Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Wisconsin Question 1, Conditions of Release Before Conviction Amendment (April 2023)
| Wisconsin Question 1 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date April 4, 2023 | |
| Topic Law enforcement | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
Wisconsin Question 1, the Conditions of Release Before Conviction Amendment, was on the ballot in Wisconsin as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on April 4, 2023. It was approved.[1][2]
A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to allow the state legislature to define what serious harm means in relation to the bail conditions that judges impose on accused persons released before their criminal trial, for the purpose of “[protecting] members of the community from serious harm." |
A "no" vote opposed amending the state constitution, thus continuing to consider serious bodily harm as statutorily defined in relation to the bail conditions that judges impose on accused persons released before their criminal trial. |
Election results
|
Wisconsin Question 1 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
1,163,303 | 66.55% | ||
| No | 584,624 | 33.45% | ||
Overview
What did Question 1 do?
- See also: Text of measure
Question 1 amended Section 8(2) of Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution removing bodily from serious bodily harm and allowing the state legislature to define serious harm when deciding the bail conditions under which an accused person can be released before conviction. At the time of the election, the constitution stated that an accused person could be released under certain conditions meant to "protect members of the community from serious bodily harm or prevent the intimidation of witnesses."[2]
At the time of the election, Wisconsin state law defined serious bodily harm as "bodily injury which causes or contributes to the death of a human being or which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury."[3]
The Wisconsin State Legislature voted to refer two ballot measures to the April ballot that amend section 8(2) of Article I of the state constitution. Question 1 removed the word bodily from serious bodily harm in the section that governs the conditions a judge imposes on an accused person released before conviction. The amendment also allowed the state legislature to define serious harm. Question 2 amended the same section of the state constitution to allow judges to consider a previous conviction of a violent crime, the probability the accused will not appear in court, the need to protect the community from serious harm as defined by the state legislature, the need to prevent witness intimidation, and the potential affirmative defenses of the accused when setting cash bail.
State Rep. Cindi Duchow (R-99), who sponsored the proposed change, said, "We’re making a common sense change to give judges all the information they need when setting bail for a violent offender. Right now, in the state of Wisconsin, how you set bail is you look at what kind of monetary incentive you’re going to need to ensure their appearance in court, you don’t take into account the dangerousness to the community and you don’t take into account their past criminal convictions."[4]
State Rep. Sue Conley (D-44), who opposes the change, said, "There is also no question that the cash bail system is broken. However, we must invest in proven strategies to reduce violent crime and recidivism. Our justice system should not continue to favor those with the resources to post bail. We need to look at successful models that better assess risk and develop a long term, evidence-based solution to the problem."[5]
Who supported and opposed Question 1?
- See also: Support and Opposition
Question 1 was sponsored in the state legislature by State Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-21) and State Rep. Cindi Duchow (R-99). It received endorsements from the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, Americans for Prosperity, and Wisconsin State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police. During a hearing for the bill, Sen. Van Wanggaard (R) said, "First, it allows a judge to consider 'serious harm' to others instead of 'Serious Bodily Harm' when setting conditions of release. This is an important change, because 'Serious Bodily Harm' is a statutorily defined term, essentially meaning harm that could cause death or serious, permanent, disfigurement."[6]
The amendment was opposed by the ACLU of Wisconsin, the Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the Wisconsin Justice Initiative. The ACLU of Wisconsin said, "Wisconsin’s reliance on cash bail has perpetuated a two-tiered system of justice: one for the wealthy and one for everyone else. AJR1 and SJR 2 propose amendments to the Wisconsin Constitution that would undermine the safety and stability of people detained pretrial and their communities, exacerbate inequities in the state’s cash bail system, and raise significant concerns under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the excessive bail prohibition under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."[6]
Text of measure
Ballot question
The ballot question for the amendment was as follows:[2]
| “ | Question 1: Conditions of release before conviction. Shall section 8 (2) of article I of the constitution be amended to allow a court to impose on an accused person being released before conviction conditions that are designed to protect the community from serious harm?[7] | ” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article I, Wisconsin Constitution
The ballot measure amended Section 8(2) of Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution. The following underlined language was added and struck-through language was deleted:[2]
(2) All persons, before conviction, shall be eligible for release under reasonable conditions designed to assure their appearance in court, protect members of the community from serious bodily harm as defined by the legislature by law or prevent the intimidation of witnesses. Monetary conditions of release may be imposed at or after the initial appearance only upon a finding that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the conditions are necessary to assure appearance in court. The legislature may authorize, by law, courts to revoke a person's release for a violation of a condition of release.[7]
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2023
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title 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 14, and the FRE is 29. The word count for the ballot title is 41.
Support
Supporters
Officials
- State Sen. Van Wanggaard (R)
- State Rep. Scott Allen (R)
- State Rep. Cindi Duchow (R)
- State Rep. Adam Neylon (R)
- State Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R)
- Waukesha County Assistant District Attorney Michael Thurston
Candidates
- Daniel Kelly (Nonpartisan) - Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate
- Janet Claire Protasiewicz (Nonpartisan) - Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate
Unions
Organizations
- Americans for Prosperity
- Wisconsin State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police
Arguments
Opposition
Opponents
Officials
- State Rep. Sue Conley (D)
Organizations
- ACLU of Wisconsin
- Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) of Wisconsin
- League of Women Voters of Wisconsin
- Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
- Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
- Wisconsin Justice Initiative
- Wisconsin NAACP
Arguments
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia did not identify any committees registered in support of or opposition to Question 1. [8]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Media editorials
- See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements
Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
Support
The following media editorial board published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:
Opposition
Ballotpedia did not locate media editorial boards in opposition to the ballot measure.
Background
Implementing legislation
Senate Bill 75 (2023)
The state Senate passed Senate Bill 75 by a vote of 21-10 on March 22, 2023. All Republicans and Democratic Sen. Brad Pfaff voted in favor of the bill. The remaining Democrats voted against SB 75. It was passed in the state House by a vote 67-30 with two not voting on March 23, 2023. Five Democrats joined all of the House Republicans in voting in favor of the bill. Gov. Evers (D) signed the bill on April 5, 2023. The bill would specify which offenses would be classified as violent crimes if the amendment is approved authorizing judges to consider previous violent crimes when setting bail. SB 75 classifies over 100 offenses, including arson, homicide, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking, as violent crimes.[9]
Statutory definition of serious bodily harm
At the time of the election,Wisconsin state law defined serious bodily harm as "bodily injury which causes or contributes to the death of a human being or which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury." Question 1 removed "bodily" from the text of the state constitution and allowed the state legislature to define serious harm.[3]
Wisconsin Question 3 (April 1981)
Wisconsin voters last amended section 8 of Article I of the state constitution in April 1981 with the passage of Question 3. It was approved by a vote of 73.15% to 26.85%. The amendment permitted the legislature to allow courts to deny, revoke, or set terms of cash bail.
Wisconsin Question 2 (2023)
Wisconsin voters decided on a second bail-related ballot measure on April 4, 2023. Question 2 amended the Wisconsin Constitution to authorize judges to consider the following conditions when imposing and setting cash bail:[1]
- a previous conviction of a violent crime,
- the probability the accused will not appear in court,
- the need to protect the community from serious harm as defined by the state legislature,
- the need to prevent witness intimidation, and
- the potential affirmative defenses of the accused.
Ohio Question 1 (2022)
In 2022, Ohio voters approved a similar ballot measure that amended the Ohio Constitution to require courts to consider factors such as public safety, the seriousness of the offense, a person's criminal record, and a person's likelihood of returning to court when setting the amount of bail. The vote margin was 77.5% to 22.5%.[10]
California Proposition 25 (2020)
In 2020, California voters defeated a veto referendum, thus repealing Senate Bill 10 (SB 10), which would have replaced cash bail with risk assessments for detained suspects awaiting trials. The vote margin was 43.6% voting to uphold the law to 56.4% voting to repeal it.[11]
New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 1 (2016)
In 2016, New Mexico voters approved Constitutional Amendment 1, which allowed courts to deny bail to a defendant charged with a felony if a prosecutor shows evidence that the defendant poses a threat to the public, while also providing that a defendant cannot be denied bail because of a financial inability to post a bond. The vote margin was 87.2% to 12.8%.[12]
Washington HJR 4220 (2010)
In 2010, Washington voters approved a constitutional amendment to allow judges to deny bail to anyone charged with a crime carrying a maximum sentence of life in prison. The vote margin was 84.6% to 15.4%.[13]
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.
2021-2022 legislative session
The amendment was introduced as Assembly Joint Resolution 107 (AJR 107). The Wisconsin State Assembly approved AJR 107 by a vote of 70-21 with four not voting on February 15, 2022. The Wisconsin State Senate approved the amendment by a vote of 23-10 on February 22, 2022.[1]
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2023-2024 legislative session
The amendment was proposed during the 2023-2024 legislative session as Senate Joint Resolution 2 (SJR 2). It was approved by the state Senate on January 17, 2023, by a vote of 23-9. It was approved by the state Assembly on January 19, 2023, by a vote 74-23.[14]
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lawsuit
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the state legislature filed the measures with the correct elections office before the referral deadline | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; measures allowed to appear on April ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with county election officials by January 25 but missed the deadline by a day. | Defendant argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with the state elections commission by January 25 and did so. |
Source: Kenosha News
On January 31, 2023, EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM, two groups that oppose the bail amendments, filed a lawsuit challenging the certification of all three ballot measures sent to the April ballot by the state legislature. The lawsuit filed in Dane County Circuit Court argues that the state legislature needed to submit the referrals to county election officials by January 25 to abide by the state law that requires ballot measures to be "filed with the official or agency responsible for preparing the ballots" at least 70 days before the election. The state legislature filed the ballot measures with the state elections commission on January 19 and with county election officials on January 26.[15]
On February 20, Dane County Circuit Judge Rhonda Lanford ruled that the measures could appear on the April ballot. The judge found that the lawsuit lacked the legal requirements for the court to intervene.[16]
On October 16, 2023, Judge Lanford denied a motion from the state legislature and state elections commission seeking to dismiss the case. A hearing was scheduled for March 19, 2024.[17]
On September 16, 2024, Judge Lanford ruled that the amendment would stand despite procedural flaws.[18]
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in Wisconsin
See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Wisconsin.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Wisconsin State Legislature, "AJR 107," accessed January 5, 2023
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Wisconsin State Legislature, "Text of SJR 2," accessed January 5, 2023
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Wisconsin State Legislature, "Chapter 969," accessed February 8, 2022
- ↑ Wausau Pilot and Review, "Assembly approves bail amendment welfare work requirement for April ballot," January 21, 2023
- ↑ Wisconsin Politics, "Rep. Conley Statement on Bail Constitutional Amendment," accessed March 7, 2023
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Wisconsin State Legislature, "Hearing Materials," accessed February 9, 2023
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Wisconsin Campaign Finance Information System, "Search," accessed January 30, 2023
- ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "Senate Bill 75," accessed March 22, 2023
- ↑ Ohio Secretary of State, "Issue 1," accessed Aug 30, 2022
- ↑ California Attorney General, "Referendum 18-0009," August 29, 2018
- ↑ New Mexico Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution 1," accessed January 20, 2016
- ↑ The Seattle Times, "Amendment deal reached to allow judges to deny bail," March 4, 2010
- ↑ Wisconsin State Assembly, "SJR 2," accessed January 19, 2023
- ↑ Kenosha News, "Lawsuit seeks to block 2 measures from April ballot," January 31, 2023
- ↑ Channel 3000, "Wisconsin judge OKs ballot measures for April election," February 20, 2023
- ↑ Wisconsin State Journal, "Lawsuit challenging Republican workforce, cash bail measures can proceed, judge says," October 17, 2023
- ↑ AP News, "Wisconsin’s voter-approved cash bail measures will stand under judge’s ruling," September 16, 2024
- ↑ Wisconsin Election Commission, “Election Day Voting,” accessed May 4, 2023
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Wisconsin Elections Commission, "Voter Registration and Proof of Residence," accessed May 4, 2023
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 NCSL, "State Profiles: Elections," accessed August 20, 2024
- ↑ Wisconsin Elections Commission, "Wisconsin Voter Registration Application," accessed November 2, 2024
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 Wisconsin Elections Commission, "Photo ID," accessed May 4, 2023 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "wvid" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 25.0 25.1 Wisconsin Department of Transportation, "Wisconsin ID card for voting purposes - petition process," accessed May 4, 2023
 |
State of Wisconsin Madison (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
