The Wisconsin Assembly voted along party lines Tuesday to pass legislation penalizing counties with sheriff's departments that don't cooperate with ICE, the federal Immigration Customers and Enforcement agency. (Photo via ICE)

Legislation passed the Assembly Tuesday that would claw back state aid from counties where the sheriff doesn’t cooperate with the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement service (ICE).

The legislation would require sheriffs to check the citizenship status of people being held in jail on felony charges and notify federal immigration enforcement officials if citizenship cannot be verified.

The state Senate, meanwhile, approved a bill that would block a judicial investigation of a police officer involved in the death of a person unless there’s new evidence or evidence that has not been previously addressed in court.

The immigration-related bill, AB 24, passed the Assembly on a straight party-line vote.

In addition to requiring citizenship checks, the bill would also require sheriffs to comply with detainers and administrative warrants received from the federal Department of Homeland Security for people in jail. Counties would be required to certify annually that they were following the law and would lose 15% of their shared revenue payments from the state if they were not.

Proponents described the measure as enhancing safety.

“We have the opportunity to emulate in many ways the best practices that are already happening across our country,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), the bill’s author, said at a news conference before the floor session. “We have seen since [President] Donald Trump took office that we have had a dramatic reduction in the number of illegal crossings that are happening at the southern border.”

Opponents said the bill would divert local law enforcement resources while driving up mistrust and fear among immigrants, regardless of their legal status.

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) said the legislation was “big government” and interferes with local counties’ policy decisions. It also undermines the presumption of innocence for a person charged with a crime, potentially strains resources for local jails, and could lead to holding people “longer than is necessary,” he said.

But he added that those weren’t his top reasons for opposing the bill.

“I’m voting against this because it’s wrong, because this legislation rips people from our communities and families based on the mere accusation of a crime, because our Republicans colleagues’ eagerness to make themselves tools in Trump’s attacks on immigrants, refugees, visitors and those who oppose him is vile,” Clancy said.

On the floor, Vos replied that he agreed with Clancy about the presumption of innocence, and that he also agreed with other lawmakers who said the vast majority of immigrants are not guilty of any crime.

“But I would also say that there is a burden of proof on both sides,” Vos said. “It’s not entirely on just the side of the government to ensure that you follow the law.”

Claiming broad bipartisan support for the measure, Vos said Democratic opposition was “clearly out of step, even with your base.”

Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) responded that  he hasn’t heard constituents ask for the legislation or anything like it.

“They are asking us explicitly to make life tangibly easier for working class Wisconsinites,” he said, “and they have not been asking me to engage in redundant acts of political theater to satisfy the whims of a rogue president engaging in a campaign of intimidation and mass deportation that includes constituents in western Wisconsin.”

Senate approves John Doe exemption

The state Senate voted Tuesday to pass a bill that makes an exemption to the state’s John Doe law for police officers involved in a civilian’s death.

In Wisconsin, if a district attorney chooses not  to file criminal charges,  a judge may hold a hearing — known as a John Doe investigation — on the matter and file a complaint based on the findings of that hearing.

The legislation, SB 25, “simply says, if that case goes before a DA, and then the DA  justifies their actions and they are deemed to be innocent of any wrongdoing … that case is closed and it is in a file never to be seen again,” said the bill’s  author, Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), on the Senate floor.

Hutton said the legislation allows a judicial investigation to proceed, however, “if a new piece of evidence is presented that wasn’t known before, or an unused piece of evidence is found.”

But Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) questioned carving out an exemption to the state’s John Doe law. “This bill does not apply to any other crime in Wisconsin,” she said.

Lawmakers, Drake added, should do more to address “the environment and the situations” that have led to officer-involved deaths. 

Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee), said testimony at the bill’s public hearing discussed only two attempts to invoke the John Doe proceeding after a prosecutor declined to file charges in an officer-involved death — and one of them involved former Wauwatosa police officer Joseph Mensah, who killed three people in five years.

Allowing for a John Doe investigation in an officer-involved death “protects the public,” Johnson said. “What it does is put a second eye on those cases that deserve a second look.”

The Senate passed the bill 19-13. Two Democrats, Sens. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D-Appleton) and Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi), voted in favor along with 17 Republicans. Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), who also opposed the bill in committee, joined the remaining Democrats who voted against the measure.

Reversing DPI testing standards: On a vote of 18-14 along party lines, the Senate concurred in an Assembly bill that would reverse a change that the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) made last year to testing standards.

AB 1 would revert the state’s testing standards to what they were in 2019 and link standards to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Republicans voting for the bill said that the DPI change “lowered” standards — a claim DPI and Democrats rejected.

Direct primary care passes — but Democrats object: The Senate also voted 18-14 on party lines to pass SB 4, legislation that would clear the way for health care providers who participate in direct primary care arrangements. Under direct primary care, doctors treat patients who subscribe to their services for a monthly fee as an alternative to health insurance for primary care.

An amendment Democrats offered would have added a list of enumerated civil rights protections for direct primary care patients. That list was in a direct primary care bill in the 2023-24 legislative session that passed the Assembly but stalled in the Senate when two organizations protested language protecting “gender identity.”

After the amendment was rejected, also on a party-line vote, Democrats voted against the final bill.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) testifies March 4 in favor of requiring a revocation recommendation when a formerly incarcerated person who is released on community supervision is charged with a new crime. Sitting with him is the bill's Assembly author, state Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee). (Screenshot/WisEye)

An Assembly committee will vote Monday on a bill that could result in more people on correctional supervision — parole, probation, or extended supervision — facing revocation, resulting in a portion of their remaining sentence being served in incarceration. It is one of five bills to receive a committee vote. 

Revocation occurs when those on correctional supervision, as part of their sentencing, violate a condition of their release, such as consuming drugs or alcohol or re-offending.  In a hearing, an administrative judge determines if they have sufficiently violated their conditions to return to prison and serve some or all  of their remaining sentence.

Presently, parole or probation officers can decide whether  to recommend a revocation hearing, which can result in a temporary jail hold while an administrative judge considers the request.

The proposed legislation, AB 85, would mandate that those same probation and parole officers must recommend a revocation if the person on supervision is charged with a new offense.

Two Republican authors of the bill and law enforcement representatives spoke in favor of the bill at the March 4 Assembly Committee on the Judiciary public hearing. Proponents said  the legislation is needed to ensure at least a revocation hearing is held after a new offense is charged. They said leaving it up to the parole or probation officers’ discretion doesn’t automatically result in a revocation hearing.

Supporters of the bill also said it is necessary to hold repeat offenders accountable and ensure public safety.

Opposition to the bill comes from those advocating for prison and judicial reform, who argue that the present system already results in too many people being revoked for technical reasons. They argued  that current protocols are sufficient to protect the public. Instead of focusing on revocation, they said the state should support services that help those on supervision be more successful in reentering society. 

Hearing witnesses said that , in most cases, when a probation or parole officer recommends revocation, the administrative judge supports it.

In its 2025-2027 budget request, the Department of Corrections (DOC) set reducing revocations as one of its goals over the next three years. As part of the public hearing, the DOC submitted written testimony opposing the proposed legislation.

For AB 85

The committee’s vice chair and  the bill’s Assembly author, state Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee), said the legislation is needed to ensure an administrative hearing is held to consider a revocation.

“It may come as a surprise, but a convicted criminal on community supervision is not immediately revoked if they’re charged with another crime,” said Jacobson.  “Under current statute, whether such individuals are reincarcerated or allowed to remain on our streets, is decided by an administrative law judge. However, in order for a judge to hear a revocation case, revocation must first be recommended by an agent of the Department of Corrections. According to the DOC’s own estimates, in 2019 there were 6,280 individuals on community supervision who were charged with a new crime but not revoked.”

Jacobson and others who spoke in favor of the bill all said they were for giving “second chances” to those who had violated the law, but they also noted a responsibility to protect the public from repeat offenders.

The bill’s Senate coauthor, Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), said AB 85 is part of a package of bills that are “addressing the revolving door of crime and the cycle of lawlessness” that, he said, is allowed by the “lenient part of our judicial system.”

“Far too often, law-abiding citizens become victims of crimes committed by repeat offenders” who have been released on parole, probation or extended supervision, he said. 

“When a prisoner is granted release before the completion of their sentence, it becomes an expectation of good behavior, and that release is only as good as that person behaves,” Hutton said. “An individual who has been charged with a new crime while on release has violated their promise of good behavior and should have their release revoked. However, under current law, that is, frankly not the case.”

Joel Moeller, vice president of the Milwaukee Police Association, talked about working in a probation parole unit with a representative of the DOC looking for parole violators who had committed crimes after their incarceration.

“We were looking for serious guys that were in prison for serious things, and they committed serious crimes again,” Moeller said.  “A lot of times we would find them, arrested them. They’d sit in jail for four or five days, and then they would just be out with the hearing date where they were just committing more crimes.”

Moeller said it was critical to ensure those who were charged with another offense had an appearance before an administrative judge to determine whether probation should be revoked.

“Some of these people are model citizens when they come out [of incarceration], but a lot of them aren’t,” Moeller said. “They go back into the same lifestyle they were living when they went into prison, and sometimes they need to go back to learn a lesson.”

Alexander Ayala, president of the Milwaukee Police Association, said that while he served in the robbery unit, some of the robberies he investigated wouldn’t have happened and citizens wouldn’t have been “victimized” if the suspects had their parole revoked.

Committee Chair Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) noted that the argument could be made that passing the bill  would increase costs for the state. But he said consideration should be given to the “cost of recidivism” of parolees violating the law, such as the expense incurred by district attorneys prosecuting new complaints.

Against AB 85

Sean Wilson, the senior director of organizing and partnership at Dream.Org, a non-profit for “closing prisons doors and opening doors of opportunity,” spoke against AB 85.

“Rather than implementing measures that may increase revocations, we urge the legislature to introduce and pass legislation that supports the successful reintegration of individuals in supervision, investing in programs that provide education, job training, mental health, and substance abuse treatment, which can significantly reduce recidivism rates and promote public safety,” Wilson said.

He noted that many on supervision are required to make restitution to victims or must pay child or marriage support, but when supervision is revoked, that delays those payments. 

Wilson said In Wisconsin many have already been revoked for a “technical” violation of the condition of their release.

“Between January 2019 and May 2024, there were over 13,000 such admissions [revocations back to prison], accounting for approximately 34% of all prison admissions during that period,” said Wilson. “Implementing AB 85 could exacerbate this existing problem by increasing the number of individuals recommended for revocation based solely on criminal charges, regardless of conviction.”

Revocation before a person is tried for a new offense “undermines the presumption of innocence and will disproportionately affect marginalized communities, further exacerbating existing inequalities in our criminal justice system,” he added.  “While we acknowledge the intent to enhance public safety, it is crucial to consider the broader implications of AB 85. Enacting legislation that may increase revocations and contradicts the direction of effective criminal justice reform and does a disservice to the people of Wisconsin.”

Tusler asked Wilson  whether a revocation could intervene and stop criminal behavior.

“We send over 3,000 people back to prison each year as a result of technical revocations,” Wilson responded. “Often in those cases, there’s not a new crime; there’s an allegation of a crime, and individuals are sent back to prison as a result of that. I’ve traveled this state from North Wisconsin all the way down south, east and west, and I’ve heard stories of individuals going back to prison just for the sake of moving, just as a result of moving from apartment A to apartment B without getting proper approval from their probation agent”

Wilson claimed the annual fiscal impact of the technical revocations is $200 million.

He contended the DOC typically recommends revocation in most cases and it made no sense to have a mandatory recommendation.

Tessler said the bill didn’t address “technical” issues of revocation. He conjectured that even when there is a technical revocation, there were probably other issues that had exacerbated a parolee’s standing.

Two representatives of Ex-incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) — Operations Director Marianne Oleson and Executive Director Jerome Dillard — also spoke against the bill.

Oleson advocated for the state to allocate more resources to help those on probation become successful. She discussed the typical struggles people face in obtaining housing and employment and advocated for “true wraparound services that support people in recognizing we are more than the choices we regret.”

AB 85 would “overtax an already over-taxed system,” said Oleson, and she encouraged more support for organizations like Dream and Expo.

Dillard said that after working 20 years in prisons and outside, most probation and parole officers are doing their jobs correctly, and the current process works.

He argued  that not every charge should result in a revocation, such as retail theft or a misdemeanor offense. Dillard said he knew of someone who was revoked for a misdemeanor, returning to prison for  24 months, but the judge in the misdemeanor case only sentenced the person to 90 days.

A new charge could also result in a revocation hearing even if the charge is later dismissed.

“I don’t see where this legislation is really needed in the systems that we have today, because community corrections do their job, and sometimes I feel [they are] overzealous because individuals are locked up on hearsay,” said Dillard.

The Wisconsin State Public Defenders office and Wisconsin’s American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also registered in opposition to the bill.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE