|
By Margo Kirchner A bill before the Legislature would eliminate the need to find a notary public before filing certain court documents. Under the bill, Senate Bill 29/Assembly Bill 27, a person could submit a court document signed under penalty of perjury, and the document would have the same effect as an affidavit sworn in front of a notary public. The bill aligns Wisconsin law with a federal law in place since 1976 and with laws in other states. The Senate has already passed the bill. It awaits action by the Assembly’s State Affairs Committee. In testimony to the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee in support of the bill, Attorney Thomas Shriner of Foley & Lardner said the bill will create an “inexpensive and convenient” means for submitting evidence in Wisconsin courts and agencies. Shriner testified on behalf of the Wisconsin Judicial Council, which recommended the change. The Uniform Law Commission, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization advocating for consistent laws across states, also supported the bill before the Senate. The bill, if passed, will simplify submission of evidence for summary judgment motions and other points in civil litigation when affidavits are used as evidence. Attorneys will not have to coordinate getting their clients’ signatures notarized in the midst of meeting a motion deadline, for instance. A person submitting evidence to a court or agency without a notary’s signature and stamp would simply need to write and sign at the end of a document: “I declare under penalty of false swearing under the law of Wisconsin that the foregoing is true and correct.” Attorney Sarah Zylstra of the Boardman Clark law firm told Wisconsin Justice Initiative of the proposed rule's advantages for civil litigation attorneys and clients. The use of the rule in federal courts has shown that sworn declarations “are just as effective as affidavits, but with the benefit of being less costly and much more convenient for witnesses and attorneys,” she said. “It is not always convenient to find a notary to notarize an affidavit, and many notaries charge for their services.” The rule “is particularly important for those in rural areas, those who have transportation challenges, and when documents need to be signed quickly, on an emergency basis,” she said. The bill should make procedures simpler for litigants who represent themselves, too. Having documents notarized is one of many steps that self-represented people must accomplish to file court documents. Mary Ferwerda, executive director of the Milwaukee Justice Center, said in response to questions from Wisconsin Justice Initiative that getting a signature notarized is challenging for many people. “Most banks have a notary public on staff, but not everyone possesses bank accounts, and notary public services may not be available to those without an account. And, while courthouses do have notaries public, many people throughout the state do not live adjacent to a courthouse,” she said. Those who lack transportation or live with disabilities that limit their ability to travel are especially affected, she noted. Plus, when notaries charge for their services, “even nominal sums can be difficult to pay,” said Ferwerda. (Ferwerda takes no position on the pending bill.) If the bill passes, oaths of office, depositions, and real estate documents will still require a sworn statement before a notary. Under Wisconsin law in place since 2009, a declarant who is located outside of the United States is allowed to sign documents under penalty of perjury without finding a notary. The bill would mean that declarants within the United States may do so as well. The bill was introduced by Sens. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), Joan Ballweg (R-Markesan), and Eric Wimberger (R-Green Bay), and Reps. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison), Nik Rettinger (R-Mukwonago), Jeffrey Mursau (R-Crivitz), Elijah Behnke (R-Oconto) and Marisabel Cabrera (D-Milwaukee). Rep. Darrin Madison (D-Milwaukee) has since signed on as another co-sponsor. The change is part of a move toward uniform laws across the states and is known as the “Uniform Unsworn Declarations Act.” 
0 Comments
Updated
The 2020 crime victims’ amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution stands. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has rejected Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s challenge to the amendment. WJI challenged the amendment, known as "Marsy's Law," on the grounds that the question put to voters for approval on the April 2020 ballot failed to properly inform them of the amendment’s contents and, in fact, misled them about the elimination of state-law rights of those accused of crimes. In addition, WJI argued, more than one ballot question was needed because the amendment had multiple parts, WJI argued. The Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed, through a majority decision and multiple concurrences. Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote on behalf of the court. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissented. (Details on the decision to follow in a separate blog post.) Attorney Dennis Grzezinski, representing the plaintiffs, responded to the decision. “The trial court, in a careful and well-reasoned decision, had found the ballot question to be inadequate to inform Wisconsin voters of the contents of the amendment, and we were hopeful that that decision would be affirmed by the Supreme Court,” he said. “WJI and the individual plaintiffs are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision.” WJI and four individual plaintiffs brought the case in December 2019 and won at the trial-court level. In November 2020, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Frank D. Remington declared that the April 2020 ballot question used to pass what is known as “Marsy’s Law” failed to fully and fairly inform the public of the essential components of the amendment, misstated the contents and impact of the amendment, and improperly encompassed more than one subject, in violation of constitutional requirements. Remington stayed his decision pending appeal, so the changes went into effect. Attorney General Josh Kaul appealed Remington’s decision to District III of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, located in Wausau. Kaul appealed on behalf of himself, the Wisconsin Elections Commission, its chair, and then-Secretary of State Douglas LaFollette. The case skipped from the Court of Appeals to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on certification by the District III panel of judges. In certifying the appeal, the court of appeals remarked that the case involved “significant questions of state constitutional law, the resolution of which will have a sweeping effect on our criminal justice institutions and those operating within them, including victims, defendants, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officials, and our courts.” The Supreme Court heard oral argument on September 6, 2022, and issued its decision on May 16, 2023. “WJI agrees with Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's dissent,” said WJI executive director Margo Kirchner. “The Supreme Court has given the Legislature permission to frame and word referendum questions that leave out important information for voters and even mislead them. The Wisconsin Constitution is the foundation of our state’s laws; changes to it should not occur on the basis of insufficient and misleading ballot questions.” WJI is disappointed with the outcome, but also with how the majority reached it, said Kirchner. The court decided an issue that the parties never argued in the trial court or on appeal. The court threw out the legal standard from a century-old case, which the state defendants did not challenge, and created a new standard. The parties were not asked to re-brief the case under the new standard. During the three years the victims' rights amendment has been in effect, it has created significant challenges for criminal courts and their participants, said WJI president Craig Johnson, a criminal defense attorney and another plaintiff in the case. "Unfortunately, the Court's decision does not fully recognize the chaos and confusion that this amendment has ushered into the day-to-day workings of our criminal courts,” said Johnson. “The amendment is a story of arguably good intentions that produced confusing and unanticipated results.” “Further appeals can be expected, as various aspects of Marsy's Law are challenged in trial courts,” said Johnson. “I don't think we've heard the final verdict on Marsy's Law." In addition to WJI and Johnson, plaintiffs in the case included criminal defense attorney Jerome Buting, attorney Jacqueline Boynton, and former Wisconsin Sen. Fred Risser. By Margo Kirchner Russ Feingold and Peter Prindiville are raising concern about the movement toward a constitutional convention and progressives’ failure to take the movement seriously. The two discussed constitutional amendments and the contents of their book, The Constitution in Jeopardy: An Unprecedented Effort to Rewrite Our Fundamental Law and What We Can Do About It, with Mike Gousha at an “On the Issues” event at Marquette University Law School on Tuesday. Feingold is president of the American Constitution Society and a former U.S. senator from Wisconsin. Prindiville is a Washington, D.C., attorney and fellow at the Stanford Constitutional Law Center. Article V of the Constitution sets forth two ways to amend the document: (1) a proposed amendment supported by two thirds of both houses of Congress, or (2) “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,” a convention. Either path requires subsequent ratification by the legislatures or conventions of three-fourths of the states. Since the signing of the Constitution in 1787, only 27 amendments have been ratified, with 10 of those a part of the bill of rights in 1791. As noted by Feingold at the event, there has not been a new proposed and ratified amendment for over 50 years. No constitutional convention has ever occurred. However, state legislatures have been quietly passing applications for one. The Wisconsin Legislature passed a joint resolution in January 2022 calling for a convention to curtail the federal government. Its application for a convention was the subject of a recent dispute between legislators and Secretary of State Doug La Follette about mailing the resolution to federal officials. At the On the Issues event Feingold and Prindiville called any Article V convention dangerous for several reasons. First, the Constitution provides no rules on how such a convention would be held, they said. The Constitution does not clearly state how delegates are appointed, they said. Nor does it indicate what the parliamentary rules would be or whether anything higher than majority vote would be required to pass new language. “There are no rules for this,” Feingold stated, while Prindiville added that there are is no prescribed forum to resolve disputes that may occur—nothing indicates that the Supreme Court would have any involvement, for instance. Feingold and Prindiville pointed out that Article V does not provide for involvement of “We the People.” Delegates could be chosen by legislatures, with no citizen involvement, vote, or approval. Feingold noted that the governor “has nothing to do with this.” It’s just the legislatures, and gerrymandered legislatures may not reflect the will of the people, he said. “There are no rules for this,” Feingold stated. Also, nothing in the Constitution restricts what gets discussed or reworked at a convention. Except as to equal voting in the Senate (specifically noted in Article V), everything could be “on the table” and “fair game,” Feingold and Prindiville said. Nothing in the Constitution provides a means for reining in what gets discussed and decided at a convention, they said.
A “runaway convention” could include lawyers altering language and rights that would have a profound effect, they warned. Prindiville identified as an example possible elimination of federal-court jurisdiction over civil rights cases. Then there is the issue of the groups currently pushing for a convention—groups that Feingold and Prindiville say are well funded and aim to gut the federal government. In addition to state legislatures’ under-the-radar applications for a convention, various groups pushing for a convention have been holding mock events, grooming people to be convention delegates. According to Feingold, the “far right is very good at long-term planning.” Feingold and Prindiville warned that Americans need to take this movement seriously. Progressives cannot assume that Article V will not be used, they said. Article V is in the Constitution and needs to be discussed and debated now, they said. They want to make amending the Constitution a topic of political debate and even discussion at the dinner table. Feingold said that those who may call him alarmist have not learned from history. He pointed to the lack of importance given to the “archaic” Second Amendment for years as an example. To progressives who may support a convention to eliminate the electoral college or proclaim that corporations are not people, Feingold again pointed to the lack of involvement by “the people” in the convention process and the likely control by legislatures and well-funded interest groups. In addition to raising concern about the movement toward a convention, Feingold and Prindiville propose a way forward by altering Article V to make amendment easier and available to the people rather than just legislators. Feingold noted that the U.S. Constitution is one of the hardest to amend, and Prindiville noted that even George Washington admitted that the Constitution as first ratified had flaws.  By Margo Kirchner
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals said Tuesday the State Supreme Court should decide the fate of the victims’ rights constitutional amendment known as Marsy’s Law that voters approved last year. A District III Court of Appeals panel on Tuesday certified the appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court because Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s challenge to the amendment involves “significant questions,” the answers to which “will have a sweeping effect on our criminal justice institutions and those operating within them.” WJI, three individual voters, and Sen. Fred Risser successfully challenged the wording of the ballot question presented to voters for amendment approval. Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington ruled in November 2019 that the question failed to fully and fairly inform the public of the essential components of the amendment, misstated the contents and impact of the amendment, and improperly encompassed more than one subject. He stayed his ruling pending appeal, which allowed the question to appear on the ballot. Marsy’s Law, WJI President Craig Johnson said Tuesday, “runs the risk of negatively affecting the constitutional rights of the accused in a way that the original proponents always denied was their intention. Yet that's the stark reality, and voters were never informed about this. The ballot question did not explain the issue fully and fairly, and left people to vote in the dark." Johnson also is an individual plaintiff in the case. The Supreme Court now must choose whether to decide the appeal itself (skipping the Court of Appeals) or tell District III to consider the matter first. The District III panel judges were Lisa K. Stark, Thomas M. Hruz, and Jennifer E. Nashold, who usually occupies a seat on the District IV appeals court. Tuesday’s 20-page explanation of the certification was issued without an identified author. The appeals court said that certification would speed up the important final decision. It would be in the best interests of those involved in the criminal justice system and Wisconsin voters generally “to have a timely and final decision on the sufficiency of the ballot question producing the amendment to our state constitution,” the court wrote. The appeal has been fully briefed before District III since early April 2021. Attorney General Josh Kaul appealed the trial court’s judgment on behalf of himself, the Wisconsin Elections Commission and its chair, and Secretary of State Douglas LaFollette. The defendants chose to venue the appeal in District III. Dennis Grzezinski, lawyer for the plaintiffs, noted the court of appeals’ summary of WJI’s arguments that the ballot question was misleading and legally insufficient, “which led the Circuit Court to rule that the proposed amendments to the Wisconsin Constitution were not validly ratified.” “We look forward to having the Wisconsin Supreme Court address these issues,” said Grzezinski. Unsung hero: Joshua Glover – His escapes from slavery and the law sparked state abolitionist action12/3/2021 By Margo Kirchner First of two parts The capture and escape of Joshua Glover in southeastern Wisconsin in 1854 sparked an abolitionist outcry and an attempt by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Legislature to nullify federal slavery law. Two years earlier, Glover had escaped from slavery in St. Louis and established a life in freedom in Racine, but federal deputy marshals captured him in his home under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Outraged citizens of Milwaukee and Racine broke Glover out of jail and sent him on the Underground Railroad. Glover eventually reached safety in Canada. Although Glover departed Wisconsin by mid-April 1854, his legal impact here had just begun. His escape from custody led to a struggle between state and federal authorities and the state’s defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court. Benammi Stone Garland purchased Glover, then known only by his first name, on January 1, 1850, on the steps of the St. Louis Courthouse. In May 1852, Glover escaped from Garland’s farm and crossed the Mississippi River to Alton, Illinois. Garland placed a reward notice in a Missouri newspaper on May 19, 1852, and ran the notice for about two weeks. Glover traveled about 350 miles to Racine, arriving in late spring or early summer. Racine was a bustling community of 5,000 people due to its trading post, harbor, and plank road to Janesville. About 60 Black or mixed-race adults were recorded in the city’s 1850 census. Glover found a job at a sawmill on the Root River a few miles out of town. He chose his last name and had his own home, where he lived freely for two years. Wisconsin’s antislavery movement was active by the early 1850s. The Burlington Liberty Association, the first antislavery society in the state, had been around since 1844. Sherman Booth published an abolitionist newspaper in Milwaukee called the Free Democrat. Chauncey Olin published the abolitionist American Freeman newspaper in Waukesha. The Underground Railroad (UGRR) stopped in Waukesha and elsewhere. And, as described by authors Ruby West Jackson and Walter T. McDonald, Racine was a “hotbed of abolitionist sympathizers.”* Clayborn Benson, executive director of the Wisconsin Black Historical Society, said in a recent interview that abolitionists were motivated by several reasons. Some opposed slavery on religious grounds, while others opposed slavery for political purposes as part of the developing Republican Party. Some were European immigrants with ancestors who had been enslaved, while “free-soilists” did not want to compete against the South’s unpaid labor when it came to agriculture. Although Wisconsin’s antislavery movement was vigorous, Blacks nevertheless were not close to being treated equally with Whites. They had the right to assemble and act as jurors, said Benson. But Blacks were still denied the right to vote, and Whites did not want Blacks living nearby. In 1850 Milwaukee, about 100 Blacks lived in a city of 20,000. Political battles raged in the nation over slavery in territories and newly formed states. Sentiment ran strongly in Wisconsin against slavery and its reach northward, and there was strong opposition to returning escaped slaves who had become Wisconsin residents. Many people in Wisconsin wanted “no part of enslavement,” said Benson.  Slavery’s reach from the South, however, found support in the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Article IV, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provided that a slave in one state would not be discharged from service by escaping to another state and would be delivered back to his or her owner on demand. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 established a process for slave owners to reclaim runaway slaves, but in southern eyes it did not have teeth. As part of the Compromise of 1850 between northern and southern states, a new fugitive slave act beefed-up the rights of slave owners to recover escaped slaves. A slave owner could obtain a court order in his home state confirming the status of a slave, then proceed to find and arrest the escapee with the assistance of federal marshals. A U.S. commissioner, rather than a regular district judge, could determine the fate of the person. Notably, the commissioner received a larger fee for sending a fugitive to slavery than for releasing him or her. The alleged fugitive slave was denied a jury trial or any other opportunity for testimony or defense. Moreover, the act created criminal penalties for citizens who helped escaped slaves or interfered with their return. This is the first of two posts about Joshua Glover. Read the second one here. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 “brings fire” to northern abolitionists and made them determined to help fugitives reach Canada, said Benson. Wisconsin politics included disagreements regarding whether the state had to defer to the federal government’s efforts to enforce the 1850 act. From 1850 to 1860 “there is turmoil,” Benson said. Garland remained intent on reclaiming Glover under the 1850 act. He somehow learned that Glover was in Wisconsin and provided a St. Louis court with proof of his ownership and Glover’s escape. The court ordered Glover’s removal from Wisconsin. Garland arrived in Milwaukee in early March 1854 with a St. Louis police officer and the Missouri court order. He swore out an affidavit and presented his paperwork to U.S. District Judge Andrew G. Miller, who issued a warrant for Glover’s arrest. Deputy U.S. Marshal Charles Cotton accompanied Garland and the St. Louis police officer to Racine, where they were joined by another federal deputy marshal. Garland and the officers surprised Glover at his home on Friday, March 10, 1854. After a physical struggle the officers subdued Glover and led him away in shackles. Several reports indicate that Glover was bruised and bloodied during the capture. Possibly because of the small size of the Racine jail or the abolitionist forces in Racine, the captors transported Glover to Milwaukee County’s larger and stronger jail located in Courthouse Square (now Cathedral Square).  Photo courtesy of the Wisconsin Historical Society – image 40833 Jailing Glover in Milwaukee also facilitated a quicker hearing because the commissioner and federal judge were located there. The one courthouse contained the federal district court, Milwaukee County courts, and county jail.
News of Glover’s capture spread through Racine. The editor of the Racine abolitionist newspaper printed a story in his Saturday edition and telegraphed word of the “kidnapping” to Booth in Milwaukee by early Saturday morning. Milwaukee County courts: Staff, defense lawyer shortages, and recommended $3 raises for COs10/28/2021  Triggiano By Margo Kirchner
and Gretchen Schuldt The Milwaukee County court system’s biggest challenge in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is staffing, according to Chief Judge Mary Triggiano. And while the County Board’s Finance Committee on Thursday tried to address part of the systemwide shortage by recommending a $3-per-hour raise for correction officers, the county has not addressed another shortage – that of defense lawyers to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases. Triggiano, at a recent Zoom town hall hosted by the Milwaukee Bar Association and the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, said there were shortages of deputy court clerks, court reporters, and interpreters. Meanwhile, the Sheriff’s Department has reduced staff, so courts must coordinate with that department regarding bailiffs. Triggiano asked for patience by attorneys as courts work to solve staffing issues. Tom Reed, regional attorney manager for the State Public Defender, said there also is a significant shortage of private-bar attorneys available to take SPD appointments. (Private-bar lawyers take cases when the SPD has a conflict or lacks capacity.) About 270 cases currently await appointment of counsel, he said. About 150 of those have been delayed more than 20 days, while 40 or 50 have been delayed more than 40 days. Many defendants awaiting appointment are in custody, which makes the attorney shortage a serious problem, he said. Defendants are constitutionally entitled to effective assistance of counsel. Reed attributed the shortage in part to a 35% reduction in attorneys on the appointment list as compared to two years ago. He asked attorneys on the list to take a few more cases each and for lawyers not on the list to join it. Reed also discussed how correction officer shortages at the Milwaukee County Jail and House of Correction are affecting defense attorneys. Because fewer corrections staff are available to move clients to Zoom stations, virtual meetings with defense counsel now occur only a few hours each day. Increased lockdowns may prevent clients from telephoning their attorneys when expected, making attorney-client communication even more difficult. The Finance Committee vote Thursday on the $3 “premium” pay increase is meant to make the county’s wages for correction officers more competitive with those in neighboring counties. Right now, at $20.58 per hour, Milwaukee County correction officer pay is the lowest in the region. The correction officer vacancy rate is about 27%, according to a report on the issue from county Budget Director Joe Lamers. Of 569 budgeted positions, 415 were filled and 154 were not as of the Sept. 9 payroll period. Correction officers have been forced to work extreme amounts of overtime and people incarcerated in the jail have been locked in their cells for long periods of time because of the lack of staff to supervise them, officials said. Under the committee’s recommendation, the pay hike would go to correction officers who are vaccinated for COVID-19 or who have a valid medical or religious excuse. The proposal would cost up to $941,000 this year, $4 million next year, and $5.1 million in 2023. The money would come from the county’s contingent fund this year and COVID relief funds next year. The funding source after that is not identified, leaving a possible hole in the county budget. While the county aims to make the raise permanent, it can be rolled back if necessary, Lamers said. Others in the justice system also are advocating for additional money. Several defense attorneys at the Zoom meeting pointed to the low rate of pay for private-bar attorneys as the primary obstacle in getting lawyers to take indigent clients. Even though the hourly rate for SPD-appointed lawyers increased from $40 to $70 a couple years ago, that amount is still too low, they said. The $70 must cover wages and attorneys’ overhead, including office space, utilities, staff, and insurance. Several attorneys expressed confidence that if the rate rose to $150, $120, or even $100, more attorneys would accept cases. One attorney said that the $70 rate is “insulting” because appointments in civil cases are paid at $100 per hour and the federal criminal-defense rate is $155 per hour.  By Margo Kirchner Chief Buffalo was instrumental in the transfer of approximately one-third of Wisconsin from Indigenous Americans to the United States while retaining his people’s rights to live on reserved land and to hunt, fish, and gather. Chief Buffalo (also known as Great Buffalo, Kechewaishke, Gitchi waisky, or Pezheke) negotiated and signed a series of land-cession treaties between the Lake Superior Anishinaabe (also known as the Chippewa or Ojibwe) and the United States between 1837 and 1854. By the mid-1800s, Chief Buffalo was chief of all Lake Superior Anishinaabe and their lead treaty negotiator. He is best known for ensuring that the Anishinaabe would stay on their lands, even if those lands were significantly reduced in size, rather than move west of the Mississippi River. His work shaped the map of Wisconsin today, as the treaties he signed passed most of northern Wisconsin into United States control and eventually to White landowners. Chief Buffalo pursued a peaceful resolution despite treachery by the U.S. government that left about 400 Anishinaabe dead. While one could argue that the Anishinaabe relinquished too much in the treaties, Rob Goslin, a tribal elder of the Red Cliff Band of Anishinaabe and a historical interpreter for the Madeline Island Museum, confirms Chief Buffalo’s favorable place in his people’s history. Goslin says that Chief Buffalo knew changes were occurring as traders and settlers moved into northern Wisconsin, and he saw the issue as how to live among the new settlers rather than how to fight their presence. Goslin points to a saying he uses as a tribal elder and historical interpreter, which sums up Chief Buffalo’s thinking: “Teaching stays the same but the culture we live in changes.” When changes occur, “we have to live as we are today,” he says, and that was Chief Buffalo’s position. Chief Buffalo did the best he could with the situation before him, says Goslin. “He did his very best to look in the interest of his people.”  "Portrait of Chief Buffalo," image 3957. Wisconsin Historical Society photo. Born in or about 1749 at La Pointe on Madeline Island (one of the Apostle Islands in southwestern Lake Superior), Chief Buffalo was a member of the Loon Clan, from which the highest-level chieftains of the Lake Superior Anishinaabe were chosen. Chief Buffalo rose to become what Goslin calls the “first chief” or “ultimate chief.” Several sources reference Chief Buffalo’s skill as a negotiator. An obituary of Chief Buffalo remarked that he was “noted for his rare integrity, wisdom in council, power as an orator, and magnanimity as a warrior.” Anishinaabe government was based on consensus, says Goslin, so Chief Buffalo had to discuss and mediate issues with the other clans’ chiefs as well as with the United States. The Minnesota chiefs in particular did not always agree with him. But in treaty negotiations, Chief Buffalo ultimately led the discussions. “He was a talker,” Goslin says. The Anishinaabe lived by hunting and trapping; fishing in Lake Superior, other lakes, and streams; gathering wild rice; and tapping maple trees for syrup. As European fur traders arrived in what is now northern Wisconsin, Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, and Minnesota, the Anishinaabe traded and intermarried with them. While other Anishinaabe tribal leaders urged physical aggression to resist the United States’ land acquisitions, Chief Buffalo relied on nonviolent negotiations and advocated for peace. Goslin says “that was one of the unique things about him—he was against bloodshed.” In the 1837 Treaty with the Chippewas, signed at St. Peters in Minnesota, and the 1842 Treaty with the Chippewas, signed at La Pointe, the Anishinaabe ceded land in eastern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The portion of ceded land in Wisconsin alone totaled more than 22,000 square miles. In exchange, the Anishinaabe received certain sums to pay debts plus annual payments in cash and supplies for 20 (1837 treaty) and 25 (1842 treaty) years. The Anishinaabe retained their rights to hunt, fish, and gather on the ceded land, rivers, and lakes. Chief Buffalo participated in the 1837 and 1842 treaty negotiations and signed both treaties as chief of the La Pointe band of Anishinaabe. Historical reports indicate that the Anishinaabe believed they had sold only rights to timber and copper rather than the land itself, permanently. Ronald N. Satz, in Chippewa Treaty Rights: The Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective, cites evidence that the acting superintendent of Indian affairs for the area assured the chiefs at the treaty council that they would not be asked to leave ceded lands for many years as long as they were peaceful and well-behaved. In a letter to the commissioner of Indian affairs in 1850, Chief Buffalo and other Anishinaabe chiefs recalled that during negotiations for the 1842 treaty, government officials said that the United States wanted the mineral rights to the land, not to settle it, and that the Anishinaabe would be able to live on their lands for 50 or even 100 years. They believed that although they had ceded their lands, they could remain living, hunting, and fishing there. United States officials thought otherwise. A new administration in the White House in 1845 brought a new commissioner of Indian affairs who wanted to move the Anishinaabe and others to a northern “Indian colony” to assist in westward expansion. As noted by Richard D. Cornell in The Chippewa: Biography of a Wisconsin Waterway, the commissioner also suggested evicting the Anishinaabe from northern Wisconsin to promote their “civilization.” The situation became dire in February 1850, when President Zachary Taylor revoked all hunting and fishing rights in the ceded territory and ordered the Anishinaabe to move from their lands around Lake Superior to west of the Mississippi River. Such removal would have taken the Anishinaabe away from their homelands and placed them in close proximity to the Dakota (also known as the Sioux), with whom the Anishinaabe had conflicted for more than a century. Chief Buffalo and other chiefs opposed to removal sent messengers to villages throughout their lands to confirm that the Anishinaabe had committed no incidents of aggression against White communities that could have justified removal. To push the Anishinaabe west, a Bureau of Indian Affairs agent and the territorial governor of Minnesota moved the location of the annual treaty payments of cash and supplies from La Pointe, Wisconsin, to Sandy Lake, Minnesota, and set the delivery for October 1850. The officials required all Anishinaabe families to appear to receive the payments, hoping to lure them to Minnesota and strand them there for the winter and possibly permanently. At least 3,000 Anishinaabe traveled hundreds of miles westward to Sandy Lake for the annuity payment. But when they arrived they found rancid and inadequate food, few supplies, and no cash payments. The Anishinaabe suffered six weeks of hunger and terrible conditions waiting for the annuity payments (which never arrived) before walking home, as winter had set in and rivers had frozen. About 170 Anishinaabe died at Sandy Lake from disease and starvation and another 230 died on the journey home.  "Chief Buffalo – Sandy Lake Tragedy," by Carl Gawboy. Photo courtesy of Madeline Island Museum. In November 1851 Chief Buffalo and several other Anishinaabe chiefs and headmen wrote to the commissioner of Indian affairs complaining of the acts of the Indian agent in Wisconsin as a “great deception towards us,” describing the suffering at Sandy Lake, asking that future annuity payments be made at La Pointe, and asking permission to send a delegation to Washington, D.C.
Receiving no response to the request, in spring 1852, at age 93, Chief Buffalo set out to negotiate in person with U.S. President Millard Fillmore. (Taylor died in July 1850.) The party had not received permission for the journey from Washington officials, which was legally required at the time. Chief Buffalo, another leader named Oshoga, and four other Anishinaabe chiefs or braves, accompanied by translator Benjamin Armstrong (a White man who had married into Chief Buffalo’s family), traveled from La Pointe across Lake Superior in birchbark canoes. Along the way, they stopped at settlements and obtained petitions of support from the White community. When the party reached Sault St. Marie, Michigan, government officials tried to block their travel, saying Indians were not allowed to pass that point without permission from Washington. However, Chief Buffalo and his delegation persuaded the officials to let them pass. They traveled by steamer to Detroit, where another government official tried to hold them up. Undeterred, the party traveled by steamer to Buffalo, then by train and steamer to New York City and Washington. By Margo Kirchner and Gretchen Schuldt WJI is launching a project to fill some of the holes of Wisconsin legal history. We're looking for the people and events that played significant but largely overlooked roles in the state's legal development. There are likely many holes that can be filled; we just don’t know about them yet because the people and events have been deleted or relegated to the background for decades or longer. Their stories need to be told so we have a more comprehensive view of Wisconsin legal history. This project was inspired by the absence of diversity in the four murals, completed in 1915, that hang in the State Supreme Court. They depict historic events and that's all well and good, but the only mural that includes people of color depicts a murder trial where the defendant is a Native American and the person being celebrated is a White male judge, one with a somewhat cloudy historical reputation.  That particular mural, the only one that is actually about Wisconsin, represents territorial law by depicting the trial of Menominee Chief Oshkosh before federal judge James Doty in 1830. This mural shows Chief Oshkosh, other Menominees, and likely some Metis men (descendants of White French-Canadian men and Native American women) who were included in the jury. Chief Oshkosh and two other Menominees were tried for murder of a Pawnee who had accidentally killed a member of Oshkosh’s tribe. Under Menominee law, such a killing in retribution was permitted. According to the Wisconsin State Capitol Tour Narration guide, “[a]lthough the jury found Oshkosh guilty of murder, Doty ruled territorial law couldn’t be applied to this case because Oshkosh proved he had followed his legal system, tribal custom of law.” Nevertheless the actual decision was based at least in part on prejudice. "Knowing, as we do, that these laws were not enacted for the Indian, it appears to me that it would be tyrannical and unjust to declare him, by implication, a malicious offender against rules which the same laws presume he could not have previously known," Doty wrote. "He is not considered, in regard either to the general scope of government or of the laws, as an intelligent conscious being." Source: "James Duane Doty: Frontier Promoter," by Alice Elizabeth Smith. The other murals celebrate events that occurred in different times and places. ***  The mural most prominent to someone sitting in the Supreme Court gallery depicts the signing of the U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787. All persons depicted in the painting (and likely at the event itself) are White men. ***  This mural represents Roman law, showing Caesar Augustus Octavius presiding over the trial of a soldier; the scene depicts all White men. ***  The final mural depicts the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 by King John of England, surrounded by soldiers and noblemen, all of whom are White men or boys. There are a lot of people and historic events not recognized in the Supreme Court art. The murals are definitely a product of their time.
But it's a different time now. We want to hear about the great variety of people and events that shaped Wisconsin legal history. The people don’t have to be lawyers, but they must have played a significant role in advancing the cause of justice in Wisconsin. A plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit could qualify, for example, or a defender of consumer rights, or someone who broke down a legal barrier so others could succeed. We also are looking for the significant events that brought about positive change in Wisconsin law or in Wisconsin’s legal system, whether those events occurred in or outside of a courtroom. White people, Black people, Brown people, men, women, children. Protests, court decisions, orations – let's hear about them! We will publish information about these folks and events on our blog; funding willing, WJI eventually will transform the information into a book and make it available to the public. We also have various events in mind to celebrate these unsung characters and occasions. Please help us identify people and events that deserve more recognition for their place in Wisconsin’s legal history. You can send as much information as you want, but at minimum we need: -The name of the person / identity or name of event -A picture, if available -A brief description of the person or event and the person or event’s impact on Wisconsin law or legal history -Where we can find out more about the person or event We are closing this phase of the project on Nov. 15. Please send the information to gretchen@wjiinc.org or mail it to WJI, P.O. Box 100705, Milwaukee, WI 53210 By Margo Kirchner The state relied on the wrong legal standard in arguing that the “Marsy’s Law” ballot question approved by voters a year ago was proper, the Wisconsin Justice Initiative said in a new court filing. “Marsy’s Law” is a victims’ rights amendment approved by voters in April 2020. The amendment itself is more than twice as long as the U.S. Bill of Rights. It was presented to voters, however, as a single, short question on the ballot. WJI and four individuals successfully challenged the amendment in Dane County Circuit Court, arguing that the ballot question violated constitutional requirements. On Nov. 3, Circuit Judge Frank D. Remington agreed, finding that the ballot question failed to fully inform voters of the changes being proposed, was inaccurate and affirmatively misleading, and encompassed more than one amendment so multiple questions were needed. Remington declared the amendment invalid due to the ballot question’s defects. However, he stayed the effect of his ruling in case the defendant state officials appealed, which they did on Dec. 2, 2020. Attorney Josh Kaul appealed on behalf of the Wisconsin Elections Commission and its chair, Ann Jacobs; Secretary of State Douglas La Follette; and himself. Kaul filed the appeal in District III of the Court of Appeals, which is located in Wausau. Attorney Dennis Grzezinski, representing the plaintiffs, argued in his appellate response brief that Remington was correct and his ruling should be affirmed. “What is at stake in this case is the right of Wisconsin voters to be properly informed, and to not be misled by a ballot question when voting on proposed amendments to the Wisconsin Constitution,” Grzezinski wrote. After pointing out errors the defendants made regarding the legal standard the court should apply, Grzezinski homed in on important language the amendment deleted from the state Constitution. Prior to April 2020, the Wisconsin Constitution’s victims’ rights section provided that victims must be given “an opportunity to attend court proceedings unless sequestration is necessary for a fair trial for a defendant.” Marsy’s Law deleted the italicized phrase. Further, the prior language concluded with the sentence that “[n]othing in this section, or in any statute enacted pursuant to this section, shall limit any right of the accused which may be provided by law.” Marsy’s Law deleted that sentence as well. By striking the first provision the amendment “deleted a defendant’s right to have a victim witness sequestered, and it deleted the only reference in the state Constitution to a defendant’s right to a ‘fair trial....’ Striking the final sentence...altered the balance between victims’ rights and the rights of the accused under the State Constitution....”  The Wisconsin Constitution specifies that if two or more amendments are submitted to voters, they must be submitted in such a way that voters may consider each amendment separately. The Marsy’s Law ballot question asked voters to approve an amendment “to give crime victims additional rights” beyond those already in the Constitution. Voters were not presented with a second question asking whether they also approved of the reduction in the rights of an accused. WJI and the other plaintiffs argued that a second question was constitutionally required because, as Remington wrote, “[s]ubtracting from the defendants’ rights is fundamentally different than adding to victims’ rights.” In fact, the plaintiffs argued, three questions were required, because Marsy’s Law also contains a third subject creating a victim’s right to Supreme Court mandatory review of any circuit court decision. By Margo Kirchner The state this week appealed the decision invalidating the Wisconsin Constitution amendment known as “Marsy’s Law.” Dane County Circuit Court Judge Frank D. Remington declared last month that the April ballot question asking whether the amendment should be adopted failed to fully and fairly inform the public of the essential components of the amendment, misstated the contents and impact of the amendment, and improperly encompassed more than one subject. Wisconsin Justice Initiative, three individual voters, and Sen. Fred Risser successfully challenged the ballot question and amendment in the trial court and obtained a permanent injunction against the amendment’s implementation. Remington, though, stayed the injunction pending appeal.  Attorney General Josh Kaul appealed the judgment on behalf of himself, the Wisconsin Elections Commission and its chair, and Secretary of State Douglas LaFollette. The appeal will be heard by the District III appeals court. The state is allowed to choose the appeals court district as long as it is not the district that includes the court that issued the original decision.
District III is located in Wausau and consists of judges Lisa K. Stark , Thomas M. Hruz, and Mark A. Seidl. In the trial court, WJI and the individual plaintiffs argued that the ballot question failed to warn voters that they were striking the state constitution’s only reference to a defendant’s fair trial, eliminating a defendant’s right to exclude an alleged victim from the courtroom if necessary for a fair trial, and altering defendants’ rights set forth in other sections of the Wisconsin Constitution and state statutes. Remington agreed, writing that the question at hand was “about the integrity of the process of amending the State Constitution by ballot. Voters deserve to know what they are voting on.” Plaintiffs also argued that the ballot question directly misled voters, telling them that the amendment would protect a victim’s and an accused’s rights “with equal force,” while the amendment’s text actually permitted a victim to receive greater protections “no less vigorous” than the accused receives. Again, Remington agreed. Finally, plaintiffs argued that the amendment contained more than one subject, requiring multiple ballot questions. Remington agreed again, holding that under the Wisconsin Constitution two questions were required: one for expanding victims’ rights and one for narrowing rights of the accused. Remington did not comment on the public policy of Marsy’s Law. Instead, he focused on process, stating that “Wisconsin voters deserve no less than to be asked the right question(s). Wisconsin voters cannot and should not be misled or deceived if the outcome of the ballot question is to have full force and effect of law.” Marsy’s Law is the personal cause of billionaire and now convicted drug felon Henry Nicholas III. He and his organizations have advocated for passage of substantially similar amendments in at least 20 states. The national Marsy’s Law for All website states that after achieving successful constitutional amendments at the state level the organization aims to be “ultimately successful at the national level” as well. Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin, LLC spent over $1.5 million from January 2017 through June 2019 lobbying the Legislature to approve the amendment and ballot question so the matter could be sent to voters. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed