their cases under state constitutions. Some state courts interpreted their state constitutions in lockstep with the federal courts' interpretation of the Federal Constitution. In recent years, a newfound interest in asserting state constitutional rights has emerged, which, in theory, should benefit individual liberty. State constitutional rights are just as important and worthy of protection as federal constitutional rights. And this court has a duty to enforce the rights protected under the Wisconsin Constitution. Not all arguments for enforcing state constitutional rights are rooted in text, history, and tradition; some stem from disappointment with the outcomes in certain United States Supreme Court decisions. Negative reaction to the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts' reluctance to "innovate" new federal constitutional rights, triggered a resurgence of interest by litigants and legal commentators in asking state courts to fill the gap. For example, in two famous law review articles, Justice William Brennan urged state courts to "step into the breach" created by the Court, and argued that "activist intervention[s]" into democratic governance are less problematic when done by state courts. The pressure on state courts to intrude on the democratic process has intensified with the Court's landmark decisions in Rucho (gerrymandering) and Dobbs (abortion). Channeling the spirit of Justice William Brennan, Justice Rebecca Dallet argues this court should abandon its past practice of construing Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution to provide substantially identical protections as the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, she invites litigants to ask this court to invent constitutional rights: "[T]he lack of settled case law [discussing Article I, Section 1] should be encouraging to litigants. It is up to us—judges, lawyers, and citizens—to give effect to the fundamental guarantees of Article I, Section 1." As a pivotal part of her call for activism, Justice Dallet claims this court has embraced a "pluralistic approach" to constitutional interpretation in which this court "balance[s] the majority's values against the values that should be protected from society's majorities." Nothing could be further from the truth or more corrosive to our democratic form of government. It is not for judges to superimpose their values on the constitution. The Wisconsin Constitution's text "is the very product of an interest balancing by the people," which judges cannot "conduct for them anew" in each case. The balance struck by the people of Wisconsin, as embodied in the constitution, "demands our unqualified deference." What the constitution does not say is as important as what it says. If the constitution itself does not bar majorities from passing certain laws, there is no lawful basis for judges to say otherwise. Nothing in the constitution authorizes judges to void laws that violate some judges' sense of what ought to be. There is a good reason jurists "seldom endorse[]" the views espoused by Justice Dallet openly: They contradict "the basic democratic theory of our government." Justice Dallet attempts to conceal her call for an antidemocratic power grab with the illusion of inclusive language. She intimates that future generations must each decide for themselves what the constitution means in their time: "It is up to us—judges, lawyers, and citizens—to give effect to" the constitution's words today. When the president of Wisconsin's 1848 convention said "the pages of our constitution . . . abound[] in the declaration of those great principles which characterize the age in which we live," he did not mean to characterize the constitution as an empty vessel into which each generation may pour its prejudices and aspirations. He meant exactly what he said. The new constitution embodied the values and principles of that time, and those principles were to remain fixed and endure throughout the ages: "[The Wisconsin Constitution] abounds in the declaration of those great principles which characterize the age in which we live, and which, under the protection of Heaven, will—nay, must—guard the honor, promote the prosperity, and secure the permanent welfare of our beloved country." Justice Dallet ultimately advocates for the discredited "practice of constitutional revision" by a committee of four lawyers who happen to form a majority on the court. Should a majority of this court—four lawyers—decide to imbue the constitution with modern meanings divorced from the constitutional text and the history and traditions of this state, they will rob the people of Wisconsin of their most important liberty: "the freedom to govern themselves." Although living constitutionalism is often couched in the rhetoric of flexibility and a purported need to adjust for a changing society, in practice it presents a grave threat to democracy by thwarting the people from passing legislation to accommodate changing views. Living constitutionalism invites lawyers donning robes to decide all the important issues of the day, removing their resolution from the political process altogether and depriving the people of any say in such matters. "In practice, the Living Constitution would better be called the Dead Democracy." Justice Dallet's invitation to reimagine the constitution's text with a so-called "pluralistic approach" flies in the face of this court's established method of constitutional interpretation and should be rejected. As with statutory interpretation, the goal of constitutional interpretation is to ascertain the meaning of the constitutional text as it would have been understood by those who adopted it. Judges lack any authority to "rewrite the Constitution to reflect the[ir] views and values." As stated by Justice Cassoday in 1890: "It is no part of the duty of this court to make or unmake, but simply to construe this provision of the constitution. All questions of political and governmental ethics, all questions of policy, must be regarded as having been fully considered by the convention which framed, and conclusively determined by the people who adopted, the constitution, more than 40 years ago. The oath of every official in the state is to support that constitution as it is, and not as it might have been." *** Any argument construing Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution to protect an asserted right must be grounded in the constitution's actual text and history. "Certainly, states have the power to afford greater protection to citizens under their constitutions than the federal constitution does." But it cannot simply be assumed that the Wisconsin Constitution provides more protection for an asserted right than the Federal Constitution: "[T]he question for a state court is whether its state constitution actually affords greater protection. A state court does not have the power to write into its state constitution additional protection that is not supported by its text or historical meaning." This court has stated many times that "[i]n interpreting a constitutional provision, the court turns to three sources in determining the provision's meaning: the plain meaning of the words in the context used; the constitutional debates and the practices in existence at the time of the writing of the constitution; and the earliest interpretation of the provision by the legislature as manifested in the first law passed following adoption." Litigants asserting a right under Article I, Section 1 must ground their arguments in those considerations—not policy or subjective moral judgments. Our constitution and our commitment to a democratic form of government demand nothing less.  Dallet Dallet concurrence I agree with the majority's conclusion that the adoption statutes are rationally related to a legitimate state interest, and therefore do not violate M.M.C.'s or T.G.'s rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. For that reason, I join the majority opinion. I write separately to address petitioners' alternative equal protection challenge under Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Our constitution was written independently of the United States Constitution and we must interpret it as such, based on its own language and our state's unique identity. When we do so, there are several compelling reasons why we should read Article I, Section 1 as providing broader protections for individual liberties than the Fourteenth Amendment. We cannot simply assume—as petitioners seemingly did in this case—that these different constitutional provisions mean the same thing. *** (W)e have a long history of interpreting our constitution to provide greater protections for the individual liberties of Wisconsinites than those mandated by the federal Constitution. For example, we concluded that the Wisconsin Constitution guarantees the right to counsel at the state's expense in criminal cases more than 100 years before the United States Supreme Court recognized the same right in Gideon v. Wainwright. More than 40 years before Mapp v. Ohio, we held that suppression was the appropriate remedy for unlawful searches and seizures under our constitution. And we have also said that when police deliberately violate a criminal defendant's Miranda rights, our constitution requires that the evidence be suppressed, even if the Fourth Amendment doesn't require the same. More recently, we have endorsed the view that "[t]he Wisconsin Constitution, with its specific and expansive language, provides much broader protections for religious liberty than the First Amendment." *** Even a cursory review of Article I, Section 1 of our constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment indicates that the clauses have different meanings. Article I, Section 1 states, in its entirety: "All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights: among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Compare this with the Fourteenth Amendment which provides in pertinent part that "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Aside from two shared words—"life" and "liberty"—Article I, Section 1 and the Fourteenth Amendment are worded in dramatically different ways. Article I, Section 1 protects more than the enumerated rights of "life, liberty, or property." It declares unequivocally that all Wisconsinites have "inherent rights," a phrase that was written "to be broad enough to cover every principle of natural right, of abstract justice." Whereas the Fourteenth Amendment's protections extend only to those rights "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental," the inherent rights contemplated by Article I, Section 1 are not so limited. Moreover, Article I, Section 1 begins with the clear and expansive declaration that all people are "born equally free and independent." As we said over a century ago, "[t]oo much dignity cannot well be given to that declaration." By contrast, the Fourteenth Amendment contains a narrower guarantee of "equal protection of the laws." *** Notwithstanding the many reasons to interpret our state constitution differently than the federal Constitution, litigants often overlook state constitutional claims, or fail to develop them fully. This case is a perfect example. Although petitioners argued that the adoption statutes at issue violate Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution, they offered little more than a citation to that section as support. Otherwise, the parties' briefs focused solely on the Fourteenth Amendment and federal precedent, and ignored the Wisconsin Constitution entirely. That omission is somewhat understandable. Lawyers are surely more familiar with the extensive case law interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment. By comparison, our case law regarding Article I, Section 1 is sparse. But we must break this self- perpetuating cycle whereby lawyers fail to develop state constitutional arguments because they lack clear legal standards, which further prevents courts from developing clear legal standards. In a way, the lack of settled case law should be encouraging to litigants. It is up to us—judges, lawyers, and citizens—to give effect to the fundamental guarantees of Article I, Section 1. And in doing so, I agree with what Justice Dodge wrote more than 100 years ago, when he said that Article I, Section 1, should "not receive an unduly limited construction."  Karofsky Karofsky concurrence
I agree with the majority that A.M.B.'s constitutional challenge merits rational basis review and that the challenged adoption statutes have a rational basis under the law. Rational basis review presents a low bar for the state to clear. We need only to conceive of a single rational connection between the statutes and a legitimate state interest in order for us to uphold the statutes' constitutionality. Here it is rational for the legislature to connect marriage to relationship longevity, then relationship longevity to household stability, and finally household stability to the child's best interest. Because there is a conceivable logic behind those connections, the statutes have a rational basis. But in this case, the logical threads begin to shred under the weight of any sincere scrutiny. Here, we are left with the inescapable fact that the legally rational statutes prevented an adoption that all agree would have been in A.M.B.'s best interest. This incongruent outcome exemplifies the specious connection between the statutes and their stated goal of promoting a child's best interest. At first glance the connection may seem neatly knitted together; however, closer inspection reveals nothing more than a fraying tangle of dubious assumptions, circular reasoning, and outdated values that fail to reflect the practical realities of modern family life. I write separately to call out these three fraying threads that form an ever weakening connection between our adoption statutes and the goal of a child's best interest. I urge the legislature to reform the adoption restrictions so that they truly support the best interest of every child. The first fraying thread connecting the adoption statutes to the best interest of a child is a set of dubious assumptions regarding the stability of marital families compared to non-marital families. To be clear, the state has a legitimate interest in making sure that legal decisions involving a child are made based on the best interest of that child. And there is no doubt that it is in a child's best interest to grow up in a safe and stable household. However, conditioning adoption on the marital status of the child's parent and prospective adoptive parent reflects questionable assumptions about which types of households are stable, and which are unstable. There are many different family structures that create stability for children, and the statute's one-size-fits-all approach can actively work against the benefit of a child, as it did in this case. Children can and do thrive in families with single, unmarried, or married parents. This case is an excellent example of the second category. T.G. has, by all accounts, demonstrated dedication and commitment to A.M.B. over the past decade, and for her part A.M.B. reports that she views T.G. as a father figure. There is no dispute that adoption would be in A.M.B.'s best interest. Moreover, children can and do struggle in households with married parents. Married couples may, on average, stay together in the same household longer than unmarried parents, and that may look like stability from a thousand-foot-view. But inside the home, the legal pressure for a married couple to stay together, the very thing that makes the household appear stable in a superficial sense, may sometimes lead to worse outcomes for children. More than 20% of children have witnessed domestic violence within their lifetime, often resulting in long term harm to their development. Even short of domestic violence, legally "stable" marriages may be rife with stressors for the children in those homes. Even ignoring the challenges that may arise when a married couple remains together, marriage is hardly a guarantee of relationship stability given that divorce rates have continued to rise in the United States since the Civil War. In short, using marriage as a litmus test for household stability reflects suspect assumptions about which family structures create stability, and what it means for a household to be stable in the first place. Marriage is treated as binary, where married parents check the stability box, unmarried parents do not, and all nuance is disregarded as insignificant. In cases such as this where unmarried parents provide stability, there is no tolerance for any exception. And, as a result, children suffer. The second frayed thread linking the adoption statutes to the best interest of the child goal is little more than tail-wagging-the-dog circular reasoning. It goes like this: The state grants a "constellation of benefits" to married couples related to "taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decision making authority," and more. The state then uses those benefits as justification to grant yet another benefit to married couples—here, adoption rights—reasoning that because married couples are already well-supported by the state, they are in a better position to receive the new benefit. The connection between the granting of the benefit and the state's goals is thus substantially manufactured by the state, resulting in a spiral of ever-expanding benefits to married couples, leaving alternative family structures further and further behind. Perhaps the answer then is not to limit adoption benefits to married couples on the basis that the other benefits they receive make them "safe and stable," but for the legislature to expand support for alternative family structures, making them even more "safe and stable," and (from the state's point of view) suitable for adopting children. The third unraveling thread is an outdated set of values positioning marriage as the moral center of family and society. These values sometimes lurk beneath other seemingly neutral rationales for marital benefits (such as ensuring household stability), only surfacing occasionally as a reminder to us that they are still there. Sometimes these values are front and center, serving as the main justification for a marriage-based distinction under the law. To explain what is fundamentally wrong with using this set of values to justify marriage-based laws, I turn to an 1888 U.S. Supreme Court case . . . that expounded on marriage as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization or progress." At the time those words were written, the following was true about the institution of marriage. Coverture laws subordinated married women to their husbands' legal control, eliminating their legal and economic identities. As a result, a married woman's property, earnings, and labor automatically belonged to her husband. In addition, there was no legal recourse for a married woman whose husband had sexually assaulted her, which would be true well into the 1970s in many states. And neither married women nor unmarried women had the right to vote, to exercise civic influence in order to right these wrongs. Furthermore, marriage was limited exclusively to heterosexual relationships. And, marriages between people of differing races and ethnicities were widely banned. In short, if marriage was the foundation of the family and of society in 1888, there was something rotten at the core of that foundation. Times have changed, of course, but the justification that marriage is the moral core of society and the family is as weak as it ever was. With only about half of U.S. adults in a marriage, first marriages beginning later in life, and increasing divorce rates over time, Americans are spending more and more of their adult lives unmarried. Unsurprisingly then, nearly one third of children live in a single-parent home. Yet many Americans still desire to create families. Functional, stable families continue to form as alternative family structures proliferate and garner greater societal acceptance. The notion that marriage serves as the foundation of society is at best outdated, and at worst misogynistic. It provides scant justification for laws that distinguish based on marital status. By Margo Kirchner When John Remington takes his seat this month as Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, he will be the eighth new judge joining the court during the past 12 months. And once newly elected Marisabel Cabrera takes her seat, about one-fifth of the judges on the court will have been appointed since June 2023. Cabrera’s term starts Aug. 1. For comparison, just one judge started on the court in all of 2022 and two in 2021. “Is it unusual to have this many (new judges)? Yes, no question,” said Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge Carl Ashley in an interview with WJI. Cabrera and Judge Ana Berrios-Schroeder were elected. The other seven new judges were appointed by Gov. Tony Evers to fill vacancies. (Several of the appointees then won election in April to serve new terms beginning Aug. 1.) A chart below shows the new judges and their start dates based on information provided by Ashley. Milwaukee County Circuit Court has 47 judicial seats (called branches). In lesser-populated counties, some with just one judicial seat, the judges hear all varieties of cases. But in Milwaukee County, judges are assigned to specific divisions such as felony, misdemeanor, civil, probate, children’s, or small claims court. Ashley said that historically most new judges have started in children’s or misdemeanor court. However, when a judge had prior experience in a particular area of the law, a start in another division has occurred. Becoming a judge is a transition, he said, and “We want to be supportive of the judge” during that transition. Veteran judges are always helpful for the new judges, he said. In Milwaukee County, judges generally rotate after four years maximum in a particular division. For rotations, the chief judge takes into account where the judges want to be assigned, their seniority, and other factors. Ashley said we wants to have the best judges where they are needed. “Does (the number of new judges) impact the ability to assign judges? Yes,” he said, adding that it's all part of balancing and “just something we have to adjust for.” “As one would expect, there’s a bit of a learning curve that every judge experiences as they acclimate themselves to being a judge. As chief judge that impacts how judge assignments are made, but that is the nature of the process,” Ashley told WJI. The number of new judges is not the only change that today impacts initial judge assignments to children’s court, Ashley said. Children’s court has changed as well, with nearly 10 homicide cases in children’s court in the past year, compared with perhaps one per year before then, he said. “Things have changed on both ends." Ashley noted his respect for the judges who have retired recently. “I certainly want to acknowledge our veteran judges who have served our community for decades with great skill and commitment. The legacy of their mentorship has been and will be invaluable to our newer judges,” he said. Currently, a committee led by Deputy Chief William Pocan and District 1 (Milwaukee County) Court Administrator Stephanie Garbo is studying rotation procedures for Milwaukee County Circuit Court. Ashley said the process for rotations was last assessed about 15 years ago. The committee gathered survey data and other input from attorneys, current and retired judges, and the public. The committee will soon present Ashley with recommendations for any changes to the processes and policies governing rotations.  Wisconsin Supreme Court declines request to determine maps for recall and special elections4/3/2024  The Wisconsin Supreme this morning denied a motion by the Wisconsin Elections Commission seeking clarification on what maps apply to recall and special elections.
The court issued the order in the Clarke redistricting case. The court stated in the order that “(o)n December 22, 2023, we enjoined the ‘Elections Commission from using [the prior] legislative maps in all future elections’ because the maps violated the Wisconsin Constitution.” The Legislature then passed redistricting maps proposed by Gov. Tony Evers. On Feb. 19, 2024, Evers signed them into law as 2023 Wisconsin Act 94. Act 94 states that the new maps go into effect for seats up in the 2024 fall general election, leaving a question about what maps apply between now and then for special and recall elections. The old maps are unconstitutional, but do the new maps apply yet? The Legislature has ended its session so a legislative clarification looks unlikely. The general election is on Nov. 5, 2024, with a primary on Aug. 13, 2024. A special election is due for Senate District 4. The seat is vacant after Sen. Lena Taylor resigned her seat to become a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge. Meanwhile, a second effort to recall Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester) is underway. The court said that weighing in on what maps apply to special and recall elections would be an impermissible advisory opinion. “Act 94 is not before us in the Clarke case and any examination of these maps departs from the relief requested in Clarke v. WEC,” the court wrote. The court said it would not "make a pronouncement based on hypothetical facts," adding that the Wisconsin Elections Commission bears statutory responsibility for administering elections.  By Margo Kirchner Wisconsin Justice Initiative on Monday filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the pending redistricting litigation before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, urging the court to pay close attention to the requirement that Wisconsin Assembly districts follow county, town, or ward lines. The Wisconsin Constitution calls for assembly districts “to be bounded by county, precinct, town or ward lines, to be contiguous territory and be in as compact form as practicable.” On Dec. 22, 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the maps then in place violated the contiguity requirement. The court then set forth a process for its selection of replacement maps if the Legislature and governor fail to adopt new maps through legislation. Parties to the case filed six sets of proposed maps and supporting materials on Jan. 12, 2024. WJI's brief responds to those proposals. WJI filed the brief together with the Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition (FMC), an unincorporated coalition of citizen activist groups including the Wisconsin Maps Assessment Project (WIMAP). WIMAP is a team of volunteers from across Wisconsin who love maps and math. During the past few years they have analyzed every statewide redistricting map submitted to the supreme court during litigation or to the People's Maps Commission. In November 2023, WIMAP published Wisconsin Redistricting 2020-2022. WIMAP assessed the six proposed maps submitted to the court and noticed stark differences in compliance with the constitutional requirement that assembly districts follow ward lines. Four maps had zero or just a few "ward splits," while two maps had far more. The constitutional language on following ward lines yields to federal-law requirements regarding districts having generally equal population. In the past, before recent technology advances, courts did not require maps that adhered strictly to the boundary requirement in light of the difficulty in complying with the various federal-law and state constitutional requirements. In its Dec. 22 redistricting decision, for instance, the court noted that it "no longer interpret(s) the requirement to entirely prohibit any splitting of the enumerated political subdivisions." Dissenting from that decision, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote that “absolute compliance with the ‘bounded by’ clause is impossible given the one-person, one-vote decisions of the United States Supreme Court.” He added that contiguity and avoiding town and ward splits were requirements pitted against each other and might not both be met by proposed maps. WJI and FMC argue in their brief that two of the proposed maps show that with today's technology complete compliance with equal-population, contiguity, and ward-boundary requirements is possible. "Mapmakers have presented this Court with districts that are contiguous, bounded by ward lines, compact as practicable, and more," the brief says. Further, the brief argues that even if the court accepts some ward splits, they should be few and not "gratuitous," as the court itself noted in a prior redistricting case. Two of the submitted maps fail regarding ward splitting, say WJI and FMC in their brief. The map submitted by the individuals who succeeded in the last redistricting litigation in 2021-2022 (known as the Johnson intervenors) contains 13 ward splits, and the map submitted by the Legislature and Republican state senators contains 51 ward splits, per those parties' own counts. "Even citizen math and map enthusiasts like the WIMAP members, who lack the experience and technology of the parties and Court’s consultants, can see that two of the parties—the Johnson intervenors and the Legislature—presented maps with what can be called 'gratuitous' ward splits," the brief says. WJI and FMC urge the supreme court to reject those parties' attempts to downplay the significance of ward splitting. The adopted map should comply with the constitutional requirement that assembly districts not split wards, and the court should reject the Johnson intervenors' and Legislature's maps on this ground, WJI and FMC argue. "Wisconsinites need an end to maps that fail to comply with the Wisconsin Constitution. Mapmakers should create maps that comply with not just parts of it, but all of it. Certain parties in this case have shown that such maps are possible. Ward splits, which previously were thought impossible to avoid, can be avoided," the brief says. "Maps that comport with the “bounded by” clause in the Constitution should be preferred over maps that do not." "Wisconsinites need an end to maps that fail to comply with the Wisconsin Constitution. Mapmakers should create maps that comply with not just parts of it, but all of it. Note: We are crunching Supreme Court of Wisconsin decisions down to size. The general rule for WJI's "SCOW docket" posts is that no justice gets more than 10 paragraphs as written in the actual decision, and all parts of the decision (majority, concurrences, dissents) are contained in one post. . This one is a little different, though. This time, with this case, we are doing it in three parts: first the majority decision, then the longest dissent, then the remaining two dissents. Why? Because this package of writings is extremely important: redistricting of the Legislature. In addition, the opinions are extremely long—229 pages in all. Due to the size of the opinions, we are giving the majority opinion writer 18 paragraphs and each other opinion writer up to 15. Other than that, the rules remain the same. The "upshot" and "background" sections do not count as part of the paragraph restrictions because of their summary and very necessary nature. We've removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading (except, in this particular case, regarding some dictionary definitions), but may link to important cases cited or information about them. Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names and emphasis added by the opinion writer, all of which also are italicized. The case: Rebecca Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission Majority: Justice Jill J. Karofsky (51 pages), joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, and Janet Protasiewicz Dissents: Chief Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler (89 pages), Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley (56 pages plus an appendix of 11 pages), and Justice Brian Hagedorn (22 pages)  Ziegler The Ziegler dissent
This deal was sealed on election night. Four justices remap Wisconsin even though this constitutional responsibility is to occur every ten years, after a census, by the other two branches of government. The public understands this. Nonetheless, four justices impose their will on the entire Assembly and half of the Senate, all of whom are up for election in 2024. Almost every legislator in the state will need to respond, with lightning speed, to the newly minted maps, deciding if they can or want to run, and scrambling to find new candidates for new districts. All of this remains unknown until the court of four, and its hired "consultants," reveal the answer. The parties' dilatory behavior in bringing this suit at this time should not be rewarded by the court's granting of such an extreme remedy, along such a constrained timeline. Big change is ahead. The new majority seems to assume that their job is to remedy "rigged" maps which cause an "inability to achieve a Democratic majority in the state legislature." These departures from the judicial role are terribly dangerous to our constitutional, judicial framework. No longer is the judicial branch the least dangerous in Wisconsin. Redistricting was just decided by this court in the Johnson litigation (the court’s redistricting litigation in 2021 and 2022). This court was saddled with the responsibility to adopt maps because the legislative and executive branches were at an impasse, and absent court action, there would be a constitutional crisis. As a result of Johnson, there are census-responsive maps in place. Nonetheless, the four robe-wearers grab power and fast-track this partisan call to remap Wisconsin. Giving preferential treatment to a case that should have been denied, smacks of judicial activism on steroids. The court of four takes a wrecking ball to the law, making no room, nor having any need, for longstanding practices, procedures, traditions, the law, or even their co-equal fellow branches of government. Their activism damages the judiciary as a whole. Regrettably, I must dissent. The court of four's outcome-based, end-justifies-the-means judicial activist approach conflates the balance of governmental power the people separated into three separate branches, to but one: the judiciary. Such power-hungry activism is dangerous to our constitutional framework and undermines the judiciary. When four members of this court "throw off constraints, revise the rules of decision, and set the law on a new course," it is prudent for all of us to "question whether that power has been exercised judiciously" or whether it is instead an exercise in judicial activism. Today is the latest in a series of power grabs by this new rogue court of four, creating a pattern of illicit power aggregation which disrupts, if not destroys, stability in the law. *** Unfortunately, this latest unlawful power grab is not an outlier, but is further evidence of a bold, agenda-driven pattern of conduct. To set the stage, recall that these four members of the court came out swinging, when they secretly and unilaterally planned and dispensed with court practices, procedures, traditions, and norms. Preordained and planned even before day one of the new justice's term on August 1, 2023, but unknown to the other members of the court, the four acted to aggregate power, meeting in secret as a "super-legislature." They met behind closed doors, at a rogue, unscheduled and illegitimate meeting, over the protestations of their colleagues, in violation of longstanding court rules and procedures. Even before day one of the newest justice's term, and before the court term started in September, they met, in secret, to carry out their plan, only known to them, to dispense with over 40 years of court-defined precedent. They even took the unprecedented action to strip the constitutional power of the chief justice, which had been understood for decades of chief justices and different court membership, instead usurping that role through an administrative committee. For nearly four decades and five chief justices, every member of the court had respected the power the people of Wisconsin constitutionally vested in the chief justice to administrate the court system. *** (J)ust last year in Johnson, the court determined, and all agreed, that the maps complied with the contiguity requirement. "Contiguity for state assembly districts is satisfied when a district boundary follows the municipal boundaries. Municipal 'islands' are legally contiguous with the municipality to which the 'island' belongs." Even the parties now arguing that the maps are not contiguous recognize that the contiguity requirement has been deemed satisfied not only in the maps the parties submitted in the Johnson litigation, but also in the maps the state has relied on for the last 60 to 70 years. Moreover, every person who wished to have a say or participate in the Johnson litigation was welcome to do so and did. No one sought reconsideration of the Johnson litigation while it was within their power to do so. Johnson went all the way to the United States Supreme Court and back. Some of the litigants now were part of the Johnson litigation, some chose not to engage. But the law imposes consequences for those who choose to sit out of litigation entirely, and for those who stipulate to or do not make an argument in litigation. Finality of litigation does not endow one with the authority to wait to see what happens in that litigation cycle, forego timely filing a motion for reconsideration, and then bring arguments years after the fact, with the only intervening change being the court's composition. Four members of this court choose to not let pesky parameters like finality or other foundational judicial principles, or even the constitution, stand in the way of the predetermined political outcome which they seem preordained to deliver. Given the new court of four's conduct so far, we can expect more such judicial mischief in the future. On their watch, Wisconsin is poised to become a litigation nightmare. What is next? *** (T)his original action is wrongly taken and decided for a host of heretofore understood and respected legally-binding tenets. However, the court of four glosses right over them.
*** To be clear, this case is nothing more than a now time-barred motion to reconsider Johnson. An honest look at the plain law would require that this petition be dismissed. Instead, the creative legal machinations engaged in by the masters of this lawsuit, emboldened and encouraged by the new court of four, requires mind-boggling contortion of the law to achieve a particular political outcome. Sadly, judicial activism is once again alive and well in Wisconsin, creating great instability. *** (R)ejecting the Johnson I dissent's assertion that the task of adopting remedial maps required this court to rule as a partisan actor, we adopted "[a] least-change approach[, which] is the most consistent, neutral, and appropriate use of our limited judicial power to remedy the constitutional violations in this case." Least change, as a framework this court put forward throughout the Johnson litigation, properly reflects the limited role the judicial branch plays in redistricting, as it is the legislature, not the judiciary, which is granted constitutional authority to redistrict. Least change remains the law. Until today. Now, the majority, citing to nothing, declares instead that the standard this court implemented barely two years ago "is unworkable in practice," simply so that they can overrule it, and move this institution down the darkened path of outcome-based judicial activism. *** Ziegler then discusses at length the issues of stare decisis (adherence to precedents), standing (ability to sue), judicial estoppel (a party asserting inconsistent positions during litigation), issue preclusion (barring an argument that was previously decided, claim preclusion (barring an argument that could have been previously decided), laches (sitting on one’s rights), and due process. *** In the issue preclusion discussion: As a side note, the parties attempted to backdoor considerations of "partisan fairness" or "partisan gerrymandering" back into the court's analysis by way of at least initially confining it to the remedy phase. The majority continues that ill-fated venture of taking up an issue that both this court and the United States Supreme Court have determined is non-justiciable,67 by attempting to wrap it up in the perhaps more pleasant euphemism of "partisan impact," which the majority "will consider. . . . when evaluating remedial maps." Never mind figuring out how exactly the majority plans to go about evaluating "partisan impact" or determining how much "partisan impact" is permissible and how much is too much. They provide no measurable standard for calculating it. Apparently then, it is for them to know, and for us to find out! "The fact that the majority imposes its own unique and undefined standard further demonstrates that it exercises its will rather than its judgment." *** This court must not allow a non-justiciable, political question like partisan fairness to be camouflaged into the majority's decision. The majority declines to put forward a measurable standard by which this court is supposed to define or determine "partisan impact," demonstrating that they "exercise[]. . . . [their] will rather than [their] judgment." Their standard-deficient approach evokes recollections of the "eyeballing" tests from bygone legal eras encapsulated in "we'll know it when we see it" terminology. This court has already addressed the issues of partisan gerrymandering and political fairness, as well as contiguity. Issue preclusion bars us now from allowing these relevant parties to relitigate what has already been litigated. *** In the laches discussion: This court had a different composition two years ago, but that fact alone cannot be why these parties chose not to actively participate in that litigation at that time. To the dispassionate observer, such contortions of the law appear questionable and should come with consequences. Surprisingly, the parties are forthright enough to tell us themselves that this is in fact their reason for bringing this claim now—after waiting two years in alleged ongoing state of harm—to ensure that this case coincided with the changed composition of the court. It defies reason for parties to sit out litigation, obtain the benefit of seeing how arguments are presented, and then with that benefit of hindsight, bring their now modified claims over the same issues, with the same legal representation, at their leisure, years later. It further defies reason that given those same facts, and the fact that the respondents would not have had knowledge of the parties bringing new claims over the same maps a year later, that the parties can now demand that this court provide them an extraordinary remedy (overturning decades of precedent and the votes of millions of Wisconsinites), and do so in a constrained timeframe of mere months before another round of elections gets underway. Such unnecessary fast tracking due to the parties' own inexplicable delay may rightfully raise questions of intrusion on the opposing party's rights to fully litigate the claims presented. *** In the due process discussion: The parties interested in Justice Protasiewicz's election are intricately involved with, and beneficiaries of, the case they filed directly before her in this original action right after she was sworn in. Their timing of selecting her as their judge and then bringing this petition is irrefutable. Now, the four members of the court have fast-tracked this litigation, bypassing and rushing the traditional court steps, processes, and the law. *** In conclusion: This original action should never have been accepted. It is nothing more than a motion for reconsideration, which is time-barred; ignores stare decisis, standing, judicial estoppel, issue preclusion, claim preclusion, and laches. Not only is this a fundamentally legally flawed proceeding for these preceding listed reasons, but it also raises serious question regarding . . . whether this proceeding is a violation of litigants’ due process rights. What’s next? Pre-selected “consultants” who will decide the fate of Wisconsin voters even though the Wisconsin Supreme Court already decided these issues conclusively in the Johnson litigation? Will these “consultants” be endowed with the authority to reach all factual and legal conclusions necessary to draw the maps, while evading review and the constitutional protections due the parties? The four rogue members of the court have upended judicial practices, procedures, and norms, as well as legal practices, procedures, and precedent, yielding only to sheer will to create a particularized outcome which will please a particular constituency. At a minimum, this is harmful to the judicial branch and the institution as a whole. I dissent. Note: We are crunching Supreme Court of Wisconsin decisions down to size. The general rule for WJI's "SCOW docket" posts is that no justice gets more than 10 paragraphs as written in the actual decision, and all parts of the decision (majority, concurrences, dissents) are contained in one post. . This one is a little different, though. This time, with this case, we are doing it in three parts: first the majority decision, then the longest dissent, then the remaining two dissents. Why? Because this package of writings is extremely important: redistricting of the Legislature. In addition, the opinions are extremely long – 229 pages in all. Due to the size of the opinions, we are giving the majority opinion writer 18 paragraphs and each other opinion writer 15. Other than that, the rules remain the same. The "upshot" and "background" sections do not count as part of the paragraph restrictions because of their summary and very necessary nature. We've removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading (except, in this particular case, regarding some dictionary definitions), but may link to important cases cited or information about them. Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names and emphasis added by the opinion writer, all of which also are italicized. The case: Rebecca Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission Majority: Justice Jill J. Karofsky (51 pages), joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, and Janet Protasiewicz Dissents: Chief Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler (89 pages), Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley (56 pages plus an appendix of 11 pages), and Justice Brian Hagedorn (22 pages)  Karofsky The upshot We hold that the contiguity requirements in Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 mean what they say: Wisconsin's state legislative districts must be composed of physically adjoining territory. The constitutional text and our precedent support this common-sense interpretation of contiguity. Because the current state legislative districts contain separate, detached territory and therefore violate the constitution's contiguity requirements, we enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from using the current legislative maps in future elections. We also reject each of Respondents' defenses. We decline, however, to (invalidate) the results of the 2022 state senate elections. Because we enjoin the current state legislative district maps from future use, remedial maps must be drawn prior to the 2024 elections. The legislature has the primary authority and responsibility to draw new legislative maps. Accordingly, we urge the legislature to pass legislation creating new maps that satisfy all requirements of state and federal law. We are mindful, however, that the legislature may decline to pass legislation creating new maps, or that the governor may exercise his veto power. Consequently, to ensure maps are adopted in time for the 2024 election, we will proceed toward adopting remedial maps unless and until new maps are enacted through the legislative process. At the conclusion of this opinion, we set forth the process and relevant considerations that will guide the court in adopting new state legislative districts—and safeguard the constitutional rights of all Wisconsin voters. Background Following the 2020 census, the legislature passed legislation creating new state legislative district maps, the governor vetoed the legislation, and the legislature did not attempt to override his veto. Because the legislature and the governor reached an impasse, the 2011 maps remained in effect, even though they no longer complied with the Wisconsin or United States Constitutions due to population shifts. Billie Johnson and other Wisconsin voters asked this court to redraw the unconstitutional 2011 maps. In that case, we first confirmed that the 2011 maps no longer complied with the state and federal requirement that districts be equally populated (the "Johnson I" decision). Next, we identified the principles that would guide the court in adopting new maps, including the proposition that remedial maps "'should reflect the least change' necessary for the maps to comport with relevant legal requirements." We then invited the parties to submit proposed state legislative maps for our review. Of the proposed maps, we adopted the Governor's (the "Johnson II" decision). The United States Supreme Court summarily reversed that decision, holding that the Governor's proposed legislative maps violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they increased the number of majority-Black districts in the Milwaukee area without sufficient justification. On remand, we adopted the legislative maps proposed by the Legislature (the "Johnson III" decision). In this case, the Clarke Petitioners filed a petition for leave to commence an original action challenging the maps adopted in Johnson III, arguing that they: (1) are an extreme partisan gerrymander; (2) do not comply with the contiguity requirements contained in Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 of the Wisconsin Constitution; and (3) were created via a process that violated the separation of powers. We granted leave in part, allowing Petitioners' contiguity and separation-of-powers claims to proceed, while declining to review the issue of extreme partisan gerrymandering. We explained that although Petitioners' extreme- partisan-gerrymandering claim presented an important and unresolved legal question, we declined to address it due to the need for extensive fact-finding. The court heard oral argument on Nov. 21, 2023. The guts We start our analysis with Article IV, Section 4 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which sets the ground rules for how Wisconsin Assembly members are elected and how their districts are to be established. . . . Section 4 imposes three separate requirements for establishing assembly districts. The districts must: (1) "be bounded by county, precinct, town or ward lines;" (2) "consist of contiguous territory;" and (3) "be in as compact form as practicable." Article IV, Section 5 sets out rules for how senators are elected and how their districts are established . . . . Section 5 imposes three requirements on senate districts. The senate districts must (1) be "single districts;" (2) be "of convenient contiguous territory;" and (3) not divide any assembly districts. *** . . . . It is immediately apparent, using practically any dictionary, that contiguous means "touching" or "in actual contact." See, e.g., Contiguous, Black's Law Dictionary, (11th ed. 2019) ("Touching at a point or along a boundary."); Contiguous, Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989) ("touching, in actual contact, next in space; meeting at a common boundary, bordering, adjoining"); Contiguous, Merriam Webster Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) ("being in actual contact: touching along a boundary or at a point"). These definitions make clear that contiguous territory is territory that is touching, or in actual contact. In other words, a district must be physically intact such that a person could travel from one point in the district to any other point in the district without crossing district lines. We find additional support for this understanding of contiguity in historical definitions and early Wisconsin districting practices. In examining historical definitions of the word "contiguous," we see that the definition has not changed since the Wisconsin Constitution was adopted. See Contiguous, A Dictionary of the English Language (1756) ("meeting so as to touch; bordering upon each other; not separate"); Contiguous, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) ("touching: meeting or joining at the surface or border"). Turning to early districting practices, the first state legislative districts, set forth in the Wisconsin Constitution, were all physically contiguous. Additionally, the constitution specified that if existing towns were split or new towns were created, the districts had to remain physically intact. In short, historical definitions and practices related to contiguity bolster our conclusion that contiguity does indeed require "touching," or "actual contact." Respondents assert that a district with separate, detached territory can still be contiguous—so long as the detached territory is a "municipal island" (meaning portions of municipal land separated from the main body of the municipality, usually created by annexation) and the main body of the municipality is located elsewhere in the district. The Legislature refers to this as "political contiguity." Adopting the concept of political contiguity would essentially require us to read an exception into the contiguity requirements—that district territory must be physically touching, except when the territory is a detached section of a municipality located in the same district. We decline to read a political contiguity exception into Article IV's contiguity requirements. The text contains no such exception. Both Section 4 and Section 5 include the discrete requirement that districts be composed of contiguous territory. There are no exceptions to contiguity in the constitution's text, either overt or fairly implied. True, assembly districts must also be "in as compact form as practicable" and "bounded by county, precinct, town or ward lines," but the existence of additional requirements does not constrain or limit the separate requirement that district territory be contiguous. The court then discussed two prior cases, from 1880 and 1892, that confirmed the court’s understanding of contiguity. *** None of the parties disputes that the current legislative maps contain districts with discrete pieces of territory that are not in actual contact with the rest of the district. We . . . look at the example of Assembly District 47 (in yellow) which plainly includes separate, detached parts:  The court provided additional examples with images.
*** In total, at least 50 assembly districts and at least 20 senate districts include separate, detached parts. That is to say, a majority of the districts in both the assembly and the senate do not consist of "contiguous territory" within the meaning of Article IV, Section 4, nor are they "of convenient contiguous territory" within the meaning of Article IV, Section 5. Therefore, we hold that the non-contiguous legislative districts violate the Wisconsin Constitution. *** As we declared above, the current legislative maps contain districts that violate Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 of the Wisconsin Constitution. At least 50 of 99 assembly districts and at least 20 of 33 senate districts contain territory completely disconnected from the rest of the district. Given this pervasiveness, a remedy modifying the boundaries of the non-contiguous districts will cause a ripple effect across other areas of the state as populations are shifted throughout. Consequently, it is necessary to enjoin the use of the legislative maps as a whole, rather than only the non-contiguous districts. We therefore enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from using the current legislative maps in all future elections. Accordingly, remedial legislative district maps must be adopted. We recognize that next year's legislative elections are fast-approaching, and that remedial maps must be adopted in time for the fall primary in August 2024. With that in mind, the following section first describes the role of the court in the remedial process. Second, we articulate the principles the court will follow when adopting remedial maps. . . . It is essential to emphasize that the legislature, not this court, has the primary authority and responsibility for drawing assembly and senate districts. Therefore, when an existing plan is declared unconstitutional, it is "appropriate, whenever practicable, to afford a reasonable opportunity for the legislature to meet constitutional requirements by adopting a substitute measure." There may be exceptions to this general rule, but we decline Petitioners' request to apply one here. Should the legislative process produce a map that remedies the contiguity issues discussed above, there would be no need for this court to adopt remedial maps. We remain cognizant, however, of the possibility that the legislative process may not result in remedial maps. In such an instance, it is this court's role to adopt valid remedial maps. The United States Supreme Court has specifically recognized the ability of a state judiciary to remedy unconstitutional legislative districts by crafting new remedial maps. And this court has exercised such authority in the past when faced with unconstitutional maps. If the legislative process does not result in remedial legislative maps, then it will be the job of this court to adopt remedial maps. *** The court then rejected and overruled the “least change” approach used in the Johnson cases (meaning that remedial maps should reflect the least change from the prior maps) because the court had failed to agree on what "least change" meant and the method was shown to be “unworkable in practice.” The following principles will guide our process in adopting remedial legislative maps. First, the remedial maps must comply with population equality requirements. State and federal law require a state's population to be distributed equally amongst legislative districts with only minor deviations. When it comes to population equality, courts are held to a higher standard than state legislatures as we have a "judicial duty to 'achieve the goal of population equality with little more than de minimis variation.'" Second, districts must meet the basic requirements set out in Article IV of the Wisconsin Constitution. Assembly districts must be (a) bounded by county, precinct, town or ward lines; (b) composed of contiguous territory; and (c) in as compact form as practicable. Senate districts must be composed of "convenient contiguous territory." Additionally, districts must be single-member districts that meet the numbering and nesting requirements set out in Article IV, Sections 2, 4, and 5. *** Third, remedial maps must comply with all applicable federal law. In addition to the population equality requirement discussed above, maps must comply with the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Fourth, the court will consider other traditional districting criteria not specifically outlined in the Wisconsin or United States Constitution, but still commonly considered by courts tasked with formulating maps. These other traditional districting criteria include reducing municipal splits and preserving communities of interest. These criteria will not supersede constitutionally mandated criteria, such as equal population requirements, but may be considered when evaluating submitted maps. Fifth, we will consider partisan impact when evaluating remedial maps. When granting the petition for original action that commenced this case, we declined to hear the issue of whether extreme partisan gerrymandering violates the Wisconsin Constitution. As such, we do not decide whether a party may challenge an enacted map on those grounds. However, that does not mean that we will ignore partisan impact in adopting remedial maps. Unlike the legislative and executive branches, which are political by nature, this court must remain politically neutral. We do not have free license to enact maps that privilege one political party over another. Our political neutrality must be maintained regardless of whether a case involves an extreme partisan gerrymandering challenge. As we have stated, "judges should not select a plan that seeks partisan advantage—that seeks to change the ground rules so that one party can do better than it would do under a plan drawn up by persons having no political agenda—even if they would not be entitled to invalidate an enacted plan that did so." Other courts have held the same. It bears repeating that courts can, and should, hold themselves to a different standard than the legislature regarding the partisanship of remedial maps. As a politically neutral and independent institution, we will take care to avoid selecting remedial maps designed to advantage one political party over another. Importantly, however, it is not possible to remain neutral and independent by failing to consider partisan impact entirely. As the Supreme Court (has) recognized . . . "this politically mindless approach may produce, whether intended or not, the most grossly gerrymandered results." As such, partisan impact will necessarily be one of many factors we will consider in adopting remedial legislative maps, and like the traditional districting criteria discussed above, consideration of partisan impact will not supersede constitutionally mandated criteria such as equal apportionment or contiguity. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed