By Alexandria Staubach
Wisconsin voters in April will see two referendum questions focused on perceived voting issues.
Senate Joint Resolution 78 passed the Legislature in November and will appear on the April 2 ballot as two questions about amending the state constitution. If approved by a majority of voters, the amendments would enshrine in the Wisconsin Constitution bans on private funding for election administration and the involvement of third parties in elections.
The proposed amendments passed the Senate and Assembly along party lines. They passed in two successive legislative sessions as required by the state constitution’s amendment process.
Constitutional amendment resolutions avoid the governor. They go directly from the Legislature to voters for approval. Rather than creating statutes, which can be changed more easily if they cause problems later, the laws become part of the document underlying all of Wisconsin's government and laws.
Republican legislators introduced the resolution in response to grant money supplied by the nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) to various election offices around the country during the 2020 election cycle to alleviate the burden of COVID-19 related costs. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook founder and tech billionaire, supplied more than $400 million to CTCL. As a result, the funds have been referred to as “Zuckerbucks.”
The first question addresses those Zuckerbucks:
“Use of private funds in election administration. Shall section 7 (1) of article III of the constitution be created to provide that private donations and grants may not be applied for, accepted, expended, or used in connection with the conduct of any primary, election, or referendum?”
A “yes” vote will place in the state constitution a prohibition on any level of government in the state applying for or accepting non-governmental funds or equipment for election administration.
Currently, Wisconsin law does not restrict the Wisconsin Election Commission or municipalities from accepting grants or other private money to facilitate the administration of an election.
The second question addresses the involvement of outside people in elections:
“Election officials. Shall section 7 (2) of article III of the constitution be created to provide that only election officials designated by law may perform tasks in the conduct of primaries, elections, and referendums?”
Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Green Bay) testified about this proposed amendment to Senate and Assembly committees in October 2023. He stated that a stipulation of the CTCL grant money required third-party oversight from Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, who then worked for the non-profit National Vote at Home Institute. According to Wimberger, Rubenstein “orchestrated the fall election and acted as a city clerk would act, though paid by CTCL, including managing staff and having access to ballots.”
Wimberger’s assertion was part of the larger tent of theories undermining Wisconsin’s 2020 election results. It was debunked by Green Bay’s city attorney, who after investigation said the city was “allowed, but not required, to receive advisory services from persons knowledgeable in various areas of election administration” and that although Rubenstein provided “best practice support” he “had no decision-making authority.”
Rubenstein also provided best-practice support in Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Wauwatosa and West Allis. In at least the case of Green Bay, he was hired directly by the city.
Current statutory law already provides that elections are administered only by “election officials” and defines an election official as “an individual who is charged with any duties relating to the conduct of an election.”
A “yes” vote on question 2 will put the restrictions permitting only election officials designated by law to administer elections into the state constitution.
Elections officials include a municipal clerk, who is responsible for conducting elections in a municipality; a chief election inspector and election inspectors, or poll workers, who staff polling places on election day; election registration officials, who carry out registration duties on election day; special voting deputies, who are appointed by the municipal clerk to carry out absentee voting at qualified retirement homes; greeters, who acknowledge voters and assist in answering questions about the polling place but may not participate in any election inspector duties unless acting as a substitute; and tabulators, who aid election inspectors in counting and tallying votes after polls close. All such election officials are required to take and file an oath and record set amounts of training for every term they serve.
By Gretchen Schuldt
The so-called “Parent’s Rights” bill pending in the Legislature probably does not stand a chance of getting past Gov. Evers’ veto pen, but still drew way more written public comments – 153 pages of them – than is typical for any sort of legislation.
There were about 100 comments in opposition to the bill, AB510, and 17 in support. Those numbers are estimates because some of the comments, filed with the Assembly’s Family Law Committee as public hearing testimony, were included twice in the record of the hearing. WJI tried to eliminate the second inclusions, but may have missed some.
The committee recommended adoption of the bill on a 6-3 party-line vote, which was followed by a 62-35 party-line Assembly vote in favor of the bill. Two Republicans, Loren Oldenburg of Viroqua, and Travis Tranel, of Cuba City, did not vote. The measure is now pending in the Senate. (The Senate companion bill is SB489).
A chart showing the sponsors of the bill is at the bottom of this post.
As a brief refresher, the bill would provide parents or guardians with 16 specific rights and would allow a parent or guardian to sue if any of the new rights are violated.
The new rights would include the right to:
The bill would allow parents/guardians who feel one of the rights was violated to sue "a governmental body or official" and, if successful, collect up to $10,000 plus any "reasonable attorney's fees and costs."
Here are excerpts from some of the submitted comments/testimony.
For adoption: In recent years, many parents have become more actively involved in the education of their children. Unfortunately, public school districts have not always respected parental rights. – State Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Racine).
Against adoption: This legislation proposal claims to be about parental rights, but is more truthfully about disrupting the processes, protocols, and programs of both private and public schools. It grants parents the power to interfere in the day-to-day affairs of education, dictating what educators are allowed to teach. …
We assert that this bill was created with the intention of censorship and has no connection with meaningful, constructive parental involvement or engagement toward improving community life. – Rev. Breanna lllene, director of ecumenical innovation and justice initiatives, Wisconsin Council of Churches
By Margo Kirchner
Twenty Democratic representatives and five senators recently proposed an amendment to the Wisconsin constitution to ban slavery in all forms and circumstances.
The state constitution generally prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude, but it includes an exception permitting slavery or involuntary servitude inside prisons: “There shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in this state, otherwise than for the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”
Senate Joint Resolution 95 and Assembly Joint Resolution 102 would strike the exception from the constitution. The table below shows the joint resolution sponsors.
A proposed constitutional amendment requires passage by two consecutive legislatures, then ratification of a ballot question by voters.
SJR 95 was referred to the Senate’s Committee on Licensing, Constitution and Federalism. AJR 102 was referred to the Assembly’s Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety.
Without Republican sponsors, and with the Legislature in a frenzy to wrap up its session by March, the chance of a hearing and passage this term is low. If the resolution does not pass this term, it could not go to voters until at least 2027.
But grassroots pressure could change that, especially as legislators’ actions now may be considered by voters in the fall. Passage this term and next term would mean a referendum in possibly 2025 or 2026.
Call your state legislators to let them know the importance of this bill. Legislators often give their own constituents’ calls and emails more weight than communications from others. Find your legislators HERE.
The following legislators are extra important right now, as they sit on the committees to which the bills are assigned. The committee chairs, especially, can control whether the proposed resolutions get to hearing. If your legislator is on this list, please consider calling them as soon as possible to let them know your position.
The exception has existed in the constitution since Wisconsin became a state. It tracks a provision in the Northwest Ordinance, which governed the territory before statehood.
Without such a constitutional amendment, Wisconsin lags behind other states—including some southern states—on a full slavery ban. Tennessee and Alabama amended their constitutions in 2022 to eliminate the slavery or involuntary servitude exception. Oregon, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, and Vermont have all amended their constitutions since 2018. Rhode Island has banned all forms of slavery since the early 1800s. Efforts are underway to amend the constitutions of Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Georgia, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, California, and other states to ban slavery without exception.
The U.S. Constitution contains a similar exception in the Thirteenth Amendment. Amending the U.S. Constitution is a lengthy process requiring passage by two-thirds of each house of Congress and ratification by 38 states.
By Gretchen Schuldt
Election workers could face criminal penalties for directing election observers stand more than three feet away from certain tables, under legislation approved by both the Assembly and Senate and awaiting action by Gov. Evers.
The Legislature also approved a bill that would prohibit "sexual misconduct" against a student by a school employee or volunteer. That measure also is awaiting Evers' signature or veto.
More information about the bills is below.
Assembly Bill 543 – Fines and jail time for election workers
Under this legislation election workers would face up to 90 days in jail and fines of up to $1,000 if they direct election observers to stand more than three feet away from the table where people can register to vote and from the table where voters announce their names and addresses and are given a voter number.
The bill, as adopted, also says that municipalities should provide observers equal access “to all stages of the election process, including the certification of election technologies, absentee voting in person, canvassing, elector appeals, vote tabulation, and recounts.”
The ACLU of Wisconsin, the City of Milwaukee, Common Cause in Wisconsin, Disability Rights Wisconsin, the League of Women Voters Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired, and Wisconsin Voices all registered against the legislation. No organization registered in favor.
The bill passed the Senate on a party-line vote of 22-10. Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee) did not vote. The Assembly approved the bill without a roll call vote.
A chart at the end of this post shows the Senate vote.
Senate Bill 333 – Sexual misconduct by a school employee or volunteer
This bipartisan bill would make it a felony for a school employee or volunteer to engage in verbal or sexual misconduct that is aimed at a student.
The legislation defines “sexual misconduct” as verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB).
The maximum penalty for violating the law would be 3½ years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Both the Senate and Assembly approved the measure without a roll call vote.
State law now requires the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to revoke the license of anyone convicted of certain crimes. That person can seek reinstatement of the license after six years if “the person shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she is entitled to reinstatement,” the LRB’s analysis of the measure said.
The bill would add additional crimes to the automatic suspension statute, including sexual misconduct against a student, certain crimes against student privacy, and theft of property from a school. The bill also would create a lifetime license revocation for some offenses.
The Badger State Sheriffs' Association, the FFRF Action Fund (affiliated with the Freedom from Religion Foundation), the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, Wisconsin Family Action, the Wisconsin Nurses Association, the Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association, and Wisconsin Voices all registered in favor of the legislation. No organization registered in opposition.
By Alexandria Staubach
Legislation in reaction to disposal of a Bible could expand the amount of property incarcerated people may keep, but an administrative rule change might be better.
Senate Bill 21 would increase the maximum permissible value of an incarcerated person’s general property from $75 to $150. The bill does not increase the permissible value of electronics, which is set at $350.
The bill’s backstory features a Wisconsin prison’s disposal of a Bible mailed to a person in custody. The Good Book’s value exceeded the $75 limit on personal goods incarcerated people are allowed to keep, so prison officials refused to let the intended recipient have it.
SB 21 passed the Senate in March 2023. It then passed the Assembly on Jan. 16 during an open session. The bill now heads to Gov. Tony Evers for signature.
Since introduction of the bill last winter, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections issued an emergency rule raising the value of personal property to $150 and the value of electronics to $500.
A permanent rule waits for approval in the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules, said Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) at the Assembly’s Jan. 16 floor session. Clancy highlighted that the maximum property value the bill is meant to address would be fixed by the pending permanent rule, which he described as “objectively better.”
Unlike the administrative rule change, the bill does not raise the value for electronics and will therefore decrease the values set by DOC’s emergency rule.
“If you intend to vote yes on this with the intent to make conditions better in our jails and prisons, thank you for that intent, that is not what this would do,” said Clancy.
In a letter to the Assembly Committee on Corrections, the DOC said it preferred to make changes through the administrative code “rather than statute to allow greater flexibility for any future changes that may be needed.”
Rep. Paul Tittl (R- Manitowoc), the bill’s primary sponsor, reiterated at the open session that the dollar limit is currently codified by statute and had not changed since 1994. He opined that a change in statute is the better solution.
In reference to a package of 17 bills proposed to provide significant harm reduction for those in prison, Clancy said it was “frustrating” that SB 21/AB 16 was the only one to make it through the legislative process.
By Alexandria Staubach
Vice President Kamala Harris today kicked off her nationwide Reproductive Freedoms Tour before a crowd gathered at the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 7 headquarters in Waukesha County.
Harris' speech made clear that personal freedoms, and especially the right to abortion, would be central to this year’s partisan elections, including any race between President Joe Biden and the Republican frontrunner, former President Donald Trump.
Referring to the time since the U.S. Supreme Court passed the Dobbs decision overturning Roe, Harris said that “in the last 19 months, in states across our nation, extremists have proposed and passed laws that criminalize doctors and punish women.”
Harris spoke at noon. Two hours later the Wisconsin Assembly's Committee on Health, Aging and Long-Term Care began a public hearing on AB 975 to ban abortion after 14 weeks.
Current Wisconsin law restricts abortions after 20 weeks, except in medical emergencies, following a December ruling from Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper that a 19th-century Wisconsin law does not prohibit abortions.
The bill was first introduced and referred to the committee on Friday, Jan. 12. The bill is co-sponsored by 36 Republican Assembly representatives.
Gov. Tony Evers has said he would veto the bill if it makes its way through the Legislature to his desk.
The Assembly bill includes a provision requiring voter approval. If passed by both houses, the bill would add to the April ballot a referendum question about the 14-week ban. If a majority of voters votes "yes" on the change, it would go into effect the day after election results are final and certified. If a majority votes "no," the legislation would not go into effect.
At today's hearing, Assembly Republicans stressed that the issue should be “put to the people.” “We have got to get to the truth, we have got to understand where people are on this issue” said Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie).
The Supreme Court issued its Roe v. Wade decision on Jan. 22, 1973. The court overturned Roe in its 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision on June 24, 2022.
By Gretchen Schuldt
A bill adopted by the state Senate and pending in the Assembly contains some vague language about reporting election irregularities that some organizations are concerned about.
Another bill would allow people in prison or jail to choose up to three people to be notified in case of lockdowns or other disciplinary measures that would affect a particular inmate's ability to visit or communicate.
More information about each below. A chart showing the sponsors of each bill is at the bottom of this post.
Senate Bill 291/Assembly Bill 300 – Increasing penalties for battery to an election worker; whistleblower protections
Concerns about the vagueness of whistleblower protection language in this bill, which also would increase penalties for battery to election officials, have prompted some organizations to express concerns about the measure and call for clearer language.
Other organizations, however, backed the measure, which was adopted by the Senate without a roll call. It is pending in the Assembly.
That battery section of the legislation would increase the penalty for simple battery to an election worker from a misdemeanor to a felony and would increase the maximum penalty from nine months behind bars and a $10,000 fine to 3½ years of incarceration and a $10,000 fine.
“Since 2020, we have witnessed shocking instances of violent behaviors and intimidation directed towards election officials in Milwaukee County, in Wisconsin, and throughout the nation,” Milwaukee County Clerk George Christenson said in testimony submitted to the Assembly Campaigns and Elections Committee. “These threats show up by way of emails, voicemails, and personal verbal and physical threats against the dedicated public servants who stand at the front door of our democracy.”
The bill, he said, “demonstrates the serious nature of these unacceptable behaviors and makes it clear that such attacks on election officials in Wisconsin will not be tolerated.”
Brown County Clerk Patrick Moynihan Jr. also wrote in support of the bill, including the whistleblower language.
“The recognition and importance of protecting and strengthening our election official’s person and self-confidence is paramount,” he said. “So too, the Whistleblower provisions as detailed within the bill provide reasonable assurances against any potential unlawful retribution.”
That language says that no election worker may be disciplined or retaliated against because the worker “lawfully reported, or is believed to have reported, witnessing what the clerk or election official reasonably believed to be election fraud or irregularities.”
Rock County Clerk Lisa Tollefson was generally supportive of the bill, but added in written testimony, “The only piece of the bill that concerns me is in the Whistleblower section. Each time I read the bill I have a different take on it. Some clarification in this section of the bill may be needed."
She asked, "Can the reporting of an election irregularity act as a shield to protect an election official from something else that would cause them to be disciplined or release(d)…from employment?" and "What is lawfully reported?"
The ACLU of Wisconsin, in registering against the bill, said the organization has concerns with the bill, “as the process for ‘lawfully reporting’ is not outlined, and the terms ‘reasonable belief’ and ‘irregularities’ are not defined.”
All Voting is Local Action, also registered against the bill, said “Spoke with Governor's Office, RE: Concerns with the Whistle Blower section, no structure for reporting.”
And Edgar Lin, Protect Democracy’s Wisconsin policy advocate and counsel (and also a WJI Board member), identified three specific areas that need strengthening.
First, he said in testimony, there should be a process for “lawfully reporting.” To whom does a bad act get reported and who reviews the allegation? What happens if a false “bad act” is reported? When must these acts be reported? “Without a clear process, a whistleblower event – regardless of merit – could descend into chaotic litigation, which could further undermine the confidence in our election system,” he said.
Second, he said, “an election worker’s 'reasonable belief' about fraud or irregularities should be defined. Is it a reasonable election worker standard? A reasonable person standard? Or simply that election worker’s own subjective belief?”
Finally, he said, “ ‘irregularities’ should be defined. The current language states that a person could lawfully report “election fraud” or “irregularities.’ ” While election fraud is defined in state law, “ ‘Irregularities’ is not defined,” he said. “Instead of ‘irregularities’ – a vague and broad term that could be widely interpreted depending on perspective – the bad act should be grounded by existing laws, rules, regulation, and/or guidance,” he wrote.
The Wisconsin Counties Association, the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, and the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Inc. registered in support of the bill. Those organizations did not indicate why they supported the bill.
Senate Bill 904 – Public information on lockdowns
The public would have access to information about prison and jail lockdowns in facilities around the state, under a Democratic bill introduced in the state Legislature this week.
The bill would require the Department of Corrections (DOC) to publish on its website certain information about each prison and county jail in the state. That information would include whether there is any restriction in place impacting the ability of an inmate or a group of inmates to participate in visitation or communication and, if there is such a restriction, a statement giving the reason for it, how long the restriction has been in place, the number of inmates in solitary confinement, and the total number of inmates held in the facility.
The bill also would require DOC and sheriffs to establish a notification system to inform certain individuals within 24 hours of an inmate's being put under any type of restriction limiting availability for visitation periods or other communication. Each inmate would be allowed to select up to three people to receive the information.
By Alexandria Staubach
Assembly Republicans have announced long-awaited medical marijuana legislation.
The plan calls for the state to run five dispensaries supplied by private growers and processors. According to Rep. Jon Plumer, (R–Lodi), the plan is for a “break even program,” meaning the state will see no tax revenue.
Wisconsin would become the only state with legalized marijuana program to run its own dispensaries.
Only smokeless products would be available.
Doctors would not prescribe medical marijuana. Instead, they would sign off that a patient has one or more qualifying conditions, which include HIV/AIDS, severe chronic pain, severe chronic nausea, cancer, and terminal illness with life expectancy of less than one year. The state would then provide medical marijuana products to patients with qualifying conditions.
An infirm patient could identify up to three caregivers eligible to pick up the marijuana products.
At a press conference to introduce the legislation, Plumer said Republicans want to “make this available to people but we want to have tight controls as well.”
He said he anticipates support in the Assembly and Senate and that lawmakers will be able to pass the plan this spring.
Wisconsin is one of only 12 states maintaining a total ban on marijuana products. Wisconsin is bordered by three states with legalized recreational marijuana: Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois.
Meanwhile, the federal 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp and made some intoxicating forms of THC derived from legal hemp widely available in Wisconsin.
A bipartisan group of Assembly lawmakers in December 2023 introduced AB 861 to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana.
The bill would reduce possession of less than 14 grams, or up to a half-ounce, to a civil forfeiture offense. Such possession currently is a misdemeanor punishable with a $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail for a first offense. A second offense is a felony.
Reps. Shae Sortwell (R–Two Rivers), Sylvia Ortiz-Velez (D–Milwaukee), and Dave Considine (D–Baraboo), and Sen. Lena Taylor (D–Milwaukee) sponsor the bill.
While municipalities would have some flexibility, the bill ensures forfeitures amounts from $100 to $250. A court could alternatively impose from 16 to 40 hours of community service. Under current law Milwaukee imposes a $1 fine for small amounts of marijuana and Madison imposes no fine.
The bill would reduce the penalty of possession or use of marijuana drug paraphernalia to a $10 civil forfeiture.
Under AB 861, previous marijuana possession convictions involving less than 28 grams would not be counted for purposes of repeat-offender laws.
The bill also would eliminate employer liability for electing not to drug test employees and prospective employees, unless otherwise required by statute.
Because current law does not use 14 or 28 grams as metrics for possession, it is unknown how many individuals would be spared incarceration or community supervision under the new law. However, in 2022, 2,289 individuals were charged with a cannabis offense in the absence of some additional, greater offense, per a Badger Institute report.
By Alexandria Staubach
Last week a bipartisan group of more than 30 lawmakers introduced a bill to end sentences of life without the possibility of parole for juveniles.
The bill, Senate Bill 801, also creates new mitigating factors for a sentencing court to consider, recognizing that juveniles change and mature mentally and emotionally over time. The bill would apply retroactively to anyone currently serving a juvenile life-without-parole (JLWOP) sentence.
If enacted, SB 801 would bring Wisconsin in line with 28 states already banning JLWOP sentences, including three of Wisconsin’s closest neighbors: Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois.
The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety.
Ruling in Graham v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court held it unconstitutional for a court to impose JLWOP on non-homicide juvenile offenders; the court found that such a sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. In Miller v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court banned mandatory life sentences for juveniles no matter the severity of the crime.
SB 801 states that its purpose is to clarify that “the statutory mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or extended supervision for repeat offenders does not apply to youthful offenders,” consistent with Miller.
JLWOP sentences are unique to the United States; we are the only country in the world with such a practice.
According to the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, the practice is permitted in 22 states, including Wisconsin and Michigan. In five states the practice remains on the books without active sentences.
Michigan has the highest JLWOP population in the nation and recently made national headlines for sentencing 17-year-old Ethan Crumbly, who committed Michigan’s deadliest school shooting at age 15, to life without the possibility of parole.
However, Wisconsin outpaces Michigan regarding overall number of youth incarcerated on life sentences with or without parole (141 compared to 65) and sentences over 40 years (73 compared to 15) as well as the total number of children in adult prisons (1,709 compared to 554), according to a 2021 report produced by the nonprofit Human Rights for Kids.
The following table shows the bill's sponsors.
By Alexandria Staubach
Gov. Tony Evers has been busy considering bills from the Legislature, tackling 51 bills on Dec. 6 alone.
In what WJI sees as a win for the criminal justice system, Evers vetoed Senate Bill 86/Assembly Bill 57, which would have erased prosecutorial discretion to dismiss or amend certain charges without prior authorization from the court and prohibited deferred-prosecution sentences for crimes. WJI opposed the bill’s lack of clear procedure for dismissal authorization and its prohibition of deferred prosecutions in appropriate cases. Those outcomes would have increased burdens on the criminal justice system without providing appropriate resources to deal with the fallout.
Voting and criminal justice legislation signed into law by Evers included the following:
Assembly Bill 335 (Wisconsin Act 52)
Specifies that if a candidate is convicted of certain election crimes, a court must order dissolution of the candidate’s committee and return of unencumbered campaign funds; also requires the court to appoint a new treasurer for the committee to carry this out.
Senate Bill 283 (Wisconsin Act 53)
Provides that if a municipality, county, or commission chooses to broadcast canvassing proceedings live in any election, including live stream or on the internet, the same entity must record the broadcast; the recording must be retained for 22 months.
Senate Bill 433 (Wisconsin Act 54)
Modifies current law so the requirement that presidential primary absentee ballots be sent at least 47 days in advance of the election applies only to military and overseas voters; all other voters will be sent the presidential primary absentee ballot at least 21 days in advance.
Assembly Bill 36 (Wisconsin Act 58)
Creates a six-month time limit for the state crime laboratories to process sexual assault kits and an expedited 60-day timeline under certain circumstances.
Assembly Bill 166 (Wisconsin Act 61)
Expands the definition of “sexual contact” to include instruction by a victim to touch bodily fluids with the purpose to degrade or humiliate the victim sexually or arouse or gratify the perpetrator for purposes of crimes against children and sexual assault.
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin