Proposed law would add more than 100 jobs in the criminal justice system . . . but not in Milwaukee2/11/2026  The Legislation mosaic in the Wisconsin State Capitol. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
A popular bill that would expand judicial, public defender, and assistant district attorney positions is making its way through the Legislature but includes no positions for Milwaukee. Milwaukee was excluded from the bill, AB 514, because “politics sometimes gets involved,” said one of the bill’s lead sponsors, Sen. David Steffen (R-Howard), at a public hearing last week. The Assembly’s Committee on Judiciary was first presented with a bill that made allocations to Milwaukee. But those were struck by amendment in a 6-2 vote before the committee recommended passage of the bill. Committee members Ryan Spaude (D-Ashwaubenon) and Andrew Hysell (D-Sun Prairie) voted against the amendment. Steffen called the bill “work product that in order for me to get unanimous support in my caucus and unanimous support in committee” required “certain things” be done. Excluding Milwaukee drew sharp criticism from Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee), who told Steffen at the hearing that his caucus had “a few members who are holding public safety hostage.” Johnson wanted the public to “clearly understand that when we are given opportunities such as this to add additional resources to protect the public, that politics plays a part.” Steffen said the bill was “clearly and clinically based on needs and assessments” that initially included an allocation for Milwaukee. More than 20 individuals appeared at the last week’s Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety to speak in support of that chamber’s version of the bill, SB 546. The bill creates four new judicial branches, four new court reporter positions, 64.5 assistant district attorney positions, 23 public defender attorney positions, and 41 public defender staff positions over the next two years to help address the statewide backlog of more than 12,000 cases. That condition is one that “cannot be allowed to continue” and “must be addressed,” said Washara County Circuit Judge Guy Dutcher, chair of the state chief judges’ committee, at the hearing. “This is a crisis that does not know geographic boundaries,” said Dutcher. Steffen celebrated the creation of “hundreds of new crimes, enhancers and penalties” in his tenure. “For 30 years, with very little interruption, Republicans have done a very good job of making law and order, public safety, our top priority,” said Steffen, who sees the bill as addressing the “second stage of criminal justice.” “We ordered the steak, we ate the steak, we just haven’t paid for the steak,” he said. “With every piece of legislation we can do nothing, we can do something, (or) we can do everything,” he said. Dutcher, though, was skeptical of simply adding more workers to the stressed system. We “can’t continue to expend resources toward the same process that has proven to be ineffective,” he said. According to Dutcher, case filings are down across the state, yet the backlogs persist. Dutcher suggested further inquiry into three areas: the mechanisms by which the State Public Defender’s Office determines conflicts of interest, outdated models for workload assessment implemented by the SPD, and the “unattractive” pay for private attorneys who may need to take public defender cases owing to conflicts. Such conflicts can arise when a poor defendant qualifies for the services of SPD, but the office cannot take a case because it represents a codefendant or had past involvement with a witness or victim. Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney, who appeared at the hearing as the president of the district attorneys’ association, echoed Dutcher’s concern about the SPD conflict policy. Toney suggested that private practice attorneys should not be paid at the same rate for a trespassing case or a homicide case. State Public Defender Jennifer Bias spoke at the hearing in support of the bill. She said the new positions will address the workload her office sees associated with not just an “explosion of criminal charging” but also with processing hours of evidence generated by body cameras and other technological developments that have increased the volume of work associated with each individual case. Having passed through the Assembly committee, the bill is now eligible for a floor vote in that chamber.
0 Comments
 The Wisconsin State Capitol on Sept. 19, 2025. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner The Wisconsin Assembly's Committee on Corrections on Jan. 7 will hear two bills relating to hygiene products for those in state and county custody. WJI supports and urges passage of both bills. The humane treatment of incarcerated individuals is at the core of Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s mission. Everyone in the government’s custody deserves the ability to care for their bodies, ensuring dignity and promoting the Department of Correction’s administrative rules regarding hygiene. The DOC cannot reasonably require good personal hygiene without providing the basic tools. The bills being heard, AB741 and AB736, move Wisconsin closer to humane treatment of those in custody. AB741 would require the DOC and county jails to provide at least two types of each personal hygiene product on a list in the proposed legislation, including deodorant, antiperspirant, shampoo and conditioner, various soaps and lotions, toothpaste and floss, and shaving cream. The products cannot be sold at more than 125% of the sales price of the product at the highest-grossing retail chain in the state. In addition, at least two varieties of culturally sensitive personal hygiene products such as shampoo, conditioner, and natural hair oil must be provided for different hair types, at no more than 100% of the sales price of the product at the highest-grossing retail chain in the state. The bill also requires the DOC or jail to provide each person in their care with a monthly personal hygiene stipend of $25 to purchase personal hygiene products from the commissary. The bill provides the funding to DOC to cover the stipends. WJI has submitted written testimony in favor of the bill. In November 2024, WJI spoke to an individual at Green Bay Correctional Institution who shared that base pay at GBCI is a mere five cents per hour, someone earning a degree makes 12 cents an hour, and the highest paying positions pay 42 cents an hour. The canteen at a DOC institution is a monopoly. Incarcerated persons cannot price shop. AB 741 first limits the cost of hygiene products to prevent price gouging, yet the merchant still makes its profit. The $25 monthly stipend helps the individual in custody afford those products without spending a week or more of pay. The requirement that facilities provide culturally sensitive products for different physical attributes is important for the people held in DOC care and in jails, many of whom are minority individuals. AB736 would requires the DOC and jails to provide free of charge to anyone in custody with an active menstrual cycle at least three brands of tampons in a variety of absorbencies, three brands of menstrual pads in various absorbencies, and one brand of reusable menstrual cup. The facility would also have to provide a means to sanitize inmate menstrual cups as needed. In WJI's view, AB736 should be regarded as critical legislation for women in the care of the DOC and in jails. As noted above with AB741, hygiene products in prisons are exorbitantly expensive, yet menstrual products are a basic necessity for a woman’s health and dignity. Last year, before DOC renegotiated its canteen contract, a box of tampons cost $2.61 for a pack of eight. That is $0.33 for a single tampon. They came in one size. For those unfamiliar, menstruating women often need at least five tampons per day. That number may double for perimenopausal women, who often experience irregular periods with very heavy blood flow and may need more, larger-flow menstrual products. The Mayo Clinic website recommends changing tampons every four to eight hours. Incarcerated women may spend hours working to afford these products, to hopefully keep blood and discharge from leaking and staining their clothes, which they must also pay to wash. For those who have never experienced a period, imagine working several hours or days to afford toilet paper. Placing feminine hygiene products behind a paywall asks women to choose between safe and hygienic products and homemade alternatives that are unsanitary and may cause infection. If insufficient menstrual products are provided, women may even leave tampons in place for many hours, risking toxic shock syndrome. A carceral system in which women experience restricted access to menstrual products is inhumane. Restricted access to menstrual products undermines a woman’s right to dignity. In November 2025, the Prison Policy Initiative released an analysis of prison rules and sanctions that demonstrates how the carceral system punishes women for menstruating—a physiological process over which they have no control. Rules that govern movement limit access to bathrooms, showers, and laundry services. Rules that govern contraband limit access to tissue paper and its proper disposal or punish women for sharing or trading menstrual products or keeping adequate supplies on hand. PPI identified that in Wisconsin, menstruating women may be disciplined under rules regarding damage to state property (if blood stains affect state-owned items), unauthorized transfer of property or possession of contraband regarding menstrual supplies, poor personal hygiene, and refusal to work or go to school.
As stated by PPI, “(t)here is no ‘safety and security’ interest in denying people the basic sanitary products they need to manage normal bodily functions.” The United Nations Human Rights Council in 2024 underscored that countries have the “responsibility to ensure the full realization of all human rights, including those relating to menstrual hygiene, and must take steps . . . to respond fully to menstrual hygiene and other health care-related needs by all appropriate means, including in particular through the adoption of relevant legislative measures.” A carceral system in which women experience restricted access to menstrual products is inhumane. Restricted access to menstrual products undermines a woman’s right to dignity. WJI has submitted written testimony of the bill. AB741 is sponsored by 19 Democratic Assembly members and four Democratic senators, but no Republicans—yet it has received a hearing in the Republican-controlled committee. AB736 is sponsored by 27 Democratic Assembly members and just one Republican Assembly member, but that Republican, Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), happens to be the chair of the committee. AB736 is sponsored by nine Democratic senators as well. The Committee on Corrections consists of six Republicans and three Democrats. By Alexandria Staubach The shuttering of WisconsinEye earlier this week has left a gaping hole in the public’s ability to watch what their officials are doing. For nearly 20 years, Wisconsin advocacy groups, community organizers, and independent journalists have relied on WisconsinEye, or “WisEye.” It provided comprehensive coverage of Capitol happenings and has been the state’s only gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Legislature, Supreme Court, Elections Commission, and more. WisconsinEye shut down on Dec. 15 due to a lack of funding and failure to meet minimum fundraising goals required to take advantage of a $10 million match offered by the Legislature earlier this year. It provided unedited, live coverage of full proceedings, as well as an important archive. WisconsinEye’s coverage allowed WJI staff and citizens across the state and nationwide to analyze arguments and identify the positions of Wisconsin’s legislators, justices, and executive branch officials without filter. Its closure highlights a dangerous trend: the decline of civic infrastructure. With the coverage and archive gone, tracking what happens at the Capitol becomes exponentially harder. Fish big and small—from formal media to nonprofits to active Wisconsinites of all parties and interests—will shoulder the weight of WisconsinEye’s demise. Wisconsin Justice Initiative's small staff is located in Milwaukee. WisconsinEye’s coverage of legislative hearings allowed staff to watch them without taking an entire day to travel to Madison. WJI has already missed a public hearing on proposed legislation to increase the maximum penalty for certain controlled substance offenses occurring near a homeless shelter. Kate Duffy, the woman behind Wisconsin’s @motherhoodforgood, spoke to WJI about the importance of WisconsinEye to what she does on that social media platform. Duffy's platform, with more than 100,000 followers, aims to make individual advocacy and civic engagement accessible to its followers. “As an independent content creator and civic educator, access to WisEye is essential to my work,” said Duffy. “More people are getting their news from social media, and many of us who aim to reach these audiences don’t have access to a traditional newsroom or the ability to be at the Capitol every day,” she said. Duffy said WisconsinEye allows her "to see for myself what’s actually happening in legislative hearings and floor sessions, without filters or spin.” “At a time when trust in information is fragile, WisEye remains one of the few truly objective, public-facing sources available,” she said. “Keeping it funded is critical to transparency and public understanding.” Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director at the ACLU of Wisconsin, confirmed that importance, telling WJI, “WisconsinEye plays a vital role in keeping the public informed and holding those in power accountable through transparency.” “Watching legislative floor sessions and committee hearings, Wisconsin Supreme Court oral arguments, and other programming on WIsconsinEye is part of my near-daily routine," she said. It’s unclear whether or how WisconsinEye could continue. Earlier this week a message replacing the decades-long archive of hearings and live coverage said in part: “Without consistent annual funding . . . citizens, legislators, legislative staff, the governor’s administration, agency leadership and staff, trade associations, attorneys and the courts, local government officials, journalists and all print, cable, television and radio news outlets, businesses, nonprofit organizations — all lose the only reliable and proven source of unfiltered State Capitol news and state government proceedings.” It attributed the shuttering to “extreme competition and a complete collapse in private funding.” That message has since been replaced by one highlighting the station’s award-winning coverage and years of service:  Legislation circulated for co-sponsorship by Sens. Mark Spreitzer, Kelda Roys, and Chris Larson and Rep. Brienne Brown earlier this week may provide an answer.
A new bill proposes the establishment of an Office of the Public Affairs Network to replace WisconsinEye. According a memo regarding co-sponsorship, the proposal “creates a permanent office to operate a public affairs network that will provide full coverage of state government proceedings in Wisconsin.” The memo says the Office of the Public Affairs Network would administer a network to:
The network would be governed by a board of seven, including the governor or their designee, two additional public appointees of the governor, and four legislators—one from the majority and one from the minority caucuses in both chambers. The Legislature would appropriate $2 million annually to support eight staff positions, which, according to the memo is equivalent to WisconsinEye’s “current coverage while supporting increased access.” The bill also directs the Department of Administration to “attempt” to obtain WisconsinEye’s digital archive to be incorporated into the new network’s archive. “While WisconsinEye's current contract requires them to hand over digital archives to the Wisconsin Historical Society for ongoing public access if WisconsinEye is ever dissolved or liquidated, WisconsinEye’s current funding issues have resulted in WisconsinEye taking the archives offline without a replacement becoming available,” wrote the senators. In the memo, the senators say the bill will transform “the recording, broadcasting, and archiving of Wisconsin’s state government proceedings from a failed private venture into a reliable, nonpartisan public service.” No matter the form, WisconsinEye’s coverage is critical to effective advocacy and public access to the actions of elected officials. “WisconsinEye’s live webcasts and recordings of state legislative proceedings in Wisconsin provide transparency and critical access to democracy for residents all over the state,” Merkwae told WJI. “We hope the Legislature can come to an agreement to continue this essential service, not only for individuals and organizations engaging in legislative advocacy, local government officials impacted profoundly by state government decisions, and journalists, but for everyday Wisconsinites who have a right to an accessible way to access what is happening in state government,” she said.  The Wisconsin State Capitol. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
A bill that could ensure continuity of care for those returning to the community from incarceration is moving at breakneck speed though the Legislature, as lawmakers scramble to catch up with other states having similar legislation already in place. The bill, AB604/SB598 was introduced in the Assembly Oct. 29 and in the Senate the following day. In just two weeks it passed through a committee in the Senate and had a public hearing in the Assembly’s Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse Prevention. Contrary to the speed with which the legislation is moving, the bill won’t benefit incarcerated Wisconsinites quite as quickly. The bill would require the Wisconsin Department of Health Services to submit by Jan. 1, 2027 a request to the federal Department of Health and Human services for waiver of federal Medicaid law to allow coverage for certain care prior to an individual’s release from prison. An imprisoned individual could then receive case management services and medication-assisted treatment for substance-use disorders during the 90 days before release, plus a 30-day supply of prescription medications for use after release. Under current law, individuals can apply for Medicaid coverage while incarcerated, but they are not actually enrolled until their release date. The proposed changes would not change who is eligible; they instead would move up the coverage date for certain care to shortly before release. “In rural areas, it can take weeks to see a primary care provider for medications and months to get behavioral services,” wrote the Wisconsin Counties Association in support of the bill. “When individuals are released without any support, outcomes are often poor,” the organization said. With a waiver in place, the state would receive reimbursement under the Medicaid program during the 90-day prerelease window. Without the waiver, the cost for any such medical services before release falls entirely on state and local governments. Written testimony from DHS suggests that a successful application for the federal funds would provide a “smoother care transition for incarcerated individuals,” and that prerelease coverage could reduce other Medicaid care costs, such as for inpatient stays. The Medical College of Wisconsin called the bill “a critical step toward improving health outcomes for a vulnerable population and reducing the burden on state and local governments.” “Nearly two-thirds of sentenced people in jails and 58 percent of those in state prison meet the clinical criteria for a substance abuse disorder, compared to just five percent of the general population,” wrote sponsor Rep. Clint P. Moses (R-Menomonie) in favor of the bill. He noted that “people leaving correctional facilities face up to a 40 times higher risk of overdose death within the first two weeks after release.” Gaps in care after release “contribute to recidivism, overdoses, and higher costs to taxpayers,” he said. “The savings generated through this federal match could be reinvested to expand treatment services and further reduce the financial burden on Wisconsin taxpayers,” Moses said. Nineteen other states have already enrolled in this federal matching program, which was introduced in 2023. States have to pass legislation permitting the waiver application.
The Wisconsin Senate (left) and Assembly chambers on Sept. 19, 2025. Photographs by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
The Legislature recently ended another busy floor period, having moved forward several bills with implications for the criminal justice system. Meanwhile, two criminal justice bills were enacted into law since our last update, while another two were vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers. Big bills have been introduced regarding legalization of medical marijuana and regulation of cannabis products that have proliferated under the Farm Bill of 2018. The Legislature is rushing to discuss a constitutional amendment that provides “the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable and fundamental individual right that shall never be infringed.” Culture-war issues like banning guaranteed income—a sister to universal income geared toward low-income individuals—and codifying English as the official language of the state are also progressing. All summaries below are quotes from the analysis provided by the Legislative Reference Bureau unless italicized (WJI’s additions). The titles are WJI’s summaries of the often lengthy and sometimes misleading titles provided by the bills' authors. When the bills in the Assembly and Senate are generally the same, WJI links to just one. An asterisk * denotes a bill substantially similar to one introduced in a previous session but which either failed to pass or was vetoed by the governor. For a refresher on the lifecycle of a bill, you can find that here. The rough progression of a successful bill is: introduction → referral to committee → passage by committee → vote by full chamber → transfer to the other chamber to go through the prior three steps there, too → to the governor for signature. The vetoed AB34/SB25 — Court-issued criminal complaints (John Doe prosecutions)* Under current law, a district attorney has the discretion as to whether or not to issue a complaint to charge a person with a crime. Current law also provides that, if a district attorney refuses to issue a complaint against a person, a judge may conduct a hearing to determine if there is probable cause to believe that the person committed a crime and, if so, issue a complaint. Under this bill, when there is an officer-involved death, which is a death that results directly from an action or an omission of a law enforcement officer, and the district attorney determined there was no basis to prosecute the officer, a court may not issue a complaint against the involved officer unless there is new or unused evidence presented. Status: Vetoed. AB66/SB76 -- Dismissing or amending certain criminal charges and deferred prosecution agreements* Under current law, a prosecutor may dismiss or amend a criminal charge without approval from the court. Under this bill, a prosecutor must get the court’s approval to dismiss or amend a charge if the charge is for any of the following: 1) a crime of domestic abuse or a violation of a domestic violence temporary restraining order or injunction; 2) theft of an automobile; 3) a crime of abuse of an individual at risk or a violation of an individual-at-risk TRO or injunction; 4) first-degree, second-degree, or third-degree sexual assault; 5) a crime against a child; 6) illegal possession of a firearm if the person has been convicted of, adjudicated delinquent for, or found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect of, committing, soliciting, conspiring, or attempting to commit a violent felony, as defined under current law; or 7) reckless driving that results in great bodily harm. The court may approve the dismissal or amendment of such a charge only if the court finds the action is consistent with the public’s interest in deterring the commission of these crimes and with the legislature’s intent, expressed in this bill, to vigorously prosecute individuals who commit these crimes. If the court approves any dismissal or amendment in a year, the court must submit an annual report to the legislature detailing each approval…. Status: Vetoed. The introed SB534/AB547 — Medical marijuana This bill creates a program that allows a registered patient to possess and use medical cannabis products; allows designated caregivers to possess medical cannabis products on behalf of registered patients; licenses and regulates medical cannabis growers, processors, and testing laboratories; and licenses and regulates dispensaries that sell medical cannabis products. No person may possess, sell, transfer, or transport cannabis or medical cannabis products unless the person is licensed or registered as provided in the bill. Under the bill, “medical cannabis products” includes products in the form of concentrates, oils, tinctures, edibles, pills, topical forms, gels, creams, vapors, patches, liquids, and forms administered by a nebulizer but excludes cannabis in a form that can be smoked. The bill adds medical cannabis to certain provisions under the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) and eliminates the sunset of certain requirements under the PDMP. Status: Public hearing held in the Senate, referred to committee in Assembly. AB606 — Regulation of hemp-derived cannabis This bill regulates hemp-derived cannabinoid products in the same manner as alcohol beverages are regulated under current law and renames the Division of Alcohol Beverages in the Department of Revenue as the Division of Intoxicating Products (division). The bill also makes minor changes relating to alcohol beverage warehouses and alcohol beverage production arrangements. Status: Public hearing held in Assembly, no Senate bill introduced. SB202/AB165 -- Guaranteed income prohibition This bill prohibits a political subdivision from expending moneys of the political subdivision for the purpose of making payments to individuals under a guaranteed income program. “Guaranteed income program” is defined under the bill to mean a program under which individuals are provided with regular periodic cash payments that are unearned and that may be used for any purpose. Programs under which an individual is required to perform work or attend training are not “guaranteed income programs” under the bill. Status: Passed in the Assembly, public hearing held in Senate. SJR105/AJR112 -- Constitutional amendment providing right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right without qualification Currently, the Wisconsin Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose. This constitutional amendment, proposed to the 2025 legislature on first consideration, guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms without qualification. The amendment further provides that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable and fundamental individual right that shall never be infringed. Finally, under the amendment, any restriction on the right to keep and bear arms shall be subject to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is a standard of judicial review of government limitations on fundamental rights that generally provides that such a limitation is valid and enforceable only if it is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, if it is narrowly tailored to its purpose, and if no reasonable less restrictive alternative exists. Status: Public hearing held in Senate. The in-between SB459/AB458 -- Admissibility of expert witnesses This bill updates the current statutory rule of evidence relating to testimony by experts to conform with recent changes made to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702 intended to clarify the court’s gatekeeping role with respect to expert testimony. Current law parallels FRE 702 prior to its amendment, allowing the testimony of an expert witness if the witness’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact at issue in the case, but limiting the testimony of an expert witness to testimony that is based on sufficient facts or data, that is the product of reliable principles and methods, and that is based on the witness applying those principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Similar to the changes made to FRE 702, the bill confirms that the proponent of the testimony is required to demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that the witness’s testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, that it is the product of reliable principles and methods, and, finally, that the witness’s opinion reflects a reliable application of those principles and methods to the facts of the case. Status: Public hearing has been held in both Senate and Assembly. AB24/SB57 — County sheriff assistance with certain federal immigration functions This bill requires sheriffs to request proof of legal presence status from individuals held in a county jail for an offense punishable as a felony. The bill also requires sheriffs to comply with detainers and administrative warrants received from the federal department of homeland security regarding individuals held in the county jail for a criminal offense. Under the bill, sheriffs must annually certify to the Department of Revenue that they have complied with each of these requirements. If a sheriff fails to provide such a certification, DOR must reduce the county’s shared revenue payments for the next year by 15 percent. The bill also requires sheriffs to maintain a record of the number of individuals from whom proof of legal presence is requested who are verified as unlawfully present in this state and a list of the types of crimes for which those individuals were confined in the jail. The information must be provided to the Department of Justice upon request, and DOJ must compile the information and submit a report to the legislature. Status: Passed in the Assembly; passed through committee in Senate and available for scheduling a full Senate vote. AB377/SB357 — Recognizing English as the official language of Wisconsin Currently, Wisconsin has no official language. This bill provides that the official language of this state is English. The bill also allows any state or local governmental entity to provide a person with access to artificial intelligence or other machine-assisted translation tools in lieu of appointing an English language interpreter if the entity is authorized or required by law to appoint an interpreter for the person. Additionally, the bill provides that, unless otherwise specifically required by law, all oral and written communication by all state and local governmental entities must be in the English language, except that such communication may be in another language when appropriate to the circumstances of an individual case, the implementation of a program in a specific instance, or the discharge of a responsibility in a particular situation. The bill also permits state and local government officers and employees to use a language other than English in oral or written communication whenever necessary for one or more of eight specified purposes. Finally, the bill precludes any state or local governmental entity from prohibiting any person from becoming proficient in any language or restricting the oral or written use of any language for a nongovernmental purpose. Status: Public hearing held in Assembly. AB89/SB92 — Retail theft enhanced penalties Under current law, the penalty for the crime of property theft varies by the value of the property taken…. Similarly, the penalty for the crime of retail theft varies by the value of the merchandise or service that is taken…. This bill specifies that, if, in a six-month period, a defendant commits more than one violation of property theft or more than one violation of retail theft, the value of items taken at each violation may be aggregated and the crimes may be prosecuted as one property theft crime or one retail theft crime. The penalty for the crime would be determined by the aggregated value of the items taken. Creates a new crime. Status: Passed in the Assembly; passed through committee in Senate and available for scheduling a full Senate vote. Newly enacted laws: AB77/SB66 — Registration plate concealment devices penalty Under current law, any motor vehicle for which the Department of Transportation has issued registration plates must display those plates, along with any decals issued for the plates. This bill prohibits the possession, sale, purchase, installation, and use of a registration plate concealment device, which is a manual, electronic, or mechanical device designed or adapted to be installed on a motor vehicle to 1) switch between two or more registration plates; 2) move, obstruct, or conceal a registration plate; or 3) alter the appearance of a registration plate so that the registration number cannot be seen and read. The bill also prohibits the equipment of any motor vehicle with a registration plate concealment device. A person who violates these prohibitions may be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 90 days, or both. Any vehicle equipped in violation of these prohibitions may be impounded, and reasonable costs for towing and impounding the vehicle may be assessed against the owner. Creates a new crime. Status: Enacted into law. AB75/SB115 — DOJ collection and reporting of certain criminal case data* This bill requires state DOJ to collect from the director of state courts all of the following information for each criminal case: 1) the county in which the case was filed; 2) the name of the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case; 3) the name of the court official assigned to the case; 4) the criminal charge filed; 5) the charging recommendation from the referring law enforcement agency, if applicable; 6) for each case, whether the court released the defendant without bail, upon the execution of an unsecured appearance bond, upon the execution of an appearance bond with sufficient solvent sureties, or upon the deposit of cash in lieu of sureties, or denied release, and the name of the court official who made the decision; 7) for each case for which a court required the execution of an appearance bond with sufficient solvent sureties, the monetary amount of the bond and the name of the court official who made the decision; 8) for each case for which a court required the deposit of cash in lieu of sureties, the monetary amount of cash required and the name of the court official who made the decision; 9) any other conditions of release imposed on the defendant and the name of the court official who made the decision; 10) whether any plea bargain was offered in the case; 11) whether a deferred prosecution agreement was offered in the case; 12) whether any charge relating to the case was dismissed; and 13) whether the case resulted in a conviction. Status: Enacted into law. By Alexandria Staubach
Legislation in response to the temporary suspension of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan quietly made its way through public hearing and voting in the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee. Bill AB380/SB381 would require judges who are suspended for misconduct to receive no pay. However, the law would not apply retroactively. So whether or not it passes, it will not apply to Dugan. The bill passed out of committee on Oct. 1 on a party-line vote: four Republicans for and three Democrats against. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in April suspended Dugan, who was charged criminally in federal court for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade federal law enforcement. In doing so, the court invoked its “superintending and administrative authority over all courts in the state.” The Supreme Court did not impose additional sanctions or conditions beyond the temporary prohibition on Dugan from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge. She continues to be paid. At the public hearing on the bill on Sept. 25, Rep. Andrew Hysell (D-Sun Prairie) highlighted that the bill may not address the conduct that its proponents seek to censure. He pointed out that if a judge was subsequently found innocent, there was no mechanism to redress backpay. Hysell is one of the few attorneys in the Legislature, The bill was then amended to permit back pay from the date of suspension if ultimately the Supreme Court imposes no discipline on a judge and to clarify that the temporary suspension must be for criminal misconduct. The bill appears aimed at Dugan's actions rather than any wider issue that the Legislature otherwise would have addressed. In written testimony, bill sponsor Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) said that “Wisconsin taxpayers must be protected from the misconduct and/or commission of a crime by rogue judges.” At the public hearing and before the committee vote, Sortwell focused on Dugan’s specific case. He characterized her suspension as a “taxpayer-funded vacation” and said he found it “mind-boggling . . . that some people are OK with judges helping criminals escape law enforcement officers.” He said he thought the Supreme Court was “obviously predisposed to be more favorable of the actions of Judge Dugan for their policy positions.” Judicial suspensions are rare. Legislative materials associated with the bill indicate only 15 judges have been suspended since 1978. The Senate’s version of the bill has been referred to its Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety and has not yet been scheduled for public hearing. Jury selection in Dugan's case is set to begin Dec. 11.  The Wisconsin State Capitol on Sept. 19, 2025. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
With the Wisconsin Legislature roughly halfway through its 2025-2026 session, it’s time for a roundup of pending legislation that could impact civil rights, the criminal justice system, and courts. The Legislature recently exited a floor period—when legislation can be scheduled for a vote. Gov. Evers vetoed a bill that would have required the Department of Corrections to recommend revocation for individuals charged with a new offense while on community supervision. WJI covered that bill here and here. The Legislature’s upcoming floor period will run from Oct. 7-16. The following bills have made significant progress. All summaries below are quotes from the analysis provided by the Legislative Reference Bureau unless italicized (WJI’s additions). The titles are WJI’s summaries of the often lengthy and sometimes misleading ones provided by the bill’s author. When the bills in the Assembly and Senate are generally the same, WJI links to just one. An asterisk * denotes a bill substantially similar to one introduced in a previous session but which either failed to pass or was vetoed by the governor. For a refresher on the lifecycle of a bill, you can find that here. But the rough progression of a successful bill is: introduction → referral to committee → passage by committee → vote by full chamber → transfer to the other chamber to go through the prior three steps there, too → to the governor for signature. AB34/SB25 – Court issued criminal complaints (John Doe prosecutions)* Under current law, a district attorney has the discretion as to whether or not to issue a complaint to charge a person with a crime. Current law also provides that, if a district attorney refuses to issue a complaint against a person, a judge may conduct a hearing to determine if there is probable cause to believe that the person committed a crime and, if so, issue a complaint. Under this bill, when there is an officer-involved death, which is a death that results directly from an action or an omission of a law enforcement officer, and the district attorney determined there was no basis to prosecute the officer, a court may not issue a complaint against the involved officer unless there is new or unused evidence presented. Status: Passed in Senate; qualified for scheduling in the Assembly. AB4/SB30 – Required civics instruction* Beginning in the 2027-28 school year, this bill requires school boards, independent charter schools, and private schools participating in a parental choice program to include in their respective curricula instruction lessons in civics that includes specific following topics and pupil development goals… The bill also requires school boards, independent charter schools, and private schools participating in a parental choice program to annually report to the Department of Public Instruction regarding how they are meeting the civics instruction requirement created under the bill. DPI must then compile the information and submit it to the legislature…. (U)nder current law, a school board may grant a high school diploma to a pupil only if the pupil meets specific statutory requirements, including earning a certain number of credits in various subjects in the high school grades and passing a civics test comprised of questions that are identical to those that are asked as part of the process of applying for U.S. citizenship. Currently, a pupil must earn at least three credits of social studies, including state and local government. The bill specifies that the social studies credits also must include one-half credit of civics instruction. This graduation requirement first applies to pupils who graduate in the 2030-31 school year. Status: Passed in Assembly; referred to Committee on Education in the Senate. AB24/SB57 – County sheriff assistance with certain federal immigration functions This bill requires sheriffs to request proof of legal presence status from individuals held in a county jail for an offense punishable as a felony. The bill also requires sheriffs to comply with detainers and administrative warrants received from the federal department of homeland security regarding individuals held in the county jail for a criminal offense. Under the bill, sheriffs must annually certify to the Department of Revenue that they have complied with each of these requirements. If a sheriff fails to provide such a certification, DOR must reduce the county’s shared revenue payments for the next year by 15 percent. The bill also requires sheriffs to maintain a record of the number of individuals from whom proof of legal presence is requested who are verified as unlawfully present in this state and a list of the types of crimes for which those individuals were confined in the jail. The information must be provided to the Department of Justice upon request, and DOJ must compile the information and submit a report to the legislature. Status: Passed in the Assembly; passed committee in the Senate and qualified for scheduling. AB77/SB66 – Registration plate concealment devices and providing a penalty Under current law, any motor vehicle for which the Department of Transportation has issued registration plates must display those plates, along with any decals issued for the plates. This bill prohibits the possession, sale, purchase, installation, and use of a registration plate concealment device, which is a manual, electronic, or mechanical device designed or adapted to be installed on a motor vehicle to 1) switch between two or more registration plates; 2) move, obstruct, or conceal a registration plate; or 3) alter the appearance of a registration plate so that the registration number cannot be seen and read. The bill also prohibits the equipment of any motor vehicle with a registration plate concealment device. A person who violates these prohibitions may be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 90 days, or both. Any vehicle equipped in violation of these prohibitions may be impounded, and reasonable costs for towing and impounding the vehicle may be assessed against the owner. Creates a new crime. Status: Passed in the Senate; passed committee in the Assembly and qualified for scheduling. AB66/SB76 – Dismissing or amending certain criminal charges and deferred prosecution agreements* Under current law, a prosecutor may dismiss or amend a criminal charge without approval from the court. Under this bill, a prosecutor must get the court’s approval to dismiss or amend a charge if the charge is for any of the following: 1) a crime of domestic abuse or a violation of a domestic violence temporary restraining order or injunction; 2) theft of an automobile; 3) a crime of abuse of an individual at risk or a violation of an individual-at-risk TRO or injunction; 4) first-degree, second-degree, or third-degree sexual assault; 5) a crime against a child; 6) illegal possession of a firearm if the person has been convicted of, adjudicated delinquent for, or found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect of, committing, soliciting, conspiring, or attempting to commit a violent felony, as defined under current law; or 7) reckless driving that results in great bodily harm. The court may approve the dismissal or amendment of such a charge only if the court finds the action is consistent with the public’s interest in deterring the commission of these crimes and with the legislature’s intent, expressed in this bill, to vigorously prosecute individuals who commit these crimes. If the court approves any dismissal or amendment in a year, the court must submit an annual report to the legislature detailing each approval. Current law allows a prosecutor to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with a defendant who is charged or may be charged with a crime. Generally, under a deferred prosecution agreement, the prosecutor agrees to dismiss a charge or not file a charge if the defendant complies with specified conditions. In addition, current law provides specific criteria for a deferred prosecution agreement if the defendant is or may be charged with child sexual abuse if the defendant is the parent of, the guardian of, a close relative of, or residing with the child; with a crime of domestic violence; or with a violation of a domestic violence TRO or injunction. Current law also prohibits a prosecutor from entering into a deferred prosecution agreement with a defendant who is charged or may be charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant or a controlled substance, causing injury to another while operating a vehicle while under the influence, or homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle. The bill prohibits a prosecutor from entering into a deferred prosecution agreement with a defendant if a complaint or information is filed that alleges the person committed any of the same crimes listed in items 1 to 7 above. Status: Passed in the Senate; qualified for scheduling in the Assembly. AB124/SB146 – Prohibiting persons convicted of a violent crime from changing their name Current law prohibits a person who is registered as a sex offender with the Department of Corrections from changing their name during the period they are required to register. With certain exceptions, a person who violates the prohibition is guilty of a Class H felony. This bill prohibits a person who has been convicted of a violent crime, which is defined in the bill and includes homicide, battery, kidnapping, stalking, human trafficking, and sexual assault, from changing their name. A person who violates the prohibition is guilty of a Class H felony. Creates a new crime. Status: Passed in the Senate; qualified for scheduling in the Assembly. AB89/SB92 – Retail theft enhanced penalties Under current law, the penalty for the crime of property theft varies by the value of the property taken…. Similarly, the penalty for the crime of retail theft varies by the value of the merchandise or service that is taken…. This bill specifies that, if, in a six-month period, a defendant commits more than one violation of property theft or more than one violation of retail theft, the value of items taken at each violation may be aggregated and the crimes may be prosecuted as one property theft crime or one retail theft crime. The penalty for the crime would be determined by the aggregated value of the items taken. Creates a new crime. Status: Passed in Assembly; public hearing held in Senate, no vote from committee yet. AB75/SB115 – DOJ collection and reporting of certain criminal case data* This bill requires state DOJ to collect from the director of state courts all of the following information for each criminal case: 1) the county in which the case was filed; 2) the name of the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case; 3) the name of the court official assigned to the case; 4) the criminal charge filed; 5) the charging recommendation from the referring law enforcement agency, if applicable; 6) for each case, whether the court released the defendant without bail, upon the execution of an unsecured appearance bond, upon the execution of an appearance bond with sufficient solvent sureties, or upon the deposit of cash in lieu of sureties, or denied release, and the name of the court official who made the decision; 7) for each case for which a court required the execution of an appearance bond with sufficient solvent sureties, the monetary amount of the bond and the name of the court official who made the decision; 8) for each case for which a court required the deposit of cash in lieu of sureties, the monetary amount of cash required and the name of the court official who made the decision; 9) any other conditions of release imposed on the defendant and the name of the court official who made the decision; 10) whether any plea bargain was offered in the case; 11) whether a deferred prosecution agreement was offered in the case; 12) whether any charge relating to the case was dismissed; and 13) whether the case resulted in a conviction. Status: Passed in the Assembly; qualified for scheduling in the Senate. AB148/SB147 – Interpreter action by telephone or live audiovisual means in criminal and civil proceedings Under current law, in any civil or criminal proceeding other than a trial, a court may permit an interpreter to act by telephone or live audiovisual means. This bill removes the exclusion for trials, so that an interpreter may act by telephone or live audiovisual means in any civil or criminal proceeding. Amended to require the consent of all parties. Status: Available for scheduling in the Senate; public hearing held in the Assembly. Update 10/2/25: Passed by Assembly committee on Oct. 1, available for scheduling in the Assembly for a full vote. AB190/SB194 – Obtaining attorney fees and costs under the state's public records law when an authority voluntarily releases a contested record after an action has been filed in court Currently, if a person requests access to a public record and the agency or officer in state or local government having custody of the record, known as an “authority” under the public records law, withholds or delays granting access to the record or a part of the record, the requester may bring a mandamus action asking a court to order release of the record or part of the record. Current law requires the court to award reasonable attorney fees, damages of not less than $100, and other actual costs to the requester if the requester prevails in whole or in substantial part in any such action. The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided in 2022 that a requester prevails in whole or in substantial part only if the requester obtains a judicially sanctioned change in the parties’ legal relationship, for example, a court order requiring disclosure of a record. See, Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha, 2022 WI 57. Under the supreme court’s decision, a requester generally is not entitled to attorney fees and costs if the authority voluntarily or unilaterally without a court order provides contested records after the requester files an action in court. This bill supersedes the supreme court’s decision in Friends of Frame Park. Under the bill, a requester has prevailed in whole or in substantial part if the requester has obtained relief through any of the following means: 1. A judicial order or an enforceable written agreement or consent decree. 2. The authority’s voluntary or unilateral release of a record if the court determines that the filing of the mandamus action was a substantial factor contributing to that voluntary or unilateral release. This standard is substantially the same as the standard that applies for a requester to obtain attorney fees and costs under the federal Freedom of Information Act. Status: Passed in the Senate; qualified for scheduling in the Assembly.  The legislation mosaic inside the Wisconsin Capitol dome. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
Despite decades of research highlighting the detrimental effects and inefficiencies of mandatory minimum sentences, the Wisconsin Legislature is considering a bill that would impose a mandatory minimum for human trafficking. The Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety last week held a hearing on the bill, AB 265. Legislators mostly bypassed the mandatory minimum aspect of the proposed law. “The number of convictions versus the number of incidents is minuscule to that extent I support this bill,” said bill co-sponsor Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond du Lac). Law enforcement and legislators shared stories on the human tragedy associated with trafficking. “Lives are destroyed in a massive, massive manner,” said Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Caledonia). Wittke said the impetus for the bill came from law enforcement. “I can’t state enough how working with law enforcement, when they come to you with something they have seen on the street, I believe that we should listen and do the job that we were elected to do and bring legislation forward,” he said at the hearing. No party spoke in opposition. Under current Wisconsin law, human trafficking is punishable by a maximum term of incarceration of 25 years, and trafficking a child is punishable by a maximum term of incarceration of 40 years. The bill would increase the maximum penalties and raise the felony levels of the offenses, and it would also create a mandatory minimum term of confinement in prison of 10 years for adult trafficking and 15 years for child trafficking. The mandatory minimum part of the bill raises concerns for criminal justice advocates. “Nobody disagrees that human trafficking is among the most serious of crimes,” says WJI President and criminal defense attorney Craig Johnson. “Nonetheless, there’s no evidence to support that mandatory minimums decrease the instances of the offense or otherwise deter traffickers,” he said. Johnson believes that "any new law that interferes with the discretion of a judge to fashion a sentence that fits the individual circumstances of a particular case is a bad idea.” “In Wisconsin, legislators are elected to write laws, not sentence people. That's a judge's job, and it's what they're elected to do. If a judge's sentences do not reflect the will of the electorate, the remedy is in the voting booth," he said. According to a report by The Sentencing Project, “criminal legal experts for ideologically diverse backgrounds maintain that mandatory minimums are an overly harsh, disproportionate punishment.” The Sentencing Project found that mandatory minimums shift sentencing discretion away from judges and onto prosecutors, as the latter control the decisions to charge and whether to offer a plea agreement. “(T)he threat of mandatory minimums also encourages defendants to plead to a different crime to avoid a stiff mandatory sentence,” the report found. Mandatory minimums are not common in Wisconsin. They apply to a few offenses, including second and subsequent felon-in-possession, intoxicated driving, child sex offenses, and second or subsequent sexual assault and violent crimes. Racine County Sheriff's Office Investigator Luke Johnson is working with legislators on the bill. He spent two years between 2023 and 2025 on a task force specifically targeting human trafficking and internet crimes against children. When asked whether he or the legislators had consulted with prosecutors or judges about the mandatory minimum aspect of the bill, he indicated that he had not. In his written comments in support of the bill, O’Connor said that his support of mandatory minimums is intended to “ensure that the perpetrators of human trafficking are punished for their crimes but also prevented from doing further harm to their victims and our communities.” Despite the lengthy sentences already permitted, “across our county, Americans are seeing the disastrous and tragic consequences of prosecutors and judges who are proudly soft on crime,” he said. O’Connor said his concerns stem from five out-of-state sentences from 2022 to 2025 where defendants convicted of trafficking received between six and eight years in prison. Those sentences were imposed in New York, Los Angeles, and Colorado. The only Wisconsin sentence O’Connor referenced was a case in which a defendant convicted of child sex trafficking received a lengthy 34 years in prison. The Senate's companion bill, SB 266, has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing in that chamber.  By Alexandria Staubach The Wisconsin Assembly this week spent its time voting on AB 58, which generally prohibits the display of any flag other than the U.S. flag or State of Wisconsin flag from being flown, hung, or otherwise displayed from the exterior of any government building. “Are we really going to pass a law prohibiting the city and county of Milwaukee from raising a flag celebrating Black people’s liberation from chattel slavery?” asked ACLU of Wisconsin in a letter of opposition to the Legislature. In a word, “yes.” The stated purpose of the legislation is to unify Wisconsinites. “Our goal with this non-partisan bill is to ensure that our schools and government institutions remain above partisan politics,” said Rep. Jerry L O’Connor (R-Fond du Lac) in written testimony. But the bill has specific language that would preclude the flag representing Juneteenth from being flown. Milwaukee has flown the Juneteenth flag from city hall during the week of June 19 since 2020, having one of the oldest annual public celebrations of the holiday. “This action has been and will continue to be more divisive,” said Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee). “Diversity should be celebrated, not hidden away,” she said. She questioned whether the bill violates First Amendment rights and whether it will survive legal challenges should it be enacted as law. The bill applies to municipal buildings as well as state buildings. And it won’t affect just Juneteenth flags. The pride flag received special attention at Thursday’s hearing. It would no longer make periodic appearances at government buildings, especially the Capitol, if the law is enacted. Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego) took issue with several constituents who reached out before the day’s proceedings to express opposition to the legislation but who could not tell him what the pride flag means, when he asked. “Their own communities don’t know what the flag fully means or represents but we all have to accept it,” he said. “I don’t think we should be in the business of putting flags up that sow divisiveness to protect one group’s feelings but offend many others,” he said. Wichgers made no secret of his opposition to the pride flag specifically, concluding, “flying that above our Capitol is beneath our dignity.” No flag could relate to any political party or social cause, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious viewpoint or racial identity. Those related to a “gang or extremist group as designated by the federal bureau of investigation” are also expressly precluded. Exceptions are made, however, for flags of local governmental units, foreign dignitaries and delegations, the armed services, indigenous nations, special law enforcement units, and universities, among others. Despite O’Connor’s testimony that the bill was nonpartisan, and his insistence that the legislation would help everyone “get along,” the vote proceeded along party lines, with 50 Republicans voting in favor of the bill and 44 Democrats opposing it. Four members “paired” their vote to facilitate their absence. Vote pairing occurs when members of the opposite party or with opposing views agree in advance to not vote on a given issue, effectively canceling the other out. The pair is not counted toward the official vote but is recorded. The bill now moves to the Senate. If passed there, it would then go to the governor for approval or veto.  By Margo Kirchner
Gov. Tony Evers just vetoed a bill that would have required the Department of Corrections to recommend revocation if a person on extended supervision, parole, or probation is charged with a new crime. In his veto message, Evers wrote that he objected "to the unfunded mandate that such revocation would impose on the Department of Corrections, which would move Wisconsin in the wrong direction on criminal justice reform without improving public safety. This bill is estimated to have a fiscal impact of more than $330 million in just the first two years and hundreds of millions of dollars in unknown, ongoing costs to state taxpayers in the years to follow. This significant price tag does not include construction costs to build additional state correctional facilities, which would likely be needed, or take into account the fiscal impact on local governments. This fiscal impact is particularly untenable on the heels of the legislature significantly underfunding existing operations at the Department of Corrections in the most recent state budget." Evers wrote that "Wisconsin should be investing in data-driven, evidence-based programming that addresses barriers to reentry, enhances educational and vocational opportunities for individuals who will be released after completing their sentence, and provides treatment for mental health and substance use issues, which will help to reduce recidivism and save taxpayer money while improving public safety." Wisconsin Justice Initiative and Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action wrote to Evers on Wednesday, urging him to veto the bill, AB 85. Currently, the DOC has discretion to pursue revocation when a person on release is charged with a new crime. Revocations are then decided by administrative law judges, rather than sentencing judges. AB 85 would have taken away the DOC’s discretion and required that the department recommend revocation, even though new charges are based only on probable cause and could later be dropped or defeated at trial. The Assembly passed AB 85 in March along party lines with the exception of cross-over votes by one representative from each side. The Senate passed the bill in June along party lines. The bill was sent to Evers yesterday. As of today, Wisconsin holds 23,346 people in prison. The most recent available number of people on probation or parole, from May 31, is 63,420. Estimates indicated that if the bill became law, more than 4,600 additional people would end up in Wisconsin prisons each year, with a price tag of $250 million annually once the additional population was in place. In written testimony in the Legislature, even the Badger State Sheriffs’ Association and Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association questioned the bill, expressing concern about its cost and impact on jails and prisons. WJI and WJI Action's letter to the governor said that “the bill turns the long-standing American concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ on its head. The bill would require that a person on supervision is presumed guilty of a violation of the terms of release merely upon accusations of other, as yet unproved, conduct, which are made on only probable cause.” Further, WJI and WJI Action wrote, “individuals on supervision or parole already face overwhelming odds against making it to the finish line. . . . People on release face a long list of behavior controlled by the DOC, and for more than a decade, the Department of Corrections has failed to develop rules and guidance implementing 2013 Wisconsin Act 196 to provide those on release with guidance.” As WJI reported recently, Act 196 calls for DOC to develop a list of sanctions that may be imposed for the most common violations, offering “clear and immediate consequences for violations.” The law also mandates that any rule developed by DOC take into account the impact of revocation on an offender’s employment and family. WJI and WJI Action pointed out that Wisconsin’s prisons are already at capacity and that this bill sends that number higher, at great fiscal and societal cost. The organizations also questioned the removal of discretion from the DOC. Minister Roy Rogers, executive director of The Onesimus Group Milwaukee and a WJI board member with personal experience in the justice system, had this to say about the bill: "Assembly Bill 85—though cloaked in the language of accountability—is, in truth, a reactionary measure. It weakens due process, disrespects the discretion of our criminal justice professionals, and burdens our communities with costly, ineffective incarceration." "Out of the 6,280 individuals charged with new crimes while under supervision in 2019, we must ask: how many of those charges ended in actual convictions? According to the Department of Corrections and the Badger Institute, more than half did not. Yet this bill would treat every charge as though it were already a conviction—punishing men and women based solely on an accusation." "That’s not justice," he told WJI. "That’s preemptive punishment—a direct threat to the constitutional principle of 'innocent until proven guilty.' . . . Charges can stem from false accusations, mistaken identity, or insufficient evidence. And in historically over-policed, marginalized communities, we know all too well that it doesn't take much to find yourself charged." Rogers, too, noted that the bill stripped discretion from DOC agents and administrative law judges, who "weigh the severity of the violation, the individual's risk level, and history. That’s what smart justice looks like. AB 85 would remove all that wisdom and replace it with a blunt, one-size-fits-all mandate—rooted in fear, not facts." "Public safety is essential," Rogers told WJI. "But AB 85 did not offer real safety—it offered mass disruption under the guise of accountability. We cannot incarcerate our way into healthy neighborhoods. We need wiser strategies that reduce harm, restore people, and invest in transformation." |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed