Wisconsin Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (April 2020)

Spring elections in Wisconsin, 2020

• Election date: April 7, 2020
• Registration deadline(s): March 18 (via mail), March 30 (online), April 7 (in person)
• Online registration: Click here.
• Same-day registration: Yes
• Voter ID: Required. Click here to view a list of acceptable forms of ID.

• Early voting starts: Varies based on municipality. Find your municipal clerk here.
• Absentee/mail voting deadline(s): April 7, 2020 (postmark and in-person return deadline)
• Poll times: 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Central Time

---

On the ballot: Wisconsin Supreme Court • Wisconsin Court of Appeals • School boards • Municipal elections • Marsy's Law Crime Rights Victim Amendment • Milwaukee County ballot measures

Wisconsin Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment
Election date April 7, 2020
Topic Law enforcement
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of Wisconsin measuresWisconsin Marsy's Law AmendmentSubmit

The Wisconsin Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment was on the ballot in Wisconsin as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on April 7, 2020. It was approved. On May 16, 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the amendment was validly approved upholding the measure.

A "yes" vote supported this measure to add specific rights of crime victims, together known as a Marsy's Law, to the Wisconsin Constitution.

A "no" vote opposed this measure to add specific rights of crime victims to the state constitution beyond those found in Section 9m of Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution.

Election results

Wisconsin Question 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,107,067	74.90%
No		371,013	25.10%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Aftermath

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment informed the electorate what the amendment would do
Court: Dane County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs stating that the amendment's ballot language was not sufficient but leaving the amendment in effect during appeal; appealed; Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds the amendment
Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI) Board President Craig Johnson, WJI Treasurer Jacqueline Boynton, and State Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison)	Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission
Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance.	Defendant argument: The ballot language, which was developed over two years through the legislative process, met all statutory requirements and did not deceive voters.

  Source: Urban Milwaukee

On June 29, 2020, Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI) Board President Craig Johnson, WJI Treasurer Jacqueline Boynton, and State Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison) filed a lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court arguing that the amendment should be invalidated because the ballot language did not inform voters of the impact of the amendment. Craig Johnson said, "The question voters confronted on the ballot in April didn’t give them a clue as to the far-ranging and potentially devastating effects that Marsy’s Law will have on our criminal justice system."

On November 3, 2020, Circuit Judge Frank Remington ruled that the ballot language for the amendment was insufficient and that the measure should have been broken into multiple different measures. Remington, however, left the amendment in effect during appeal.

Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin said the ruling was a “decision to subvert the democratic process and nullify the will of more than one million Wisconsin voters who overwhelmingly supported Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin this April.” The group said that they expected Remington's ruling to be overturned and the amendment to be upheld upon appeal.

Craig Johnson, president of the Wisconsin Justice Initiative, said that the ruling was “a big victory not only for those involved in the criminal justice system but the voters of Wisconsin."

On December 2, 2020, the state appealed the ruling to District III of the Court of Appeals.

In December 2021, District III of the Court of Appeals decided to send the appeal directly to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

On February 25, 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided to hear the case.

On May 16, 2023, the state Supreme Court ruled that the amendment was validly approved in a 6-1 ruling. "Employing this test, we have no difficulty concluding Marsy’s Law did not violate the constitutional prohibition on submitting multiple amendments as one,” Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote in the majority opinion. “The amendment broadly protects and expands crime victims’ rights. This is plain from the text and history of its adoption.”

In 2018, a similar lawsuit was filed in Kentucky after voters approved the amendment. A circuit court judge blocked votes on the amendment from being certified after the court found that the ballot language failed to "inform the electorate of the substance of the amendment." The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling on June 13, 2019, meaning the Marsy's Law amendment was not enacted. Kentucky voters voted on the amendment in 2020 and the full text of the amendment was printed on the ballot.

Overview

Some states have made changes to election dates and procedures in response to the coronavirus pandemic. For the latest, visit: Changes to election dates, procedures, and administration in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020.

---

Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Election Commission voted unanimously to send absentee/mail-in ballot applications automatically to most registered voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Polling places: Polling locations are subject to change. Click here to access the state's official polling site locator. For more information, contact your state election officials.

How did this amendment change the Wisconsin Bill of Rights?

See also: Marsy's Law crime victim rights

The ballot measure amended Section 9m to Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution, which addresses the rights of crime victims. The language was modeled on Marsy's Law, a type of constitutional bill of rights for crime victims. It proposed 14 enumerated rights.

The measure provided crime victims with specific constitutional rights, including a right to:

• be treated with dignity, respect, courtesy, sensitivity, and fairness;
• privacy;
• the protection of information that could be used to determine the victim's location, allow for harassment, or discover confidential information;
• the timely disposition of any criminal cases;
• be present at all criminal proceedings and hearings;
• reasonable protection from the alleged criminal;
• be notified of criminal proceedings and outcomes and of the release, escape, or death of the alleged criminal in a timely manner;
• confer with the government prosecutor;
• speak in any hearing related to the rights of the victim;
• submit information about the case to authorities;
• refuse an interview, deposition, or other discovery request made by the alleged criminal;
• restitution and compensation;
• receive restitution before the payment of any government fines, penalties, or debts; and
• be informed of all rights and protections granted by the constitutional amendment and related laws.

What were existing crime victims' rights?

As of 2019, Section 9m to Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution granted crime victims with a right to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect for privacy; a right to a timely disposition of criminal cases; a right to attend court proceedings unless court findings declare the victim's presence would preclude a fair trial; a right to be protected from the alleged criminal; a right to be notified of court proceedings; a right to confer with the prosecutor of the case; a right to speak at dispositions; a right to restitution and compensation; and a right to be informed of the outcome of the proceedings and the release of the alleged criminal.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the amendment?

Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin led the campaign in support of the ballot measure. In its January campaign finance filing, Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin reported receiving over $500,000 in loans from Marsy's Law for All, the national foundation that has funded 13 statewide Marsy’s Law ballot measure campaigns. It was founded in 2009 by Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp. Nicholas was the sponsor of the first Marsy's Law, which was on the ballot in California as Proposition 9 in 2008.

Ballotpedia has not identified any committees registered in opposition to the amendment. The ACLU of Wisconsin testified before the legislature in opposition to Marsy's Law on January 9, 2019.

What other states passed Marsy's Law?

See also: Marsy's Law in the states

As of 2020, 13 states had passed a ballot measure for Marsy's Law. The first was in California in 2008. Between 2008 and 2018, voters had approved Marsy's Law in Illinois (2014), Montana (2016), North Dakota (2016), South Dakota (2016), Ohio (2017), Florida (2018), Georgia (2018), Kentucky (2018), Nevada (2018), North Carolina (2018), Oklahoma (2018), and Pennsylvania (2019). Ballotpedia identified $109.2 million in total contributions to the support campaigns for the 13 Marsy's Law ballot measures that were on ballots between 2008 and 2019. Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp., and the organization Marsy's Law for All provided 97 percent—about 99.3 million—of the total contributions. Marsy's Law is named after Henry Nicholas' sister, who was murdered in 1983.

Effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on this election

See also: Voting in the April 7 election

There have been multiple court rulings and orders regarding in-person voting, absentee ballot requirements and deadlines, and other aspects of this election. Click here to read details about the changes to the 2020 spring election in Wisconsin brought on by the coronavirus.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

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?

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article I, Wisconsin Constitution

The ballot measure amended Section 9m of Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution. The following underlined text was added and struck-through text was deleted:

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

(1) (a) In this section, notwithstanding any statutory right, privilege, or protection, “victim” means any of the following:

1. A person against whom an act is committed that would constitute a crime if committed by a competent adult.

2. If the person under subd. 1. is deceased or is physically or emotionally unable to exercise his or her rights under this section, the person's spouse, parent or legal guardian, sibling, child, person who resided with the deceased at the time of death, or other lawful representative.

3. If the person under subd. 1. is a minor, the person's parent, legal guardian or custodian, or other lawful representative.

4. If the person under subd. 1. is adjudicated incompetent, the person's legal guardian or other lawful representative.

(b) “Victim” does not include the accused or a person who the court finds would not act in the best interests of a victim who is deceased, incompetent, a minor, or physically or emotionally unable to exercise his or her rights under this section.

This state shall treat crime victims, as defined by law, with fairness, dignity and respect for their privacy. This state shall ensure that crime victims have all of the following privileges and protections as provided by law:

(2) In order to preserve and protect victims' rights to justice and due process, victims shall be entitled to all of the following rights, which shall vest at the time of victimization and be protected by law in a manner no less vigorous than the protections afforded to the accused:

(a) To be treated with dignity, respect, courtesy, sensitivity, and fairness.

(b) To privacy.

(c) To have information or records protected that could be used to locate or harass the victim or that could disclose confidential or privileged information of the victim.

(d) To proceedings free from unreasonable delay.

(e) To timely disposition of the case; the opportunity to attend court, free from unreasonable delay.

(f) To be present at all times at all proceedings unless the trial court finds sequestration is necessary to a fair trial for the defendant; involving the case.

(g) To reasonable protection from the accused throughout the criminal justice process;.

(h) To reasonable and timely notification of court proceedings; the opportunity to

(i) To confer with the prosecution; the opportunity to make a statement to the court at disposition; attorney for the government.

(j) To be informed by and provide input to the attorney for the government about any case disposition agreement, including a plea agreement, deferred prosecution agreement, or diversion agreement, before a final decision is made concerning such an agreement.

(k) To be heard in any proceeding during which a right of the victim is implicated, including release, plea, sentencing, disposition, parole, revocation, expungement, or pardon.

(l) To have information submitted to the authority with jurisdiction over the case pertaining to the economic, physical, and psychological effect of the crime or juvenile offense upon the victim and to have that information considered by that authority.

(m) To timely notice of any release or escape of the accused or death of the accused if the accused is in custody or on supervision at the time of death.

(n) To refuse an interview, deposition, or other discovery request made by the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused.

(o) To full restitution; and to be provided with assistance collecting restitution.

(p) To have any moneys or property collected from a person who has been ordered to make restitution to the victim be applied first to restitution of the victim before being applied to any amounts owed by that person to the government.

(q) To compensation; and as provided by law.

(r) To timely information about the outcome of the case and the release of the accused.

(s) To timely notice about all rights under this section and all other rights, privileges, or protections of the victim provided by law, including how such rights, privileges, or protections are enforced.

(3) Except as provided under sub. (2) (q), all provisions of this section are self-executing. The legislature shall may provide remedies for the violation further procedures for compliance with and enforcement of this section. Nothing 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.

(4) (a) In addition to any other available enforcement of rights or remedy for a violation of this section or of other rights, privileges, or protections provided by law, the victim, the victim's attorney or other lawful representative, or the attorney for the government upon request of the victim may assert and seek in any circuit court or before any other authority of competent jurisdiction, enforcement of the rights in this section and any other right, privilege, or protection afforded to the victim by law. The court or other authority with jurisdiction over the case shall act promptly on such a request and afford a remedy for the violation of any right of the victim. The court or other authority with jurisdiction over the case shall clearly state on the record the reasons for any decision regarding the disposition of a victim's right and shall provide those reasons to the victim or the victim's attorney or other lawful representative.

(b) Victims may obtain review of all adverse decisions concerning their rights as victims by courts or other authorities with jurisdiction under par. (a) by filing petitions for supervisory writ in the court of appeals and supreme court.

(5) This section does not create any cause of action for damages against the state; any political subdivision of the state; any officer, employee, or agent of the state or a political subdivision of the state acting in his or her official capacity; or any officer, employee, or agent of the courts acting in his or her official capacity.

(6) This section is not intended and may not be interpreted to supersede a defendant's federal constitutional rights or to afford party status in a proceeding to any victim.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 13, and the FRE is 45. The word count for the ballot title is 70, and the estimated reading time is 18 seconds.

Support

Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin led the campaign in support of the ballot measure.

Supporters

Officials

• Wisconsin state senator Kathy Bernier (R)
• Wisconsin state senator Tim Carpenter (D)
• Wisconsin State Senator Robert Cowles (R)
• Wisconsin state senator Alberta Darling (R)
• Wisconsin State Senator Dan Feyen (R)
• Wisconsin State Senator Dave Hansen (D)
• Wisconsin State Representative André Jacque (R)
• Wisconsin State Senator Howard Marklein (R)
• Wisconsin state senator Stephen Nass (R)
• Wisconsin State Senator Luther Olsen (R)
• Wisconsin State Senator Jerry Petrowski (R)
• Wisconsin State Senator Patrick Testin (R)
• Wisconsin State Senator Van Wanggaard (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Scott Allen (R)
• Wisconsin State Representative Janel Brandtjen (R)
• Wisconsin state representative David Crowley (Nonpartisan)
• Wisconsin State Representative Barbara Dittrich (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Cindi Duchow (R)
• Wisconsin state representative James Edming (R)
• Wisconsin State Representative Mary Felzkowski (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Jason Fields (D)
• Wisconsin state representative Rick Gundrum (R)
• Wisconsin State Representative Cody Horlacher (R)
• Wisconsin State Representative John Jagler (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Jesse James (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Joel Kitchens (R)
• Wisconsin State Representative Daniel Knodl (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Mike Kuglitsch (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Bob Kulp (R)
• Wisconsin state representative John Macco (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Dave Murphy (R)
• Wisconsin State Representative Jeffrey Mursau (R)
• Wisconsin State Representative Todd Novak (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Loren Oldenburg (R)
• Wisconsin State Representative Jim Ott (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Warren Petryk (R)
• Wisconsin State Representative Jon Plumer (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Timothy Ramthun (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Mike Rohrkaste (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Joe Sanfelippo (R)
• Wisconsin State Representative Michael Schraa (R)
• Wisconsin State Representative Christine Sinicki (D)
• Wisconsin state representative Ken Skowronski (R)
• State Rep. Patrick Snyder (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Shae Sortwell (R)
• Wisconsin state representative John Spiros (R)
• Wisconsin state representative David Steffen (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Jeremy Thiesfeldt (R)
• Wisconsin State Representative Paul Tittl (R)
• Wisconsin State Representative Travis Tranel (R)
• Wisconsin state representative Ron Tusler (R)
• Wisconsin State Representative Tyler Vorpagel (R)
• Wisconsin State Representative Don Vruwink (D)
• Wisconsin state representative Chuck Wichgers (R)

Corporations

• Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin – Milwaukee

Unions

• Badger State Sheriff’s Association
• Dane County Chiefs of Police Association
• Fraternal Order of Police
• Milwaukee Police Association
• Waukesha County Chiefs of Police Association
• Wisconsin Association of Women Police
• Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association
• Wisconsin Nurses Association
• Wisconsin Professional Police Association
• Wisconsin Sheriffs’ and Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
• Wisconsin Trooper's Association
• Wisconsin Victim Witness Professionals

Organizations

• Advocates of Ozaukee County
• Association for the Prevention of Family Violence
• Association of State Prosecutors
• Center Against Sexual & Domestic Abuse
• Dove Inc.
• Mothers Against Drunk Driving
• New Day Shelter Ashland
• Rape Crisis Center
• Sojourner Family Peace Center
• UNIDOS-Madison
• Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault
• Wisconsin District Attorneys Association
• Women and Children's Horizons- Kenosha

Arguments

• Wisconsin State Senator Van Wanggaard (R): "Crime victims should have a voice in the criminal justice process. They should have the right to be heard, to be consulted, and to be present during the proceeding. They should be free from the fear of revictimization from their criminal. They shouldn’t be subject to invasive fishing expeditions or harassment. Under current law, every time a victim makes a claim of rights, the criminal’s rights will triumph. This is unacceptable. Marsy’s Law will help level the legal playing field while still preserving a fair justice system."

Opposition

Opponents

Organizations

• ACLU of Wisconsin
• Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
• Wisconsin Justice Initiative

Arguments

• ACLU of Wisconsin: "Much of the campaign in support of Marsy’s Law is premised on this notion that victims should have rights equal to those of the accused, and that that can only be achieved through this constitutional amendment. Victim’s rights cannot be equated to the rights of the accused because they serve very different roles. Defendants’ rights are in the constitution because they are rights against the state, not because they are valued more by society than are those of victims. Defendants’ rights are checks against government abuse. They prevent the government from arresting and imprisoning anyone, for any reason, and at any time. ... Victims’ rights, on the other hand, are not rights against the state. They are rights that are enforced primarily against the defendant. They are one individual’s rights against another individual. Our legal system manages rights between individuals through statute because they do not relate to the power of the state. The inclusion of rights in statute rather than in the Constitution is not a value judgment. It is a reflection of the role those rights serve."
• Dennis Grzezinski of Wisconsin Justice Initiative: "[The Marsy's Law amendment] amounts to a wholesale alteration of our criminal justice system. ... The amendment ignores that Wisconsin was the first of 50 states to include in its own constitution a series of victims' rights. It ignores the fact that the rights have been doing a very good job."

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through July 15, 2020.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Wisconsin ballot measures

Marsy's Law for Wisconsin, LLC registered as a political action committee (PAC) to support the constitutional amendment. The committee raised $4.4 million, which was provided in loans.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$4,428,884.05	$0.00	$4,428,884.05	$4,428,884.05	$4,428,884.05
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$4,428,884.05	$0.00	$4,428,884.05	$4,428,884.05	$4,428,884.05

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Question 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Marsy's Law for Wisconsin LLC	$4,428,884.05	$0.00	$4,428,884.05	$4,428,884.05	$4,428,884.05
Total	$4,428,884.05	$0.00	$4,428,884.05	$4,428,884.05	$4,428,884.05

Top donors

The following was the only donor to Marsy's Law for Wisconsin:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Marsy's Law for All	$3,891,337.99	$0.00	$3,891,337.99

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not identify any committees registered to oppose the amendment.

Media editorials

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

If you are aware of a media editorial board position in support of the ballot measure, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

• The Cap Times Editorial Board: "The truth about Marsy’s Law is that it a cookie-cutter proposal committed by wealthy out-of-state interests. It was not written to respond to the distinct needs of Wisconsin, or to reflect the character of the state. ... Marsy’s Law is bad law. Vote 'no' on Question One."

Background

Wisconsin Amendment 1 (1993)

See also: Wisconsin Rights of Victims of Crime, Amendment 1 (April 1993)

In 1993, voters approved Amendment 1, which added Section 9m to Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution. Section 9m addressed the rights of crime victims. Amendment 1 added the following language to the state constitution:

This state shall treat crime victims, as defined by law, with fairness, dignity and respect for their privacy. This state shall ensure that crime victims have all of the following privileges and protections as provided by law: timely disposition of the case; the opportunity to attend court proceedings unless the trial court finds sequestration is necessary to a fair trial for the defendant; reasonable protection from the accused throughout the criminal justice process; notification of court proceedings; the opportunity to confer with the prosecution; the opportunity to make a statement to the court at disposition; restitution; compensation; and information about the outcome of the case and the release of the accused. The legislature shall provide remedies for the violation of this section. Nothing 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

See also: Marsy's Law crime victim rights

Marsy's Law is a type of crime victims' rights legislation. Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp., started campaigning for Marsy's Law to increase the rights and privileges of victims in state constitutions. Marsy's Law is named after Nicholas' sister, Marsy Nicholas, who was murdered in 1983.

Henry Nicholas was the sponsor of the first Marsy's Law, which was on the ballot in California as Proposition 9 in 2008. He formed the national organization, Marsy's Law for All, in 2009.

Ballotpedia identified $113.2 million in total contributions to the support campaigns for the 14 Marsy's Law ballot measures. Henry Nicholas and the organization Marsy's Law for All provided 91 percent—about 103.2 million—of the total contributions.

The following map shows the status of Marsy's Law ballot measures across the states:

California Proposition 9

Californians voted on Proposition 9 in 2008, which was the first ballot measure known as Marsy's Law. Proposition 9 required that victims and their families be notified during all aspects of the justice process, including bail, sentencing, and parole; and that authorities take a victim's safety into concern when assigning bail or conducting a parole review. Along with Henry Nicholas, Proposition 9 received support from Crime Victims United of California and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. Proposition 9 faced opposition from the California Teachers Association, the SEIU California State Council, the California Democratic Party, and the California Federation of Teachers. Proposition 9 passed with about 54 percent of the vote and became a model for several subsequent Marsy's Law ballot measures across the United States.

Marsy's Law ballot measures

The first state to vote on Marsy's Law after California was Illinois in 2014. The constitutional amendment received 72.3 percent of the vote in Illinois.

Marsy's Law for All organized campaigns for ballot initiatives in three states in 2016—Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Voters in each state approved the ballot initiative. Montana's Marsy's Law was ruled unconstitutional in 2017 because the ballot initiative, according to the court, violated the state's separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. In June 2018, the South Dakota Legislature asked voters to amend Marsy's Law via Amendment Y. Amendment Y, which was approved, was defined to narrow the definition of crime victim and require victims to opt-in to Marsy's Law's protections, rather than making those protections automatic.

In 2017, Marsy's Law was on the ballot in Ohio as Issue 1 and received 82.6 percent of the vote.

The number of Marsy's Law amendments in state constitutions doubled in 2018 from six to 12. The states that voted on Marsy's Law in 2018 were Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Kentucky's Marsy's Law was ruled invalid in June 2019 because the language for the ballot measure, according to the court, did not meet constitutional requirements.

The Pennsylvania General Assembly referred Marsy's Law to the ballot for the election on November 5, 2019. The Wisconsin State Legislature referred Marsy's Law to the ballot for the election on April 7, 2020.

The following table describes the outcome of votes on Marsy's Law ballot measures:

State	Measure	Year	Percent “Yes”	Percent “No”	Status
California	Proposition 9	2008	53.84%	46.16%	Approved
Illinois	Amendment	2014	78.45%	21.55%	Approved
Montana	Initiative 116	2016	66.09%	33.91%	Approved (Overturned)
North Dakota	Measure 3	2016	62.03%	37.97%	Approved
South Dakota	Amendment S	2016	59.61%	40.39%	Approved (Amended)
Ohio	Issue 1	2017	82.59%	17.41%	Approved
Florida	Amendment 6	2018	61.61%	38.39%	Approved
Georgia	Amendment 4	2018	80.93%	19.07%	Approved
Kentucky	Amendment	2018	62.81%	37.19%	Approved (Overturned)
Nevada	Question 1	2018	61.19%	38.81%	Approved
North Carolina	Amendment	2018	62.13%	37.87%	Approved
Oklahoma	State Question 794	2018	78.01%	21.99%	Approved
Average			66.44%	33.56%

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Wisconsin Constitution

In Wisconsin, the state legislature is required to approve an amendment by majority vote in two successive sessions for the amendment to appear on the ballot.

2017-2018 session

The constitutional amendment was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 53 (SJR 54) on May 17, 2017.

On November 9, 2017, the Wisconsin State Senate approved SJR 54 in a vote of 29-4. The four dissenting votes were from Democrats. All 20 Republicans and nine Democrats voted in favor of the amendment. On November 11, 2017, the Wisconsin House of Representatives approved the proposed amendment in a vote of 81-10, with five representatives not voting, two paired votes, and one seat vacant. One Republican voted against the amendment, and 58 voted in favor of the amendment. Among Democrats, 10 voted against the amendment, and 24 voted for the amendment.

Vote in the Wisconsin State Senate November 7, 2017
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber in two sessions
Number of yes votes required: 17  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	29	4	0
Total percent	87.9%	12.1%	0.0%
Democrat	9	4	0
Republican	20	0	0

Vote in the Wisconsin House of Representatives November 9, 2017
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber in two sessions
Number of yes votes required: 49  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	82	11	5
Total percent	83.7%	11.2%	5.1%
Democrat	24	10	1
Republican	58	1	4

2019-2020 session

The Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment was reintroduced on January 8, 2019, as Senate Joint Resolution 2 (SJR 2).

On January 17, 2019, Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke (R-5) said the constitutional amendment would not be referred to the ballot until 2020. Lawmakers had the option of placing the amendment on the ballot for April 2, 2019, but the vote would have needed to occur on or before January 22, 2019. Steineke said, "We have a brand new session with new caucus members and this is a pretty significant bill that we just haven’t had a lot of time in caucus to spend on it, so we’re going to make sure everyone’s questions are answered before moving it forward." Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-21) responded, "There is no reason why victims should have to wait a year to be treated as priorities and not as second-class citizens."

Both chambers of the Wisconsin State Legislature approved SJR 1 on May 15, 2019. The state Senate voted 27-5, with one member not voting. Seventeen of 18 Senate Republicans supported SJR 1, while 10 of 14 Senate Democrats supported the amendment. The state House voted 82-15, with two members not voting. Among House Democrats, 22 voted to pass SJR 1 and 12 voted to reject SJR 1. Among House Republicans, 60 voted to pass the amendment, and three voted to reject the amendment.

Vote in the Wisconsin State Senate May 15, 2019
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber in two sessions
Number of yes votes required: 17  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	27	5	1
Total percent	81.82%	15.15%	3.03%
Democrat	10	4	0
Republican	17	1	1

Vote in the Wisconsin House of Representatives May 15, 2019
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber in two sessions
Number of yes votes required: 50  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	82	15	2
Total percent	82.83%	15.15%	2.02%
Democrat	22	12	2
Republican	60	3	0

Wisconsin Justice Initiative vs. Wisconsin Elections Commission

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does the ballot language accurately and completely summarize the constitutional amendment?
Court: Dane County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure
Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI), Jacqueline E. Boynton, Jerome F. Buting, Craig R. Johnson, and Fred A. Risser	Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), WEC Chair Dean Knudson, Secretary of State Douglas La Follette, and Attorney General Josh Kaul

  Source: Dane County Circuit Court

On December 18, 2019, the Wisconsin Justice Initiative, a nonprofit organization, filed litigation in the Dane County Circuit Court that challenges the Marsy’s Law Amendment, which was on the ballot for April 7, 2020.

Plaintiffs stated that the ballot question did not accurately and completely describe the constitutional amendment. Craig Johnson, board president of the Wisconsin Justice Initiative, said, “Voters are being asked to vote on a single sentence that doesn’t remotely begin to describe what Marsy’s Law is and what it does. It may sound reasonable, but the question masks a proposed amendment twice the length of the U.S. Bill of Rights.” The Wisconsin Justice Initiative asked the court to strike Marsy’s Law from the ballot or require the ballot question to be rewritten.

Teri Jendusa-Nicolai, chairperson of Marsy's Law for Wisconsin, responded to the lawsuit, saying, “This to me is a last-ditch effort to take away the rights of crime victims.” Jendusa-Nicolai added, "I do believe in the intelligence of the voters of Wisconsin, that they do understand what they are getting into and what they are voting for. ... This has passed (the) Legislature twice. It has gone through many rigorous hearings, many rewordings and revisions, something that's been worked on for quite some time."

On February 7, Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington denied the injunction to remove the ballot measure from the April ballot. The lawsuit questioned the language of the ballot question, not the constitutionality of the amendment. It will appear on the April ballot.

How to cast a vote in the April 7 election

See also: Voting in Wisconsin

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Wisconsin.

Voting in the April 7 election

What were my options for voting? Wisconsin allowed voters three options for casting their ballots: voting at the polls on election day, voting by mail, or voting early. Voting at the polls: Voters could show up in person to their designated polling place on Tuesday, April 7, to cast their ballots. Registered voters did not need to do anything before voting in person. Residents who intended to register to vote on election day needed to bring proof of residency with them to the polls. Voting by mail: Registered voters may request that an absentee ballot be mailed to them. In order to be eligible to receive an absentee ballot, a voter needed to submit a request to their municipal clerk by Friday, April 3. Voters who are indefinitely confined had until Friday, April 3, to request a ballot, while hospitalized voters and voters serving in the military had until Tuesday, April 7. The Wisconsin Elections Commission recommended that voters who intended to vote by mail submit a request as soon as possible. The completed ballot must be postmarked by Tuesday, April 7, and received by your local municipal clerk by Monday, April 13. The U.S. Postal Service recommended that absentee ballots be sent at least seven days before they are due. Voting early: Voters could have requested an absentee ballot and filled it out in-person at the municipal clerk's office to vote early. Availability of early voting varied from municipality to municipality. No municipality could have offered early voting after Sunday, April 5. Can I vote at the polls? Yes. Although some polling sites may be closed or operating under reduced staffing, voting at the polls proceeded as normal. When is the voter registration deadline? The deadline to register to vote online in this election was extended via federal court order to the close of business on Monday, March 30. The deadline to register via mail was Wednesday, March 18. Will there still be same-day voter registration? Wisconsin allowed same-day voter registration. Voters who registered on the day of election day were not able to apply for an absentee ballot since the application deadline had passed. When is the deadline to apply for an absentee ballot? The deadline to apply for an absentee ballot was Friday, April 3. When is the deadline to submit an absentee ballot? Absentee ballots needed to have been postmarked by Tuesday, April 7, and received by Monday, April 13. Do I need to submit a copy of my photo ID alongside my absentee ballot? Wisconsin law required that voters present photo identification while voting whether they were voting in person or via absentee ballot. See a list of accepted photo IDs here. Wisconsin's voter ID provisions allowed for voters who are indefinitely confined and voting via absentee ballot to opt not to submit a copy of their photo ID when voting. The Wisconsin Elections Commission defined an indefinitely confined voter as one who "has a hard time getting to the polls on Election Day due to age, illness, infirmity, or disability". Per a ruling from the state Supreme Court, the state's guidance advising residents to remain in their homes had no bearing on whether voters qualified as indefinitely confined. This means that voters who would not have been considered indefinitely confined under the standards applied in previous elections were still required to submit a copy of their photo ID. Does a witness need to sign my absentee ballot? Yes. Wisconsin law required that a witness be present when an absentee ballot is completed and that the witness sign to verify that the ballot was completed by the voter to whom it was sent. This requirement had been waived by Judge William Conley in an April 2, 2020, ruling. A subsequent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed Conley's order, allowing for enforcement of the witness requirement. When can election officials begin tallying absentee ballots? Election officials were not permitted to begin tallying absentee ballots until after all ballots have been received, following a decision by Judge William Conley on Friday, April 3. At the time Judge Conley issued the decision, the absentee ballot receipt date was April 13. Following the Supreme Court of the United States' ruling overturning a different part of Judge Conley's order, Wisconsin Elections Commission spokesman Reid Magney said that the portion of the ruling delaying reporting of results until April 13 remained in effect.

See also

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Law enforcement on the ballot
• Civil and criminal trials on the ballot

Wisconsin

• Wisconsin ballot measures
• Wisconsin ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Wisconsin Senate Joint Resolution 53 (2017)
• Wisconsin Senate Joint Resolution 2 (2019)

Support

• Marsy's Law for Wisconsin campaign website
• Marsy's Law for Wisconsin Facebook page
• Marsy's Law for Wisconsin Twitter page

Opposition

Submit links to editor@ballotpedia.org.