Proposed law would add more than 100 jobs in the criminal justice system . . . but not in Milwaukee

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.