An Eau Claire County farm. (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

Seven western Wisconsin Republican lawmakers did not appear at an event hosted by the Wisconsin Farmers Union in Chippewa Falls Friday as farmers from the area said they were concerned about the effect that President Donald Trump’s first month in office is having on their livelihoods. 

Madison-area U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Black Earth), state Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Eau Claire) and state Reps. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) and Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) were in attendance. 

U.S. Reps. Tom Tiffany and Derrick Van Orden, state Reps. Rob Summerfield (R-Bloomer), Treig Pronschinske (R-Mondovi) and Clint Moses (R-Menomonie) and state Sens. Jesse James (R-Thorp) and Rob Stafsholt (R-New Richmond) were all invited but did not attend or send a staff member. 

“All four of us want you to know that there are people in elected office who want to fight for you,” Phelps said. “Because I think there’s a lot of fear that comes from the fact that we’re seeing a lot of noise and action from the people who aren’t and some of the people that didn’t show up to this. So I hope that you will also ask questions of them when you get a chance.” 

Multiple times during the town hall, Pocan joked that Van Orden was “on vacation.” 

Emerson, whose district was recently redrawn to include many of the rural areas east of Eau Claire, told the Wisconsin Examiner she had just been at an event held by the Chippewa County Economic Development Corporation where a Van Orden staff member did attend, so she didn’t understand why they couldn’t hear about how Trump’s policies are harming local farmers. 

“I get that a member of Congress can’t be at every meeting all the time, all throughout their district,” Emerson said. With 19 counties in the 3rd District, “it’s a big area. But I hope that they’re hearing the stories of farmers and farm-adjacent businesses, even if they weren’t here. There’s something different to sit in this room and look out at all the farmers, and when one person’s talking, seeing the tears in everybody else’s eyes, and it wasn’t just the female farmers that were crying, the big tough guys, and I think that talks about how vulnerable they are right now, how scary it is for some of these folks.”

Carolyn Kaiser, a resident of the nearby town of Wheaton, said she’s never seen her congressional representative, Van Orden, out in the community. Despite Van Orden’s position on the House agriculture committee, Kaiser said her town needs help managing nitrates in the local water supply and financial support to rebuild crumbling rural roads that make it more difficult for farmers to transport their products.

“When people don’t come, it’s unfortunate,” Kaiser said. 

Emmet Fisher, who runs a small dairy farm in Hager City, said during the town hall that he was struggling with the freeze that’s been put on federal spending, which affected grants he was set to receive through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Fisher told the Examiner his farm has participated in a USDA program to encourage better conservation practices on farms and that money has been frozen. He was also set to receive a rural energy assistance grant that would help him install solar panels on the farm — money that has also been held up.

The result, he said, is that he’s facing increased uncertainty in an already uncertain business.

“We get all our income from our farm, young family, young kids, a mortgage on the farm, and so, you know, things are kind of tight, and so we try to take advantage of anything that we can,” he said. “[The] uncertainty seems really unnecessary and unfortunate, and it’s very stressful. You know, basically, we have no idea what we should be planning for. The reality is just that in farming already, you can only plan for so much when the weather and ecology and biology matter so much, and now to have all of these other unknowns, it makes planning pretty much impossible.”

A number of crop farmers at the event said the looming threat of Trump imposing tariffs on Canadian imports is alarming because a large majority of potash — a nutrient mix used to fertilize crops — used in the United States comes from Canada. Les Danielson, a cash crop and dairy farmer in Cadott, said the tariffs are set to go into effect during planting season.

“How do you offer a price to a farmer? Is it gonna be $400 a ton, or is it gonna be $500 a ton?” he asked. “I’m not even thinking about the fall. I’m just thinking about the spring and the uncertainty. This isn’t cuts to the federal budget, this is just plain chaos and uncertainty that really benefits no one. And I know it’s kind of cool to think we’re just playing this big game of chicken. Everybody’s gonna blink. But when you’re a co-op, or when you’re a farmer trying to figure out how much you can buy, it’s not fine.”

A recent report by the University of Illinois found that a 25% tariff on Canadian imports — the amount proposed by Trump to go into effect in March — would increase fertilizer costs by $100 per ton for farmers.

Throughout the event, speakers said they were concerned that Trump’s efforts to deport workers who are in the United States without authorization  could destroy the local farm labor force, that cuts to programs such as SNAP (commonly known as food stamps) could cause kids to go hungry and prevent farmers from finding markets to sell their products, that cuts to Medicaid could take coverage away from a population of farmers that is aging and relies on government health insurance and that because of all the disruption, an already simmering mental health crisis in Wisconsin’s agricultural community — in rural parts of the state that have seen clinics and hospitals close or consolidate — could come to a boil.

“Rural families, we tend to really need BadgerCare. We need Medicaid. We need those programs, too,” Pam Goodman, a public health nurse and daughter of a farmer, said. “So if you’re talking about the loss of your farming income, that you’re not going to have cash flow, you’re already experiencing significant concerns and issues, and we need the state resources. We need those federal resources. I’ve got families that from young to old, are experiencing significant health issues. We’re not going to be able to go to the hospital. We’re not going to go to the clinic. We already traveled really long distances. We’re talking about the health of all of us, and that is, for me, from my perspective as a nurse, one of my biggest concerns, because it’s all very interrelated.”

Near the end of the event, Phelps said it’s important for farmers in the area to continue sharing how they’re being hurt by Trump’s actions, because that’s how they build political pressure.

“Who benefits from all the chaos and confusion and cuts? Nobody, roughly, but not literally, nobody,” he said. “Because I just want to point out that dividing people and making people confused and uncertain and vulnerable is Donald Trump’s strategy to consolidate his political power.”

“And the people that can withstand the types of cuts that we’re seeing are the people so wealthy that they can withstand them. So they’re in Donald Trump’s orbit, basically,” Phelps said, adding  that there are far more people who will be adversely affected by Trump’s policies than there are people who will benefit.

“And you know that we all do have differences with our neighbors, but we also have a lot of similarities with them, and being in that massive group of people that do not benefit from this kind of chaos and confusion is a pretty big similarity,” he continued. “And so hopefully these types of spaces where we’re sharing our stories and hearing from each other will help us build the kind of community that will result in the kind of political power that really does fight back against it.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety. Seated at the table are Detective Joseph Mensah (left) and Wisconsin Fraternal Order of Police President Ryan Windorff (right) (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A Republican bill aiming to shield police officers from investigations after fatal shootings spurred committee debate and a deadlock vote Tuesday morning. The Senate’s Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety held an executive session to vote on the bill, which would prevent the use of John Doe hearings to review cases where officers are involved in fatal shootings of civilians. The hearing ended in a deadlocked 4-4  vote on advancing the bill. 

The bill was reported out of committee “without recommendation.” This means that the committee “has not recommended either approval or rejection of the bill,” Eric Barbour, the Senate committee clerk explained. It will next go to the Committee on Senate Organization, where it can then be scheduled for a vote by the full Senate.

Republican Sens. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), the bill’s author, committee chairman Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), Sen. Jesse James (R-Altoona), and Sen. Andre Jacque (R-De Pere) voted in favor of the bill. Democratic Sens. Kelda Roys (D-Madison), Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) and LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) were joined by Republican Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) in voting against the bill. 

Wimberger also voted against the bill last year, when it was first introduced by Hutton and Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonee). The bill’s original version was criticized for potentially preventing crime victims from having cases reviewed after a prosecutor declined to issue charges. Its latest version makes a specific carve-out for police officers involved in fatal shootings. Were it to pass, judges would be unable to hold hearings under Wisconsin’s John Doe law in cases where prosecutors have declined to issue charges. Instead, new or unused evidence would be required before a John Doe hearing could be considered. 

During a committee hearing earlier this month, Hutton said that the John Doe bill is archaic, and is increasingly being used to harass police officers. He and the law enforcement officers who testified  pointed to two instances of the law being used in recent years. One John Doe hearing held in 2021 reviewed the 2016 shooting of Jay Anderson Jr. by then-Wauwatosa officer Joseph Mensah. The other hearing was held in 2023, and reviewed the shooting of Tony Robinson by Madison Police officer Matthew Kenney. Both hearings were unsuccessful, with a judge dropping Robinson’s case and special prosecutors declining to pursue charges after Anderson’s hearing. 

Mensah spoke to the Senate committee when Hutton re-introduced the bill this year. During public testimony, Mensah described going through multiple investigations into his shooting of Anderson. Over a five-year career as a Wauwatosa officer, Mensah was involved in three fatal shootings. No charges were issued by the district attorney’s office in any of these cases. Anderson’s was the only one of Mensah’s shootings to get a John Doe hearing. 

Hutton has said that although he’s talked extensively with law enforcement about the bill, he has not engaged with any of the families of people killed by police. 

During Tuesday’s executive session, Sen. Roys expressed concern that the bill would create a new class protection for police officers. Roys highlighted recent findings regarding the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team (MAIT), which investigates police shootings and deaths in the Milwaukee area. Roys noted that the team’s policies afford officers numerous protections and privileges including the ability to refuse to give a recorded statement and the ability to make additional statements after viewing video evidence. 

James, who has had a career in law enforcement, responded that officers get to view video evidence because the incidents themselves happen so quickly, that they may forget certain details. “I don’t think there’s a real understanding of the complete process,” said James, who described Mensah as a victim because the shootings he was involved in were reviewed multiple times. 

Sen. Drake said that while officers deserve support, changing the John Doe law would take away an avenue of recourse from victims of police shootings and their families. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Sen. Jesse James is the coauthor on the postpartum Medicaid expansion bill. Screenshot via WisEye.

Members of the Wisconsin Senate Health Committee expressed support on Wednesday for a bill that would extend Medicaid coverage for postpartum mothers to a year after the birth of a child.

Typically, people in Wisconsin are only eligible for Medicaid coverage if they make up to 100% of the federal poverty level, but pregnant women can receive Medicaid coverage in Wisconsin if they have an annual income of up to 306% of the federal poverty level. While a newborn whose mother is a Medicaid recipient receives a year of coverage, mothers risk losing their coverage after 60 days if they don’t otherwise qualify for Medicaid.

The bill — SB 23 — seeks to change this by extending Medicaid coverage for postpartum mothers from 60 days to a full year after childbirth. 

“This bill does not change that income threshold so no new women would qualify for Medicaid,”  bill coauthor Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) said at the hearing. “It would just allow for those women, who are already being covered, to be covered for longer to help address potential health issues that arise during the postpartum period.”

“My goal as a legislator… is to make sure we keep moving Wisconsin forward and fight for the future of our youth. We, as a state, are unfortunately behind on this issue,” James said. “We have a chance to do better for our moms, our kiddos and our families as a whole.”

The federal government gave states the permanent option to extend coverage to a year postpartum in 2022 in the American Rescue Plan Act.

Gov. Tony Evers has been proposing covering mothers for a year in each of his budget proposals since 2019, but the Republican-led Legislature has rejected it each time. A Republican bill passed the Senate last session with only one opposing vote and also gained the support of a majority of Assembly lawmakers, but it never came to a vote. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) has been a staunch opponent of the policy, saying that he doesn’t support expanding “welfare,” and has so far blocked its passage. 

There are currently 23 Senate cosponsors and 67 Assembly cosponsors on the bill. 

DHS Legislative Director Arielle Exner told lawmakers that from 2020 to 2022, there were 63 pregnancy-related deaths in the state of Wisconsin with one-third of pregnancy-related deaths occurring after that 60-day postpartum period; 76% of those who died had Medicaid at the time of their delivery. In 2023, Medicaid covered 35% of births in Wisconsin and 41% of births nationwide.

“Wisconsin moms are losing health care coverage when they need it the most,” Exner said. 

Exner said the agency projects that an additional 5,020 women would have coverage per month under the bill, and that according to a fiscal estimate by the Department of Health Services, the policy would cost $18.5 million in all funds with $7.3 million in general purpose revenue.

If Wisconsin accepted full Medicaid expansion, which would expand Medicaid coverage to nearly all adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level, the cost for the postpartum coverage would be reduced to $15.1 million in all funds with $5.2 million in general purpose revenue — a total lower cost to Wisconsin.

DHS chief medical officer Jasmine Zapata, who is also co-chair of the Wisconsin Maternal Mortality Review Team and a newborn nursery hospitalist, called attention to the fact that the numbers and statistics are representative of people’s lives. She noted that the team reviews medical records, police records, hospital records, family interviews and more when looking at the deaths. 

“The way they were found deceased in their homes after a suicide or overdose… striking stories and heartbreaking stories… their children were there when they were found, brain matter splattered on the floor after a gunshot wound to the head, these are serious situations that are happening,” Zapata said. “For every statistic that we see, we have to remember that there are real lives and real stories behind them.” 

Zapata said that providing access to health care is one of the biggest recommendations that the review committee has. 

Arkansas is the only other state besides Wisconsin that has  not implemented the extension, a fact that was brought up repeatedly during the hearing. That state has also recently been working on maternal health legislation, though a recent bill still excludes the 12-month Medicaid coverage.

“Are they going to beat us and we [will] become the last in the union that does not have this coverage?” bill coauthor Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) asked. “It is my sincere hope that Wisconsin does not become the last… If we can’t get something like this done, then I don’t know what I’m doing in the Legislature.” 

“Can you believe it?” Snyder commented after a question. “Arkansas.” 

Jackie Powell, an OB-GYN who is completing her training in maternal fetal medicine, represented the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists at the hearing. She said she often cares for the highest risk patients, who may have chronic medical conditions. 

“During pregnancy, we have the opportunity to gain control of these conditions, but for these people who lose their insurance and lose their health care postpartum, we are essentially erasing all progress that we have made throughout their pregnancy,” Powell said.

Powell said that through her work she sometimes diagnoses a major medical condition, including heart failure, cancer and kidney failure, during pregnancy that “alters someone’s life course.”  

“Many of these patients need life-saving surgery and intervention postpartum to save their lives. Oftentimes, we need to deliver patients very preterm so that they can receive this care that they need,” Powell said. 

“Imagine being told that you need to have major surgery for a life-threatening medical condition within the first few weeks after delivering your baby, and possibly preterm baby, and then losing your insurance. Imagine the complications that you could still experience without the appropriate follow-up care when in the last year, you underwent all of this. Imagine walking into the neonatal intensive care unit to see your baby that you delivered prematurely in a hospital where you can no longer be treated,” Powell said. “This is a failure of our medical system.” 

Former Rep. Donna Rozar, who was the lead author on the bill last session and is a nurse, also testified on the bill.

“I could not get, even, a public hearing in the state Assembly, which made me really mad, and so I’m hoping that this year, some things will be different,” Rozar told lawmakers. 

Rozar said that she has heard objections to the bill that people could seek coverage through the Affordable Care Act rather than Medicaid once the coverage is lost after 60 days. 

“If you have a two-month-old, the last thing you want to do is change insurance programs. At 60 [days], you’re caring for a two-month-old and shouldn’t have to worry about health care coverage,” Rozar said.

There are 37 groups — including American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Inc, Medical College of Wisconsin, American Heart Association, Pro-Life Wisconsin — registered in support of the bill, according to the Wisconsin Lobbying website. No one is registered in opposition. 

“I think we’re all on board with this bill,” Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) commented to the room at one point.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A courtroom and a judge's gavel. (Getty Images creative)

A pair of Republican legislators have introduced a proposal that would allow the parties in lawsuits against state officials filed in Wisconsin’s largest, and most Democratic, counties to have the venue changed to another county court. Critics of the proposal say it amounts to an attempt to gerrymander the court system. 

The legislation from Rep. David Steffen (R-Howard) and Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) is currently circulating for co-sponsorship. Under the “Court Fairness Bill,” if a lawsuit against certain government officials is filed in a county with a first or second class city — the designation given to cities with more than 39,500 residents — any party to the lawsuit can request a venue change to a different circuit court. The second court would be chosen randomly and no further venue changes would be allowed. 

Steffen told the Wisconsin Examiner that the bill was designed to allow Republicans to move lawsuits out of Dane County court because they believe they don’t “get a fair shake” when arguing in front of judges elected by the state’s most Democratic voting county. Current law doesn’t require lawsuits against the state government to be filed in Madison, but because most state government offices are in the capital city, many of those lawsuits are heard in the Dane County Circuit Court. 

“If you are a liberal entity or individual, you increase your chance of success substantially by filing that case in the Dane County Circuit,” Steffen said. “That type of judge shopping should not only be discouraged but prevented when possible, and so I don’t believe that that is the way our Founding Fathers, both at the national or state level, envisioned courts to work where individuals or organizations are making decisions where they file based on the chance of it being a more favorable outcome.” 

Steffen added that he thinks the number of lawsuits filed against state government would decrease if people thought they might be heard by judges outside of Dane County. 

“So by providing an option for either party to request a random selection to another circuit, we increase the public’s perception and support of the decision that is made, and we decrease the number of frivolous and politically motivated lawsuits and decisions,” he said. 

Current law already allows parties to a lawsuit to change the venue at the appellate level. Wisconsin is divided into four appeals court districts. If a case is heard at the circuit court level in Dane County, its appeal would generally be heard in the District IV Court of Appeals, which covers 24 counties across most of southwestern and central Wisconsin. In 2011, Republicans enacted a law that allows a party in a lawsuit to request that an appeal be heard in a different district. 

Jeff Mandell, general counsel of the voting rights focused firm Law Forward, told the Examiner the proposal is an attempt to disenfranchise voters in cities that Republicans don’t like because of the people they elect to be judges. 

“It’s a further attempt to gerrymander the courts,” he said. “The gerrymandered Legislature has already gerrymandered the appellate courts and now it’s trying to gerrymander the circuit courts. It is anti-democratic. It is anti-rule of law, it is inappropriate, it is inefficient, and there’s no good reason for it, and here, fascinatingly, they only want it to apply to lawsuits that are filed in counties that have cities of the first or second class. So they’re really just targeting counties that have larger populations or that they don’t like. It’s a very weird thing.” 

While the proposal would allow venue changes in Milwaukee County and more than a dozen counties with second class cities, Steffen said it’s targeted at Dane County because he believes Republicans lose 90-95% of their cases there. 

“There is no place other than downtown Madison that has a 91% concentration of a party,” he said. 

Mandell said Steffen is exaggerating how poorly conservative causes do in Dane County court and there’s no requirement right now that lawsuits against the state be filed there. Wisconsin’s judges are elected for a reason, Mandell said, and this bill would nullify the choices of hundreds of thousands of Dane County voters.

“We have elected judges in Wisconsin, and one of the theories is that we do that because our judges are responsive to and come from the community,” he said. “So if I have an issue with the way that a local election official, or any other local official is doing something in my local area, part of the reason to bring the suit where I live is because the judge knows and understands the conditions of my local area. To then send it someplace completely different is truly bizarre.”

He added that if someone were trying to sue their member of Congress, the proposal would allow that suit to get moved to another side of the state where there is less knowledge about that representative and the community that elected them. 

“You are looking to the court to give you relief, but you are probably also looking for other people who are constituents of your member of Congress to know about this and be able to follow the case,” he said. “But now the venue is going to be randomly reassigned, and it could be assigned well outside of the congressional district. The judge is no longer a constituent or doesn’t know as much about the member of Congress and the local media no longer has the same kind of access. The whole thing is just really, really bizarre.” 

Experts also say there are a number of logistical concerns with the proposal. 

Bree Grossi Wilde, executive director of UW-Madison’s State Democracy Research Initiative, said because of Wisconsin’s political geography, the proposal wouldn’t make things even. Moving a case out of Dane County doesn’t give a 50-50 shot at landing that case in a conservative or liberal county because a higher number of Wisconsin’s 72 counties lean conservative. 

“If the concern is to try to level the playing field and have a more diverse kind of set of circuit court judges deciding these important cases that are brought against state or federal officials, or whatever it might be, then actually, it’s going to swing in the opposite direction,” she said. “It’s not going to be more level. It’s going to be likely more conservative judges deciding these cases.”

She added that a similar bill authored by Republicans in Kentucky was struck down by that state’s Supreme Court. Steffen said he’s not concerned about that happening here if the bill were passed — though it’s unlikely it would be signed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. 

Plus, Grossi Wilde said, because Dane County has been the venue for many of these cases for so long, there’s a level of expertise and institutional knowledge in cases involving complex areas of state law such as elections. 

“Sometimes it’s more about expertise … these are judges that are familiar with these claims and are able to sort of manage them more efficiently,” she said, adding that  “Dane County Circuit Court has built up that bench, has built up this sort of expertise, because they’re used to managing these type of cases.” 

Sending cases out around the state to judges who deal with many issues and are not particularly familiar with certain areas of the law —  “whether it be … civil, criminal, family, juvenile, probate … [or]  complicated or constitutional claims” could burden courts and cause them not to work as well, she said.

Steffen said he hadn’t nailed down the details of how the new venue would be randomly selected, but suggested drawing cards or names out of a hat.

But Mandell questioned what would happen if a case was filed in Milwaukee County and the name drawn out of the hat was far-away Bayfield County. 

“It’s highly inefficient,” he said.  “I mean … every time the court wants to hold a hearing, everybody might have to, you know, schlep all the way to Bayfield. For what purpose?”

The deadline for lawmakers to sign on to the bill as co-sponsors is Feb. 18.

The Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety. Seated at the table are Detective Joseph Mensah (left) and Wisconsin Fraternal Order of Police President Ryan Windorff (right) (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

“Baseless,” “false allegations,” and “meant to harass” were phrases used by Republican senators and police groups to describe what they called the “abuse” of Wisconsin’s John Doe law to exact vengeance on police officers who were involved in fatal incidents. 

“Activists have discovered that the John Doe process itself can be the punishment they seek against innocent law enforcement officers in our community,” said Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) during a Thursday afternoon hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. 

It was the second time Hutton has introduced a bill taking aim at Wisconsin’s John Doe law. The law, which applies to a wide range of crimes, allows a judge to review cases in which prosecutors have declined to file charges. A judge then decides whether probable cause for a crime exists. If so, then the judge may appoint special prosecutors to consider whether charges are needed. Hutton’s bill seeks to limit the law’s use against officers involved in fatal shootings. 

Hutton, calling the the law “archaic,” said that it’s “being often used with more frequency against police officers.” Any person or group can file a complaint with a court and request the initiation of a John Doe process, he said. If passed, Hutton’s bill would prevent the John Doe law from being used in cases where there is no new or “unused” evidence and where prosecutors already decided that a officer acted in self-defense.

Although Hutton didn’t clarify what might count as “new” or “unused” evidence, he did talk at length about his conversations with police officers. The senator described going on ride-alongs and watching officers respond to domestic violence calls, “legally going 90 miles per hour” to respond to emergencies, and how disrespected and criticized officers often felt. Hutton described having conversations with officers who said they felt more “timid” and feared being charged for something like a fatal shooting. Many officers, Hutton said, are leaving the job at a time when some agencies struggle with understaffing. 

Hutton said that two recent John Doe hearings involving police shootings have further damaged morale. A 2021 hearing reviewed the shooting of 25-year-old Jay Anderson Jr. by then-Wauwatosa Police officer Joseph Mensah. In 2016 Anderson, who was sleeping in his car in a park late at night when Mensah approached him, was the second person Mensah had fatally shot within a year. Over his five-year career at Wauwatosa PD Mensah was involved in three fatal shootings. Anderson, who Mensah said was reaching for a gun when he shot him, was the only person Mensah’s shot whose killing triggered a John Doe hearing. 

Another John Doe hearing in 2023 looked into the killing of Tony Robinson by Madison Police officer Matthew Kenny. The 19-year-old was killed in his apartment after officers responded to reports that he was acting erratically. His family was awarded a $3.3 million settlement in 2017, the largest for a police shooting in Wisconsin history at the time. 

Neither of the John Doe hearings succeeded, however. Although probable cause was found in Mensah’s case for homicide by negligent use of a dangerous weapon, special prosecutors declined to pursue charges. A judge declined to continue with Kenny’s case. Hutton referred to both hearings as a growing problem, but the Mensah and Kenny cases were the only two the senator and police lobbyists said they were aware of. Hutton pointed to Mensah, who attended the Thursday hearing to offer testimony, as the inspiration for the bill to limit John Doe proceedings. 

Other Republicans on the committee appeared supportive of changing the John Doe law. Sen. Andre Jacque (R- DePere) likened its use to “attacks on qualified immunity” for police, and Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) — committee chairman and a former police officer — as well as Sen. Jesse James (R-Altoona), another law enforcement official, and police lobbyists, stressed that officers need to be able to act without hesitation. 

Committee Democrats, however, were not sold. Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee), questioned the imbalance of power within the criminal justice system that the bill could create, and wondered whether Hutton had talked to representatives of the State Bar of Wisconsin, which is opposed to the bill. Hutton said he had not. Hutton described those bringing John Doe cases against officers as seeking to “demonize someone in law enforcement.” Whereas the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin and the Civil Rights and Liberties Section of the State Bar of Wisconsin registered against the bill, two Wisconsin police associations and the State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police registered in support. 

Under the microscope 

Mensah’s shooting of Anderson was investigated by the Milwaukee Police Department before the John Doe. Their investigation in 2016 was reviewed by Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, who declined to charge Mensah. A separate civil rights review, and internal Wauwatosa PD review, were also conducted. In 2020, an independent investigator also found that Mensah had violated multiple department policies when he did a radio show interview. Hutton called the use of the John Doe law against police officers as “a gap that needs to be sown up and closed.” 

After the hearing was over, Hutton told Wisconsin Examiner that although he’s talked extensively with police officers and their families, that he has not spoken with family members of anyone killed by police, such as those in Mensah’s shootings. “I haven’t heard from any of them,” Hutton said of the Anderson family and other relatives of those killed by Mensah. “I would love to have conversations with any of them in that regard, I have not had any conversation with them at this point.” 

Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said that she was “troubled by the callousness” of the discussion of Hutton’s bill. Roys said police officers and the people they kill, as well as the family members of the deceased, are victims of a tragic situation. “You have to have accountability,” said Roys. “People need to be able to trust law enforcement.” Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) pointed out that John Doe hearings involving police officers are infrequent. 

Ryan Windorff, president of the Wisconsin Order of Police, called the allegations made during John Doe hearings “baseless.” Windorff said the hearings came into vogue after what he called an “anti-police movement” which had “infected” the country. Windorff said investigations are transparent, and that while families have rights, those rights do not “usurp” the ability of police officers to defend themselves. 

Mensah also testified at the hearing. In 2020, Mensah resigned from the Wauwatosa PD after being suspended by the Police and Fire Commission. He was later hired by the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department, where he said he underwent “a unique hiring process.” Besides a background check, the sheriff and Defensive and Arrest Tactics (DAAT) experts did their own review, which he passed. Nevertheless, Mensah said that other agencies had been unwilling to  hire him because of “publicly-made…available information.” He added that the only public information besides police reports is the news, about which he said, “they have their right, they can be biased if they want.”

Mensah described the investigations and scrutiny after his three fatal shootings as “a constant drain.” He said that a John Doe proceeding could be brought “literally for anything,” and that he lives knowing that he could be charged with a crime any day. Mensah said police “aren’t granted the same protections and the same benefit of the doubt, or anything.”

“Unfortunately now, the way the law is written, the scale is heavily not in our favor,” said Mensah. 

He also took aim at the protests that focused on him in 2020 and 2021. Mensah said he didn’t understand why protesters demonstrated at the home of the woman he has since married and his parents’ house, chanting Black Lives Matter when he is a Black officer himself. “My race was completely stripped from me. I was no longer considered Black. I was considered just an officer,” he said. 

The protests and hearings were difficult to explain to his family and kids, Mensah added. “There’s been clear civil rights violations against myself, no one cares,” said Mensah. “No one cares when it’s violations against my children. No one cares when it’s violations against my wife.” Mensah’s wife, whose maiden name is Patricia Swayka, is a former Milwaukee police officer. In 2024, she appeared on a “Brady list” of officers with problematic histories obtained by TMJ4 through records requests. 

Mensah added that “this has been just a cold, calculated process of just harassing me, harassing my family, and using this law to take advantage of it. And there needs to be some type of change before it happens to someone else.” 

Mensah talked about a protest outside his house that escalated into a confrontation, in which a protester brought a gun and fired it. Several protesters were arrested for the incident, and three were charged with either handling, firing, or transporting a shotgun. Wauwatosa PD, the FBI, and Milwaukee PD specialized units all helped investigate the incident. 

During the hearing, Mensah said that the judge in his John Doe hearing “got it wrong” and that “the system as we have it is flawed, and people are using it not to get justice, but to get revenge. And specifically revenge against me.” Mensah said that he used to be a “very proactive” officer, and that Anderson’s shooting occurred when he was more proactive on the job. 

Mensah told the Senate committee “I did not have a chance to defend myself,” during the John Doe hearings. “Anytime something was brought up, I couldn’t question it.” According to court filings from the hearing, however, Mensah pleaded the Fifth Amendment, since he was subject to criminal charges. After the Senate committee hearing when asked about this, Mensah said “I honestly don’t remember.” He told Wisconsin Examiner that “I was instructed that we weren’t allowed to say anything in that hearing.” Mensah vaguely recalled “some mention of it”, referring to his Fifth Amendment pleading. “I honestly don’t remember if I did, or if there was questions about what if it got to a certain point.” 

 

19 – Brief in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena of Joseph Mensah

 

When asked how the Anderson shooting was misrepresented by Anderson’s family and their lawyers, Mensah recalled people saying “I shot him 13 times in the back,” which wasn’t correct. Elsewhere Mensah saw people mistaking his ethnicity. “I get it…You can only report what you know…What you’re told, what you find out. Some stuff’s true, some stuff isn’t. Some stuff’s intentional, some stuff’s not. I can’t say what isn’t intentional, and what’s not. At the same time, it’s kind of like in law enforcement, if I’m interviewing someone and they tell me something, I can only take that at face value and put it forward.”

Asked whether he felt that his career in the Waukesha Sheriff’s Department had been negatively affected, he said, “All I know is I applied for the detective position, I got it. I applied for a lieutenant position, didn’t get that.” 

“In some ways I’ve been promoted, in some ways I haven’t,” he said. 

Democratic Sens. Johnson and Drake expressed skepticism in comments after the hearing.

Johnson compared the John Doe bill to Republican efforts to impose stricter regulations  on bail and parole, arguing that judges need more authority to keep violent offenders incarcerated. Yet Hutton’s John Doe bill, she pointed out, takes away discretion and power from judges. 

“It really boils down to who we decide are victims,” said Drake.

Clarification: This article has been updated to reflect that the Civil Rights and Liberties Section of the State Bar of Wisconsin, not the State Bar as a whole, registered against the bill to end John Doe proceedings against police officers.

(Getty Images)

A majority of Wisconsin lawmakers support a bill to provide mothers on Medicaid who have just given birth with a year of coverage, but whether the bill becomes law hinges on persuading the Republican Assembly leader to let it through.

Pregnant patients in Wisconsin are currently eligible for Medicaid coverage for childbirth if they have an annual income of up to 306% of the federal poverty level. In Wisconsin, people are typically only eligible for Medicaid coverage if they make up to 100% of the federal poverty level.

Medicaid covers about 41% of births in the U.S. and 35% of births in Wisconsin, according to data compiled by KFF, an independent health policy research and news nonprofit. A newborn whose mother is a Medicaid recipient receives a year of coverage. But mothers whose income is above 100% of the poverty level risk losing their coverage after 60 days if they don’t otherwise qualify for Medicaid.

For the second time in two sessions, a bipartisan group of lawmakers are advocating for a bill to extend the mother’s postpartum coverage period to a year.

“I want to support the families,” said Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), a coauthor. “It’s just the right thing to do. It’s not political. It shouldn’t be.”

Gov. Tony Evers has been proposing covering mothers for a year in each of his budget proposals since 2019, but Republicans have removed the provision each time. In 2021, lawmakers passed a law to extend coverage to 90 days and the state applied for a federal waiver, but the federal government has never responded.

The federal government gave states the option to extend coverage to a year postpartum in 2022 in the American Rescue Plan Act, and since then, states have gradually opted in. 

In Wisconsin, the proposal gathered significant momentum in 2023 with a bill that passed the Senate with only one opposing vote. It also gained the support of a majority of Assembly lawmakers, but it never came to a vote. 

When Wisconsin considered extending coverage in 2023, Wisconsin was one of 12 states that hadn’t implemented the extension. Now, it’s one of two.

“It’s just us and Arkansas,” Snyder said. “Are you kidding? The only states that don’t do this.”

Despite widespread support, the bill will face a challenge in becoming law this session due to opposition from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester). During a press conference in early January, he said it was “unlikely” that the proposal would become law this session.

“Our caucus has taken a position that expanding welfare is not a wise idea for anyone involved,” Vos said. 

Snyder said he’s heard “rumors” that Vos may assign the bill to the Assembly State Affairs Committee. “I hope he doesn’t because a lot of times that’s where bills go to die,” he said. 

Snyder, who chairs the Assembly Children and Family Committee, said his experience serving there has shown him the importance of the legislation.

“I just see the impact of families that are disrupted with something like this,” Snyder said. When mothers die as the result of a preventable issue, he noted that it results in “trauma” for the child and families.

A 2024 report from the Wisconsin Maternal Mortality Review Team found that from 2019 to 2020 there was a 30% increase in deaths of mothers within one year of the end of pregnancy, regardless of cause. In 2020, there were a total of 49 deaths.

According to the CDC, over 80% of U.S. deaths during pregnancy, delivery, or up to one year after pregnancy in 2020 were preventable. 

Snyder said Wisconsin’s continued holdout means “either we don’t understand the whole gravity of it or we’re just stubborn.”

Snyder told the Examiner that bipartisan support for the measure continues this session with the majority of Senators and around 65 Assembly representatives signing on to the bill as of Wednesday afternoon. 

Co-authors on the legislation alongside Snyder explained a number of ways a year of coverage would benefit Wisconsinites. 

Rep. Jessie Rodriguez (R-Oak Creek) called the legislation a “no-brainer,” noting the number of medical and other issues that can arise for mothers after giving birth. 

“Moms are most vulnerable after giving birth to a child. There's just a lot of issues that occur right after not to mention sleep deprivation and just being exhausted, tired,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez noted that the legislation would ensure that mothers covered under Medicaid when they give birth are able to see doctors throughout the first year after birth and allow issues to be addressed early on.

Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) said his experience as a husband, father, grandfather, law enforcement officer and state legislator has shown him firsthand the importance of taking care of moms.

“In my opinion, there should not be a price tag on it. It shouldn't matter how much we invest because healthy mamas bring healthy babies, which bring healthy families to Wisconsin,” James said. “Our moms go through the wear and tear of pregnancy, carrying the baby for nine months, through all the body changes… Once that mom is done giving birth, the care just doesn't end there.”

In considering the actual cost to the state, however, James said he thought it would be worth it. 

A fiscal estimate by the state Department of Health Services of the 2023 bill found that the cost of the program would be about $21.4 million in all funds, including $8.4 million in state general purpose revenue. The estimate found that Medicaid would enroll an additional 5,290 people a month. 

“That's a very small investment," he said, suggesting that in return, mothers would get better health care and get it sooner, while also saving the system money in the long run. “Then that's a success. We're making them healthier.”

Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) spoke about the legislation at a roundtable hosted by Protect Our Care, a health care advocacy group, in Milwaukee on Wednesday — just after the Trump administration paused federal spending and Medicaid portals froze in states across the country. Postpartum expansion became a point of “optimism” during the conversation, which included U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore and patients who spoke about their varied experiences with Medicaid and fears about potentially losing Medicaid coverage. 

“When my daughter was born, I had a job. I was working. It didn't provide medical benefits. Not only did I give birth to a premature child, but two days after, I had to go back to work,” Johnson said. “What I know personally is that relying on Medicaid, it's considered a privilege that you have to fight too hard for.”

Securing coverage could have a significant impact for Black mothers and children, Johnson noted. 

Wisconsin has sharp racial disparities in maternal health. One DHS report found that from 2016 to 2023 Black women were at the highest risk for severe maternal morbidity — unexpected outcomes of labor and delivery that result in significant short- or long-term consequences to a woman’s health. Another study found that between 2006 and 2010 the maternal death rate for Black women in Wisconsin was five times that of white women — outpacing the national disparity during that period.

“The only way to improve the odds is to make sure that we have the coverage that we need, to follow not only that baby for 12 months, but also that mom,” Johnson said. 

Johnson told the roundtable group that she thinks the bill is a priority for lawmakers, though there is a long way to go on it.

Snyder said he plans to have another conversation with Vos soon, and other lawmakers say they’ll continue to work to persuade the speaker to come around.

James said he is ready to provide his supportive colleagues with talking points and that he hopes to speak with Vos in the near future.

“I'm just hoping that he's willing to have a conversation,” James said. “I have no issue in hearing him out… they tried to do that 60 to 90 day waiver, and the federal government says they're not going to take anything less than one year, so I think as we progress through we just — we need to make things happen. We need to take care of our families.” 

Vos has told Wisconsin Watch that he wants to see the 90-day waiver resubmitted to the Trump administration. 

The proposed bill’s cosponsors said they would potentially be open to compromise, but that a year of coverage would be the easier and more impactful option. 

“If we could get his support in bringing it down to 90 days, that would be great, but we've already done. In order to do the 90 days, we have to ask for a waiver and the state never got a response back on that,” Rodriguez said. It'd be easier, she said, to pass legislation for the full year already authorized by the federal government.

“Most of the mortality occurs between five and nine months,” Snyder said. “Between five and nine months, there is anything from cardiac arrests, preeclampsia and even suicide, so 90 days isn't going to always help.”

Snyder said that he is hoping that Vos might change his mind. 

“Hopefully enough advocates will come to him and say ‘It's not really expanding welfare, it's extending from two months,” Snyder said.

Rodriguez acknowledged that Vos’ “philosophical beliefs” are part of his opposition to the legislation.

But if Vos doesn’t support the legislation, “Hopefully we can find a place where he can allow this to move forward,” Rodriguez said, “maybe not support it but at least allow this bill to get to the floor.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. and Wisconsin flags at half staff in commemoration of those killed and wounded in a December school shooting in Madison. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Republican lawmakers are proposing bills they say will help protect children from gun violence by arming  teachers, providing grants to schools to improve building safety and staff training and eliminating taxes on gun safes. 

In the aftermath of the December school shooting at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, in which a teacher and student were killed and six others were injured, Gov. Tony Evers announced at the State of the State address that he plans to propose stricter background checks and red flag laws to address gun violence.

Republican leaders were not receptive to the proposals. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said there are already some gun control measures in state statute and added, “sometimes people do bad things and there’s only so much that we can do to prevent it.”

Republican lawmakers in the last week have started circulating three proposals they say would be more effective in curbing gun violence.

One of the proposals, from Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha) and Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee), would allow teachers with a gun license to carry firearms on campus if school boards adopt a policy saying it’s allowed. 

“School shootings are tragedies we hate to see… The knowledge that no one on the premises has the firepower to stop them emboldens bad actors,” the lawmakers stated in a co-sponsorship memo. 

Asked at a Monday press conference why his proposal is preferable to Evers’, Allen noted that an armed guard is typically stationed outside his office in the state Capitol. 

“Must be for a reason. If you travel with the governor, you’ll find that he has Wisconsin State Patrol armed with him wherever he goes… Why should he deserve that kind of protection and not our kids in schools?” Allen said. “The reality is that if somebody is intent on doing evil, and they have a weapon of any sort — whether it’s a firearm or a knife or anything — they’re dangerous, and we need to meet force with force, if we’re going to stop it.”

Allen also said that he thinks many actions could be taken to address school shootings including working to improve mental health.

“We’ve supported things in the past regarding that — supported the governor in increasing mental health aides and improving our schools’ ability to communicate with students and address mental health issues in schools,” Allen said. “We need to harden the targets. We need to make it impossible or practically impossible for any perpetrator to get in our schools to begin with.”

According to the Gun Violence Archive (GVA), there were 503 mass shootings in 2024 and as of Jan. 27, there have been 18 in 2025. GVA defines a mass shooting as one where there are “a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident.”

A 2024 report by Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions found that firearms continue to be a leading cause of death for kids and teens, and that Black children and teens are disproportionately the victims. 

Wisconsin’s current law prohibits people — with the exception of law enforcement officers — from carrying firearms on school grounds, and any individual found knowingly possessing one could be charged with a felony.

The bill making it legal for teachers to carry guns to school would also seek to make it easier for teachers to obtain a gun license by waiving the cost of the initial application fee, renewal fee and background check fee for teachers who apply for a license.

This is the second time the lawmakers have introduced the proposal. They introduced it for the first time in 2023 at the request of the Germantown school board. The board passed a resolution in August 2022 following a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, which killed 19 children and two teachers and injured 17 others.

“We need to protect our students from bad actors who perversely seek infamy, and we should allow local school boards, with community input, to determine the right policies to ensure that students are protected,” the lawmakers stated. “Sometimes the best way to deter bad actors is with the threat of force, and this bill gives that choice to school districts.” 

Grants to schools 

Another proposal from Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp), Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) and Allen would provide grants for Wisconsin public, private and tribal schools to improve the safety of their buildings and provide security training for school personnel. 

The bill would invest $30 million in a one-time grant program that would be administered by the Office of School Safety. The office, which is a part of the Department of Justice, was created under the 2017 Wisconsin Act 143, and under that law, $100 million was appropriated to the DOJ in fiscal year 2018-19 for awarding school safety grants.

In 2018, the DOJ was able to award 1,325 grants totaling $94.5 million to school districts, private, independent charter and tribal schools and the remaining funds went to supporting other school safety initiatives, including adolescent mental health training. 

“As a state, we need to ensure that our Wisconsin schools have the necessary tools and resources needed to create and maintain a safe learning environment for all students,” the lawmakers stated in a memo to their colleagues. “Just like the funding from Act 143, we are confident that these additional funds will achieve this goal of giving more Wisconsin schools the chance to further enhance and update their safety measures.”

The new proposal would give priority to schools that did not receive any grant funds or missed the deadlines in the prior funding rounds, but it would be open to any schools. The DOJ would be able to award a maximum amount of $20,000 to an applicant. 

Under the bill, the program would sunset on July 1, 2027. 

Tax exemption for gun safes

Another pair of lawmakers — Rep. Adam Neylon (R-Pewaukee) and Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) — are proposing eliminating taxes on gun safes as a way to help people afford them. 

The lawmakers said in a memo that they are putting the legislation forth “to encourage people to store guns securely, and keep children safe from accidental injury, death, and suicide.” 

“Simply put, this bill promotes responsible gun safety,” the lawmakers stated.

Evers included a similar measure in his 2023-25 budget proposal, but it was removed by Republican lawmakers. A handful of states — including Michigan, Tennessee and Washington — have adopted this policy.

A similar bill was also proposed in 2019 with bipartisan support, though it failed to pass either chamber. At the time, the state Department of Revenue estimated that the bill would have resulted in $309,000 in lost tax revenue. 

One Democratic senator is skeptical the measure would adequately address the gun violence problem facing the state and that lawmakers should be taking stronger actions to reduce the harm that children face from guns.

“Wisconsinites want safe communities where our kids have the freedom to learn and reach their potential without the fear of gun violence. Instead of implementing proven measures to reduce firearm injuries and gun violence, like safe storage laws and universal background checks, GOP politicians are offering a tax exemption,” Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said in a statement. 

Safe storage laws — which have been adopted by 26 states across the U.S. — require gun owners to store their firearms in a way that prevents unauthorized access, in order to keep guns out of the hands of children.

“We need to ensure that kids can’t access guns, and that if a house with kids has guns, they are stored safely away from kids,” Roys continued. “This bill will do virtually nothing to keep kids safe, but the GOP politicians now cynically backing it are hoping it will keep them safe during their next election.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE