Litigation: Wisconsin Justice Initiative, et al. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, et al.
Voters in April 2020 approved amendments to the State Constitution that, its supporters incorrectly said, would "level the playing field" for victims of crime.
In December 2019, WJI and four individual plaintiffs sued to invalidate the amendments. A judge struck them down in November 2020 but stayed his ruling to allow the state to appeal. The judge, Dane County Circuit Judge Frank D. Remington, said the ballot question that described the amendments misled voters and did not adequately describe the amendments being made. Further, the amendments required that two or more questions be put to voters to encompass all of the amendments' parts.
“Wisconsin voters deserve no less than to be asked the right question(s),” he wrote. “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.”
His full decision is here.
The state defendants appealed. The case will be heard in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on September 6, 2022.
In December 2019, WJI and four individual plaintiffs sued to invalidate the amendments. A judge struck them down in November 2020 but stayed his ruling to allow the state to appeal. The judge, Dane County Circuit Judge Frank D. Remington, said the ballot question that described the amendments misled voters and did not adequately describe the amendments being made. Further, the amendments required that two or more questions be put to voters to encompass all of the amendments' parts.
“Wisconsin voters deserve no less than to be asked the right question(s),” he wrote. “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.”
His full decision is here.
The state defendants appealed. The case will be heard in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on September 6, 2022.
About Marsy's Law
The State Constitution already included a section on victims' rights, added in 1993:
The new Marsy's Law amendments specify 16 new rights for victims while eliminating reference to a "fair trial for the defendant" and the sentence stating 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."
Here is the incomplete and misleading ballot question that voters saw in April 2020:
Question 1: “ Additional rights of crime victims. Shall section 9m of article I of the constitution, which gives certain rights to crime victims, be amended to give crime victims additional rights, to require that the rights of crime victims be protected with equal force to the protections afforded the accused while leaving the federal constitutional rights of the accused intact, and to allow crime victims to enforce their rights in court?"
That's it. Voters were not informed that an accused's rights under the state constitution and statutes were being diminished while victims' rights were being expanded.
Contents of the amendments
Some of the victims' rights in Marsy's Law are laudable, some are bad ideas, and some are unrealistic.
Some of the new rights are effective even before it is determined for sure there is a victim.
Below is our analysis of "Marsy's Law," completed before the measure went before voters. The analysis was developed by Madison attorney Dean Strang (at the time a WJI Board member) and submitted to legislators on behalf of both Strang and WJI.
You can go to any one of the proposals and responses by clicking on the button below.
Here is the incomplete and misleading ballot question that voters saw in April 2020:
Question 1: “ Additional rights of crime victims. Shall section 9m of article I of the constitution, which gives certain rights to crime victims, be amended to give crime victims additional rights, to require that the rights of crime victims be protected with equal force to the protections afforded the accused while leaving the federal constitutional rights of the accused intact, and to allow crime victims to enforce their rights in court?"
That's it. Voters were not informed that an accused's rights under the state constitution and statutes were being diminished while victims' rights were being expanded.
Contents of the amendments
Some of the victims' rights in Marsy's Law are laudable, some are bad ideas, and some are unrealistic.
Some of the new rights are effective even before it is determined for sure there is a victim.
Below is our analysis of "Marsy's Law," completed before the measure went before voters. The analysis was developed by Madison attorney Dean Strang (at the time a WJI Board member) and submitted to legislators on behalf of both Strang and WJI.
You can go to any one of the proposals and responses by clicking on the button below.
Articles on Marsy's Flaws
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Judge says Marsy's Law was improperly adopted but leaves it in place for now
USA Today: Marsy's Law used to protect cops who use force
Louisville Courier-Journal: Marsy's Law shields cops in three states.
Florida Political Review: Does Marsy's Law apply to on-duty cops who claim victimhood?
ACLU: ‘Victims’ rights’ proposals like Marsy’s Law undermine due process
South Florida Sun Sentinel:
Marsy's Law becomes a monstrosity.
Cincinnati.com:
Marsy's Law blocks transparency.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Court declares Marsy's Law unconstitutional.
Shepherd Express: Judge strikes down Marsy's Law and state should not appeal
Wisconsin Justice Initiative:
WJI wins challenge to Marsy's Law
Wisconsin State Journal: Marsy's Law ballot question was improper, voters not told of full impact
Wisconsin Justice Initiative: Marsy's Law an "unfunded mandate," Chisholm says
Argus Leader: The fading mystique of Marsy's Law
The Hill: The rights of victims shouldn't trump due process
Matt Rothschild: Why I oppose Marsy's Law
Miles City Star: Montana Supreme Court strikes down Marsy's Law as unconstitutional
Fox 13: Law enforcement balances public's right to know with Marsy's Law
Wisconsin Justice Initiative: These state reps led the effort to cripple the presumption of innocence in Wisconsin
Tallahassee Democrat:
Marsy's Law, First Amendment backers clash
Reason: Marsy's Law is a gift to bad cops
Wisconsin Justice Initiative: Some questions for Attorney General Josh Kaul (that he never answered)
WINK: Citing Marsy's Law, police take days to notify neighbors of violent home invasion
Cato Institute: New rights for crime victims? The trouble with "Marsy's Law"
The American Conservative: Why victims' rights laws are a wolf in sheep's clothing
Minot Daily News: Implementation of Marsy's Law delays hearing
Louisville Courier Journal: Kentucky Supreme Court strikes down Marsy's Law because the ballot question was so bad.
Louisville Courier Journal: Marsy's Law backers want the Kentucky Supreme Court to change its mind, reinstate law
Orlando Sentinel: Marsy's law interpretations jeopardize public safety
Herald-Standard: Pennsylvanians should think twice before supporting Marsy's Law
Jurist: ACLU, League of Women Voters challenge Pennsylvania's Marsy's Law measure
ACLU of Wisconsin: Marsy's Law fails the victims it purports to protect
Wisconsin Examiner: Take a stand against the fatally flawed Marsy's Law
Tone Madison: Marsy's Law is creepy and cruel
The Ohio Star: City argues it is a "victim" under Marsy's Law, wants restitution for police response
The Courier Journal: The ACLU and the Tea Party agree –Marsy's Law is bad for Kentucky
USA Today: Marsy's Law used to protect cops who use force
Louisville Courier-Journal: Marsy's Law shields cops in three states.
Florida Political Review: Does Marsy's Law apply to on-duty cops who claim victimhood?
ACLU: ‘Victims’ rights’ proposals like Marsy’s Law undermine due process
South Florida Sun Sentinel:
Marsy's Law becomes a monstrosity.
Cincinnati.com:
Marsy's Law blocks transparency.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Court declares Marsy's Law unconstitutional.
Shepherd Express: Judge strikes down Marsy's Law and state should not appeal
Wisconsin Justice Initiative:
WJI wins challenge to Marsy's Law
Wisconsin State Journal: Marsy's Law ballot question was improper, voters not told of full impact
Wisconsin Justice Initiative: Marsy's Law an "unfunded mandate," Chisholm says
Argus Leader: The fading mystique of Marsy's Law
The Hill: The rights of victims shouldn't trump due process
Matt Rothschild: Why I oppose Marsy's Law
Miles City Star: Montana Supreme Court strikes down Marsy's Law as unconstitutional
Fox 13: Law enforcement balances public's right to know with Marsy's Law
Wisconsin Justice Initiative: These state reps led the effort to cripple the presumption of innocence in Wisconsin
Tallahassee Democrat:
Marsy's Law, First Amendment backers clash
Reason: Marsy's Law is a gift to bad cops
Wisconsin Justice Initiative: Some questions for Attorney General Josh Kaul (that he never answered)
WINK: Citing Marsy's Law, police take days to notify neighbors of violent home invasion
Cato Institute: New rights for crime victims? The trouble with "Marsy's Law"
The American Conservative: Why victims' rights laws are a wolf in sheep's clothing
Minot Daily News: Implementation of Marsy's Law delays hearing
Louisville Courier Journal: Kentucky Supreme Court strikes down Marsy's Law because the ballot question was so bad.
Louisville Courier Journal: Marsy's Law backers want the Kentucky Supreme Court to change its mind, reinstate law
Orlando Sentinel: Marsy's law interpretations jeopardize public safety
Herald-Standard: Pennsylvanians should think twice before supporting Marsy's Law
Jurist: ACLU, League of Women Voters challenge Pennsylvania's Marsy's Law measure
ACLU of Wisconsin: Marsy's Law fails the victims it purports to protect
Wisconsin Examiner: Take a stand against the fatally flawed Marsy's Law
Tone Madison: Marsy's Law is creepy and cruel
The Ohio Star: City argues it is a "victim" under Marsy's Law, wants restitution for police response
The Courier Journal: The ACLU and the Tea Party agree –Marsy's Law is bad for Kentucky