A bill that passed both the Assembly and the Senate Wednesday would automatically classify ride-share and certain delivery drivers as independent contractors. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Legislation that would declare that drivers for app-based ride-share and delivery businesses are independent contractors will go to Gov. Tony Evers after clearing both houses of the Legislature Wednesday.

The legislation also authorizes the affected companies to offer drivers benefit plans without classifying them as employees.

After two previous attempts to pass the bill, in the Legislature’s 2021-22 and 2023-24 sessions, the Senate and Assembly votes Wednesday — mostly along party lines — marked the first time the measure will get to the governor’s desk.

The bill — AB 269 — applies to drivers for delivery and transportation businesses such as Uber, Lyft and DoorDash who are hired by customers using online apps or similar technology.

It defines those drivers as independent contractors who are not subject to laws guaranteeing minimum wage, unemployment compensation and workers compensation.

Update: The bill passed the Assembly on a vote of 56-36, but as of Friday, the Assembly’s official journal of the session reported that three of four Assembly Democrats who were recorded as voting “yes” for the bill asked that their votes be registered as “no,” and their requests were granted, resulting in a new tally of 53-39. One Democrat supported the bill. 

WisPolitics.com reported the changed votes on Friday. WisPolitics.com also reported that according to the office of Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August, Assembly chief clerk’s office and the Legislative Technical Services Bureau “conducted a thorough testing” of the Assembly’s electronic voting system and found no problems.

In the Senate, the bill passed 16-15, with no Democratic support and one Republican, Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) voting in opposition.

As of Wednesday the Wisconsin Ethics Commission had no public reports on money spent lobbying for or against the legislation. But since early this year DoorDash has been running digital ads on WisPolitics.com and elsewhere promoting the legislation’s “portable benefits” provision.

DoorDash issued a statement Wednesday lauding the bill’s passage. “Dashers and customers in Wisconsin have sent hundreds of letters to the governor, urging him to sign the bill into law,” the company stated.

If Evers signs the measure, Wisconsin would be the first state in the country to enact such legislation. DoorDash has pilot benefit programs without legislation in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Georgia, the company said.

While the bill authorizes the companies to offer the benefit plans, it does not require them to do so. It sets the standards of coverage for such plans if they are offered. It also allows the businesses to establish deferred compensation retirement plans for their drivers.

“This bill will provide meaningful, affordable benefit opportunities for these independent contractors,” said Rep. Alex Dallman (R-Green Lake) at an Assembly press conference before Wednesday’s floor session. “They’ll be able to solidify that they get to choose when and where they want to work, the freedom that they have to be able to earn benefits through the work that they provide for these different companies, and be able to really set themselves up for a future of success by having things such as health insurance.”

A new independent contractor standard

The legislation lists four practices that would exclude a ride-share or delivery company from the independent contractor protections: If it requires drivers to be logged into the service on certain dates, certain times or for a minimum number of hours; if it terminates a driver’s contract for not accepting a specific service request; if it bars drivers from working with other such businesses; and if it bars drivers from working in any other occupation or business.

A company would have to flunk all four of those provisions to be disqualified.

In both the Senate and the Assembly, critics said the bill would serve the contracting companies, not their drivers.

“We don’t need to create a new category of workers with fewer protections, which is what this bill does,” said Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) on the Senate floor. “The sad realization is that all of the so-called benefits talked about in this bill may never come to fruition for any gig driver. And yet the bill makes mandatory the loss of employee status for every single app-based driver.”

Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), said drivers testified in favor of the legislation that “they don’t want to be employees.” Bradley is the lead author of the Senate companion legislation. 

“If you watch any of the hearings, they’ll tell you, ‘We love the flexibility of being an independent contractor.’ They chose to be independent contractors because of the flexibility.”

Under state law and regulations, the state Department of Workforce Development (DWD) uses a nine-part test to determine if workers are employees rather than independent contractors, said Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) during the Assembly debate.

“The big problem with this bill, though, is that it actually allows the executives of these companies to dictate their own test to fit their own needs,” Sinicki said.

‘Difficult way to pay the bills’

“Driving for ride-sharing services like Lyft or Uber is a grueling, difficult way to pay the bills,” said Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), who said he’s a ride-share driver.

He said the industry’s claims that a driver collects $25 or $30 an hour are based on the travel time alone.

“So in an hour, if I take two people on rides which cost them $7 each and I get about $3.50 from each of those, Lyft might report that I got $30 an hour because they don’t count all the minutes between the rides. But I actually gross $7 that hour,” Clancy said.

The bill allows a company to contribute up to 4% of a driver’s earnings to the proposed benefits account. He said Uber drivers have an average weekly revenue of $513, so 4% “would come out to just $267 a quarter” — too little to cover a health insurance premium.  

The bill aims to keep drivers from being classified as employees because “it’s far easier to exploit an independent contractor than it is an employee,” he said.

Clancy said drivers across the U.S. have been “trying to get recognized as the employees they are, and to try to get access to basic benefits and workplace protections and access to unemployment insurance, just like the vast majority of employees in Wisconsin.”

Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez (D-Milwaukee), a co-sponsor of the bill was the only Assembly Democrat to support, although three other Democrats were initially recorded as voting “yes” before being granted a request to change their vote to “no.”

“I heard countless testimonies from drivers who wanted the flexibility of being independent contractors,” Ortiz-Velez said, adding that she has received “a ton of emails, a ton of support” for the bill this year as well as in the last two-year session.

“This bill offers portable benefits that right now don’t exist,” Ortiz-Velez said. “It won’t exist if we don’t pass this bill.”

Dallman, the bill’s lead Assembly author, said on the Assembly floor that critics of the bill can simply choose not to work for the companies it covers.

“This is for the independent contractor and the freedom that they have to get ahead in life by working a couple extra jobs, a couple extra trips on a weekend to make a little bit of extra cash,” Dallman said. “While at the same time, voluntarily partnering with one of these companies . . .  to pay for their benefits, to pay for their retirement. Again, the opportunity for workers to make choices on their own to get ahead in life.”

This report was updated Friday, 6/20/2025, to update the Assembly vote on SB 269 after the Assembly journal reported on a request by three Democrats to change how their vote had been recorded.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Voces de la Frontera Executive Director Christine Neumann-Ortiz (center) discusses the arrest of Ramón Morales Reyes with attorneys Kimi Abduli (right) and Cane Oulahan (left). (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A strange turn of events followed the arrest of Ramón Morales Reyes, a 54-year-old Mexican-born man, who was living in Milwaukee as he sought a U-visa — a type of visa available to victims of crimes. 

On Friday, advocates from Voces de la Frontera joined immigration attorneys representing Morales Reyes to dispute accusations made by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that Morales Reyes — who does not speak or write in English — drafted a neatly handwritten note in English threatening to assassinate President Donald Trump. Voces de la Frontera and Morales Reyes’ attorneys are calling for DHS to correct the record and clear his name.

The affair began on May 21, when Voces de la Frontera received a hotline call reporting a possible sighting of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Milwaukee. Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, said during the Friday press conference that one of the group’s “trained community verifiers” contacted local residents who confirmed the sighting and also provided video footage of Morales Reyes being detained. 

“His vehicle was left on the side of the road, and using the license plate we were able to identify the owner and communicate with his family,” said Neumann-Ortiz. “Shortly after, Ramón’s daughter came to our office to seek help. We assisted her in completing a power of attorney and ensuring that her father received the essential medication that was critical to his health. We immediately contacted attorney Kime Adbuli, who has been representing Ramón in his ongoing U-visa case.”

Neumann-Ortiz explained that a “U-visa” is a form of immigration relief for crime victims who have suffered emotional or physical abuse and who have helped law enforcement or government officials in the investigation and prosecution of a crime. “It provides a temporary legal status, and a pathway to permanent residency,” said Neumann-Ortiz. “In the past, the Morales Reyes family had sought resources from Voces.” 

Days after the arrest, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem provided statements for a press release describing Morales Reyes as an “illegal alien who threatened to assassinate President Trump.” Noem added, “this threat comes not even a year after President Trump was shot in Butler, Pennsylvania and less than two weeks after former FBI Director Comey called for the president’s assassination.” 

Noem was referring to Comey sharing a picture on Instagram of sea shells arranged into the numbers “8647”, which “86” interpreted as slang for “get rid of” and “47” being a reference to Trump, the 47th U.S. president, NPR reported. Comey is now being investigated by the Trump administration. “All politicians and members of the media should take notice of these repeated attempts on President Trump’s life and tone down their rhetoric,” Noem said. “I will continue to take all measures necessary to ensure the protection of President Trump.”

The DHS press release included an image of the note, neatly handwritten in turquoise-colored pen and in flawless English. “We are tired of this president messing with us Mexicans,” it began. “We have done more for this country than you white people — you have been deporting my family and I think it is time Donald J. Trump get what he has coming to him. I will self deport myself back to Mexico but not before I use my 30 yard 6 to shoot your precious president in is (sic) head — I will see him at one of his big ralleys (sic).” The reference to “30 yard 6” may be an incorrectly written reference to .30-06 (pronounced 30 ought six), which is a high caliber bullet for rifles. 

Morales Reyes’ family says that it is impossible that he wrote the note. Described by his attorneys as a soft spoken,  hardworking and committed family man, Morales Reyes works as a dishwasher. He was described as coming from a rural part of Mexico where it’s common for people to have no more than a third-grade education. Morales Reyes had difficulty filling out paperwork, does not speak English and is not proficient in writing in Spanish. Neumann-Ortiz said that his family called Voces organizers, confirming that Morales Reyes had very little formal education, and could not read or write in Spanish. 

Since his arrest, Morales Reyes’ family has received death threats on social media. “They want his name cleared,” said Neumann-Ortiz. On the day he was arrested, CNN reported, Morales Reyes was questioned by detectives from the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD), who suspected that someone may have been setting him up to get deported. Police were reportedly investigating jailhouse calls from a person who’d allegedly assaulted Morales Reyes during a September 2023 armed robbery. 

CNN reported that ICE agents were given a handwritten note by Morales Reyes with family-related information, and agents realized that the handwriting did not match. The questions surrounding the letter are reminiscent of those stemming from the arrest and deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was accused by the U.S. government of being a member of the El Salvadoran gang MS-13. President Trump held up pictures which had been altered to appear as though “M S 1 3” was tattooed on Abrego Garcia’s knuckles.  

Getting Morales Reyes deported would prevent him from testifying against the person in custody for allegedly attacking him, his attorneys said at the press conference. 

Attorney Kime Abduli said there are due process concerns around Morales Reyes’ arrest, as it could interrupt his testimony as a victim in a criminal proceeding and  also impact his U-visa case. The specific visa process which Morales Reyes is undertaking “is really meant to offer protection to people who may be undocumented who are victims of crime in the United States,” Abduli explained. 

“It’s meant to encourage them to report those crimes, when they are victims of those crimes, to the authorities, and to cooperate in the investigation. Where a person may be undocumented and fearful of reporting these sorts of things, Congress basically established the U-visa to make it ‘safe’ for them to come forward with that information. As long as they’re cooperating with law enforcement, the U-visa is intended to offer some protection for that individual.” Obtaining a U-visa can be a very lengthy process spanning seven to eight years at a minimum, Abduli said. 

Attorney Cane Oulahan, who is representing Morales Reyes in his deportation proceedings, said that ensuring due process is his top priority. Oulahan said that a bond hearing is expected in the coming days, where he expects the government to argue “vigorously” for Morales Reyes to be deported. It’s likely that the accusations from Noem’s DHS will also be raised before the judge. 

Another controversial deportation in Milwaukee

The controversy and questions come as ICE attempts to expel another Milwaukee resident. Yessenia Ruano, a teacher’s aide in Milwaukee Public Schools, was ordered recently by ICE to return to her home country of El Salvador in a matter of days. This is despite Ruano having a pending visa application for trafficking victims, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. 

On Friday, the same day Voces and attorneys held a press conference about the Morales Reyes case, ICE ordered Ruano to get on a deportation flight on June 3. Ruano will leave behind her 9-year-old twin daughters, who are U.S. citizens. Ruano’s attorneys said that it appears that ICE is abandoning policies of waiting for processing of T and U visas, which protect people from deportation. Ruano has lived in the U.S. for 14 years, has no criminal record, has a valid work visa, and is employed at a bilingual public elementary school. She said she is hoping that a final legal filing could pause her deportation.

Ruano’s case spurred a flurry of condemnation from local Milwaukee officials. “Deporting valued members of our community who are raising and educating our kids, assisting law enforcement in their important work, and giving back to our neighborhoods should alarm us all,” Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley wrote on X. “These individuals are victims of a broken immigration system. The Trump administration told the country they were only going after ‘the worst of the worst’. But time and time again, we see them targeting the very people who contribute the most — our neighbors, our coworkers, or friends.” 

Crowley said that he is “deeply alarmed that our country continues to turn its back on our most vulnerable.” He went on to say that “by not standing up and protecting our neighbors, we’re not just failing them — we’re failing our entire community. Due process is under attack, and that should concern all of us in Wisconsin and across the country.”

Congresswoman Gwen Moore also released a statement, calling Ruano a “beloved member of her community,” and declaring that “deporting Yessenia will not make our country safer.” Moore said the deportation order “will only separate Yessenia from her children and her community while exposing her to danger she was forced to flee in El Salvador. Instead of making America a beacon of hope for people like Yessenia, this Administration’s focus is only pushing cruelty that demonizes immigrants.”

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) said that the Trump administration’s deportation of Ruano is “wrong and harmful.” Clancy said in a statement that Ruano had volunteered at her local Catholic parish, worked in her neighborhood school, and was taking care of her family. 

Recent weeks have seen ICE and the Trump Administration focus more on Milwaukee. Since late March, at least four people have been arrested by immigration agents after attending regularly scheduled hearings at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Local officials denounced the courthouse arrests, only for Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan to also be arrested by federal agents for allegedly obstructing authorities by escorting a man sought by ICE from her courtroom into a public hallway.

“Yessenia is an asset to our community whenever she touches it,” said Clancy. “Our community and her daughters deserve to continue to have Yessenia with us here, and Yessenia deserves to continue to build a thriving life with her family in Milwaukee.” Clancy condemned ICE, saying the agency “continues to act arbitrarily and with cruelty. We must all do what we can to protect our neighbors from it.” 

This article has been edited to correct the labeling of the .30-06 (pronounced 30 ought six) rifle cartridge. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) looks at the root beer float made by Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) during the Assembly Public Benefit Reform Committee. Clancy made it as he was arguing the definitions in the bill were arbitrary and unclear. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Republican lawmakers are seeking to implement a pair of bills that would prevent low-income Wisconsinites from buying “junk” food and ban certain ingredients in school meals, taking inspiration from U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.

Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie), the lead author on both of the bills, has said he wants to help ensure the food children and others are eating is healthy. 

AB 180 would bar participants in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — or, as it’s known in Wisconsin, FoodShare — from purchasing soda and candy with their benefits. Under the bill, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) would need to submit a waiver to the federal government for approval to make the change to the program.

Kennedy wants a similar policy implemented nationwide, and so far several states, including Arkansas and Indiana, have asked the Trump administration for a waiver that would remove soda and candy from SNAP eligibility.

Moses said at a hearing on the proposal earlier this month that by allowing people to purchase those items with FoodShare, Wisconsin is “facilitating consumption of harmful, additive-filled foods” and that “instead, we should be supporting healthy, sustainable food choices for [people’s] overall health of individuals, the health of our society as a whole.”

Moses argued the restrictions wouldn’t be a novel idea, since people already can’t use their SNAP benefits to purchase alcohol, pet food and other items. SNAP currently also can’t be used for hot foods (such as a meal at a restaurant), supplements and vitamins and nonfood items. 

He also compared it to the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) program, the assistance program that provides free healthy foods, breastfeeding support, nutrition education and referrals to other services to income-eligible pregnant and postpartum women, breastfeeding moms and children under 5.

“Most government money has strings attached to what that money can be used for,” Moses told the Assembly Public Benefits Reform Committee. “Adding this provision is no different than the special supplemental nutrition program for the WIC program… WIC basically includes a list of good items or essentials that people can buy that does not include any of this other stuff.”

Expert: SNAP, WIC have different goals

UW-Madison food insecurity expert Judith Bartfeld says, however, that the programs are fundamentally different. WIC serves as a narrowly targeted nutrition program that provides specific foods for a defined group of nutritionally at-risk people. 

The SNAP program, meanwhile, is designed to serve as a “supplement to existing income” and “to fill the gap between a USDA estimate of what is needed to meet a household’s food needs and the amount a given household is assumed to be able to spend on food out of current income,” Bartfeld wrote in an email to the Examiner.

She said periodic state and federal attempts to restrict SNAP have been unsuccessful in the past, in part because of a “reluctance to upset the balance for a program that is a backbone of the safety net.” 

According to DHS, the SNAP program helps nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites put food on their tables annually. A USDA study from 2016, the most recent year, found that “there were no major differences in the expenditure patterns of SNAP and non-SNAP households, no matter how the data were categorized,” and that similar to other families, SNAP recipients spend about 20 cents of every dollar on sweetened drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy and sugar. 

“It’s intended to provide extra resources to support buying food at the store — and its effectiveness in reducing food insecurity is well documented,” Bartfeld said. “There have long been concerns that restricting how benefits can be used would make things more complicated for retailers, more stigmatizing for participants, unlikely to translate into meaningful health improvements, and would risk reducing participation and jeopardizing the well-documented benefits of SNAP on food security.”

In addition, she said, “identifying specific foods that are healthy or unhealthy is much more complicated in practice than it sounds.” 

Bartfeld said SNAP combats food insecurity because it provides additional resources to low income people and has become “less stigmatizing and easier to use.” Restrictions, she said, could end up having a negative effect.  

“If putting restrictions on SNAP ends up making it stigmatizing for participants, more complicated for retailers or opens the door to an increasingly constrained program, there are real concerns it may become less effective as an anti-hunger program — which of course would have negative health outcomes; this is why the anti-hunger community has long opposed bans such as this, and considered food bans as a line better not crossed,” Bartfeld said.

FoodShare cuts would cost Wisconsin $314 million a year, state health department reports

Bartfeld said it’s also unclear if a ban would improve health. Despite attempts to model health effects of a SNAP soda ban, she said, there is no empirical evidence proposed bans would meaningfully change diets or improve health outcomes.

“In contrast, there is real-world evidence that incentivizing healthy food purchases can modestly impact food choices,” Bartfeld said. “And SNAP has a nutrition education program (SNAP-Ed, which goes by FoodWise in Wisconsin), that appears to increase healthy eating — even as, ironically, that funding is currently at risk.”

The GOP-bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday included “some of the largest cuts in the program’s history” the SNAP program, according to CNBC. 

The bill would expand work requirements to qualify for benefits, likely leading to reduced participation, cut federal funding and leave it up to states to fill in the gaps and it would entirely eliminate funding for the education program. According to Wisconsin DHS, the cuts would cost the state approximately $314 million every year and would put 90,000 people at risk of losing benefits. The bill now goes to the Senate.

Punishing low-income Wisconsinites?

Bartfeld said this is one of the challenges with some of the recent “health-focused” SNAP proposals across the county as the other proposed cuts and restrictions to the program are unrelated or “often run counter to health.” 

“That interest in benefit cuts is happening in tandem with increasing attention to food choices does mean that food programs are at the center of the action, and it can make it challenging to differentiate proposals that are really about health from those that are more fundamentally about regulating the low income [population] and paring back assistance,” Bartfeld said. 

Moses during his testimony described the proposal as part of a “national movement basically to really make our food supply healthier.” He said it shouldn’t be partisan and noted former First Lady Michelle Obama’s campaign to improve school meals. 

“I expect to receive full support from not just the Legislature but the governor as well,” Moses said. 

Democrats on the committee didn’t appear on board with the legislation. Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) expressed concerns about the legislation focusing on low-income Wisconsinites and including unclear, arbitrary definitions.

Clancy asked Moses about low-income families using benefits to celebrate Halloween and special occasions. Moses replied that “if their kids really want candy, they can go into the neighbor’s house then they could trick or treat, and they’d probably get all the candy they want, but the benefit would be that the taxpayers wouldn’t be paying for it.”

“People that are on SNAP… they are taxpayers as well,” Clancy said, “so I don’t want to categorize folks who are experiencing, hopefully, temporary poverty from being taxpayers. They’re chipping in for, you know, health care benefits and everything else.” He added, “We’re, I think, just targeting low-income people with this.” 

Clancy demonstrated his point by pulling out a bottle of Snickers-flavored iced coffee, a seltzer water and, at one point, a cup of ice cream and a bottle of root beer. He poured the root beer into the ice cream, saying the milk in it would make it acceptable to purchase under the definitions in the bill. The definition for “soft drink” is “a beverage that contains less than 0.5 percent of alcohol and that contains natural or artificial sweeteners” and “does not include a beverage that contains milk or milk products; soy, rice, or similar milk substitutes; or more than 50 percent vegetable or fruit juice by volume.” 

“A root beer float is totally fine right? By taking this sugary thing, adding it to another sugary thing, this is now legal for somebody to use their FoodShare benefits,” Clancy said. 

Committee Chair Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) told Clancy to stop, saying that the hearing “isn’t a cooking show.” 

Banning additives in school meals

Another bill — AB 226 — would target “ultraprocessed” foods in schools by banning certain ingredients from meals, “Ultraprocessed foods” were one of the top concerns recently outlined by Kennedy and a report the Trump administration commissioned, and Kennedy has expressed interest in banning other additives as well.

Among the additives the bill identifies are brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, azodicarbonamide and red dye No. 3, which can be found in candy, fruit juices, cookies and other products.

Moses told lawmakers on the Assembly Education Committee that additives named in the bill are either in the process of being banned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or have been subject of peer-reviewed studies that found links to adverse side effects if consumed in significant enough amounts. For example, Red No. 3 and brominated vegetable oil are both no longer approved for use in food by the FDA. 

“Our school lunches should not be filled with substances that negatively affect our students’ health, even including their mental health,” Moses told the committee.

Moses said the bill would “bypass the need for federal action while not forcing schools to risk loss of federal funds to pay for existing school lunch programs.” He also noted that other states, including California, are also working to ban the ingredients.

The bill would go into effect on July 1, 2027.

An earlier version of the bill only included free- and reduced-price meals, but it was amended after concerns from the Department of Public Instruction and the School Nutrition Association of Wisconsin. Both now support the bill. 

The Department of Public Instruction said the legislation aligns with positive trends in nutrition. 

“With an increased focus on farm-to-school programs and the use of local food, school nutrition programs are helping to improve the nutritional value of meals,” Kim Vercauteren, policy initiatives advisor for the DPI Division for Finance and Management, said in testimony. “Many schools and school nutrition vendors are already committed to providing meals that utilize unprocessed foods, which can be enjoyed without harmful, nutritionally useless additives. These programs not only encourage the use of healthy food, but educate students on healthy lifelong choices.” 

Targeted additives not common in schools

Members of the Healthy School Meals For All Coalition told the Wisconsin Examiner that they support the proposal, but also they hope it isn’t the only thing that lawmakers do to help improve school meals. The coalition of school food stakeholders has been advocating for free school meals for all Wisconsin students and for improving the quality of food served to students.

“We appreciate the fact that they’re looking out for the well-being of our students and see the work that we do,” School Nutrition Association of Wisconsin President Kaitlin Tauriainen said in an interview. “We’re hoping that some of these steps will allow us to build more of a bridge so we can understand each other’s point of view — whether that means taking steps to grant more access to food for kids or jumping right into the full meals for all free meals for all, which is something you know we certainly want.”

Tauriainen said that school nutrition professionals are focused on feeding students the healthiest food possible, although the ingredients listed in the bill already aren’t common in school meals. 

“I would say the majority of our manufacturers that we’ve talked to don’t have those additives in their food,” Tauriainen, who is the child nutrition coordinator for the Ashwaubenon School District, said. “So it’s really kind of a non-issue.”

Allison Pfaff Harris, farm to school director with REAP Food Group, a Madison-based nonprofit, said she appreciates that the bill is trying to address the school food “supply side.” She said, however, that school nutrition programs need support in moving away from other processed ingredients not mentioned in the bill. 

Operating on limited budgets, school nutrition programs “turn to those quicker ingredients, which are going to be more processed foods,” Pfaff Harris said, adding that “not all processed foods have those food additive ingredients.”

Pfaff Harris suggested pairing Moses’ bill with other improvements. She said the “big ask” for the coalition is no-cost school meals, but smaller steps would also be significant. Guaranteeing that the breakfast reimbursement for schools is 15 cents per meal could improve the supply chain and nutrition programs, she said. DPI prorates payments because it lacks funding to pay the full cost; Pfaff Harris said the current reimbursement rate is about 7 cents. 

“This is one piece of the puzzle, but it’s a small piece in the giant puzzle,” Pfaff Harris said. 

Pfaff Harris said the discussion about healthy meals is also challenging because there have been recent federal decisions cutting resources that help schools serve fresh ingredients. Wisconsin was set to receive $11 million in funding for “Local Food for Schools” programs, but it was cut by the Trump administration. 

“You’re having these bills introduced, which is a good thing, but … from my perspective, if we really wanted to make a difference in school nutrition programs and help them to be able to do more scratch cooking and semi-scratch and fresh ingredients, it’s getting that funding back,”  Pfaff Harris said.

Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) asked Moses about free school meals and other proposals, saying it could improve his bill. 

Moses said her suggestions seemed like a completely different bill altogether.

“It doesn’t matter to me if it’s reduced or people are paying for it. I want [the meals] to be safe …” Moses said. “Essentially, it’s not the intent of this bill.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Protesters gather to march in Wauwatosa alongside the families of Antonio Gonzales, Jay Anderson Jr., and Alvin Cole in 2020. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Update: Rep. Shae Sortwell issued a statement Wednesday morning disputing claims from Democratic Reps Ryan Clancy and Andrew Hysell that the riot bill was taken off the Assembly’s executive agenda. Sortwell accused Clancy and Hysell of “spreading misinformation” regarding the bill.

“To be clear, the chair never pulled the bill because he has not officially scheduled a vote on it yet after receiving a hearing two weeks ago. I am in discussions with colleagues on the committee, which is standard practice for bill authors after a public hearing. I ask both Democrat representatives to brush up on legislative policy on how bills actually move.”

Wednesday afternoon Rep. Ron Tusler, who chairs the assembly committee, which held public hearings on the riot bill, wrote in an email statement to Wisconsin Examiner that the riot bill needs work before it can be scheduled.

Tusler wrote that the bill “is not on the agenda because, in its current form, it fails to be good legislation. I wanted to give the bill author a chance to explain the bill out of respect for Representative Sortwell and the victims of riots. But in its current form, this bill has constitutional, common-sense, and enforcement issues. Assembly Bill 88, as it exists now, was never going to be scheduled for an executive session until those problems were/are addressed.”

 

A Republican-sponsored bill that would have defined a riot as a gathering of at least three people that could pose a threat of property damage or injury has been removed from the Assembly Judiciary Committee’s executive session agenda. The bill has been criticized for being overly broad, and potentially chilling First Amendment protections of protest and free speech. Besides defining a riot, the bill also exposed accused rioters and riot organizers to felony charges and civil liability including restitution for attorneys’ fees and property damage, and carried a prohibition on government officials with authority over law enforcement from limiting an agency’s response to quell unrest. 

Rep. Andrew Hysell (D- Sun Prairie), a member of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, said that he criticized the bill because it “actually weakens existing law for the very people it was supposed to help.” The committee held a public hearing on the bill on May 7, at which  a large number of Wisconsinites voiced opposition to the bill. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R- Two Rivers), one of the bill’s authors, testified in favor of the bill, saying that it’s needed to prevent protests from spinning out of control into riots, property destruction, and injury. Sortwell and other republican supporters of the bill referenced protests and unrest in 2020 in Kenosha and  Madison. 

Among those who testified against the bill was Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee). Like other critics, Clancy said the bill was written vaguely in order to be applied broadly to crack down on protest movements. “While myself and many of my Democratic colleagues are tired of wasting our time and our constituents’ resources on badly written, unconstitutional bills like AB-88, I’m ecstatic that Republicans have abandoned this one for now,” Clancy said in a statement after the bill was shelved by the Assembly committee. “It’s clear that passionate, thoughtful testimony from the public, free speech advocates and civil rights experts – along with excellent technical critiques from Rep. Andrew Hysell – has stopped this so-called ‘anti-riot’ bill dead in its tracks.”

Clancy added that “in reality, however, this isn’t an ‘anti-riot’ bill: it’s a threat to free speech, expression and assembly disguised as a public safety measure. Thankfully, it’s now unlikely to move forward this session.” 

During the May 7 committee hearing where people spoke either in favor of or against the bill, one person wore a hat which used an expletive to denounce President Donald Trump. Committee Chair Ron Tusler (R- Harrison) demanded that the man remove the hat because it was offensive. Tusler threatened to have law enforcement remove the man, and called the hearing into recess. Later, when the hearing continued, the man was allowed to continue wearing the hat. Clancy told  Tusler his emotional reaction to the hat and his impulse to call for police was an example of how a broad, penalty-heavy bill for protests like AB-88 is a bad idea.

In his statement, Clancy urged his colleagues to spend “less time trying to dismantle our rights and getting angry at rude hats” and more time “addressing the actual needs of Wisconsin residents. Until that changes, we must all remain vigilant to fight back their next, terrible idea.” 

This article has been updated to add a statement from Rep. Shae Sortwell accusing Reps Ryan Clancy and Andrew Hysell of spreading misinformation about why the bill was taken off the executive session agenda. The article was updated again Wednesday afternoon with Committee Chair Rep. Ron Tusler’s statement regarding the riot bill. It has also been edited to correct Rep. Ron Tusler’s last name. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Protesters gather in Kenosha the second night of protests on August 24th, 2020. This was before the clashes with police later that night. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Imagine you hear about a protest in your community and,  curious, you join your neighbors who are marching in the street. Although the protest is loud and slows down  traffic, it appears peaceful and non-violent. Then suddenly, someone throws a rock or spray-paints a building, and now you find yourself among those apprehended for felony rioting, regardless of whether you committed an act of vandalism or  know who did.

Civil rights advocates fear such a scenario if under a Republican bill that defines a riot as a public disturbance, an act of violence or a “clear and present danger” of property destruction or personal injury involving at least three people. A similar bill was introduced in 2017 by Rep. John Spiros (R-Marshfield). A new version is  (AB-88), authored by Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) and Sen. Dan Feyen (R- Fond du Lac). 

People who say their property was damaged or vandalized during what the bill defines as a “riot” would also be able to seek civil damages from people or organizations that “provided material support or resources with the intent that such support or resources would be used to perpetrate the offense,” under the bill. It also prohibits government officials with direct authority over law enforcement agencies from limiting or restricting those agencies’ ability to quell vandalism or rioting, as defined by the bill.

Jon McCray Jones, a policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin is concerned that the bill’s definition of a “riot” is too vague. “Using that definition, a riot could be three teenagers driving around in a car knocking off mail boxes,” McCray Jones told Wisconsin Examiner. “Technically, with this definition, a riot could be a food fight.” The bill’s language concerning people who “urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate others to commit a riot” is also vague according to McCray Jones, who says this aspect of the bill would open protest leaders and organizers up to criminal and civil liability, regardless of their involvement in rioting.

Sortwell and Feyen did not respond to requests for comment for this story. In written testimony before the Assembly Committee on Judiciary on May 7, both lawmakers said that riots have become more common in recent years. “We saw the destructive riots a few years ago in several metropolitan areas, including right here in Madison and Kenosha,” said Sortwell, referring to George Floyd-inspired protests and unrest in 2020. “Taking a walk down State Street, one would see busted doors and windows of businesses, products stolen, and a smashed statue of a Civil War hero. Several business owners, employees, and citizens had their lives upended.”

Feyen said that “peaceful protests are a cornerstone of our public discourse and will always be protected under the First Amendment, but a line needs to be drawn when those protests go from being peaceful to being destructive and violent.” Although the bill does not  mention specific protests, Feyen wrote, “stricter penalties are needed to deter protesters from crossing that line from protest to property destruction, vandalism, arson, and physical violence.” 

Although scenes of burning buildings and looted stores received a lot of news coverage in 2020, studies suggest that at least 96% of Black Lives Matter protests during the movement’s peak in May and June of 2020 were peaceful. Reports by TMJ4 found that 74.3% of the nearly 200 people who’d been placed on an intelligence list by police in Milwaukee county that year had never been charged with a misdemeanor or felony. Some reports, however, using data derived from insurance claims, estimate that as much as $2 billion in damage nationally occurred due to protests in 2020. 

Some residents of Kenosha – a city referenced by the bill’s authors – recall how months of non-violent protest in Kenosha after Floyd’s death were overshadowed by the unrest that  occurred in August 2020. The shooting of Jacob Blake by Kenosha officer Rusten Sheskey, which paralyzed Blake, led to days of protest and unrest, millions of dollars worth of property destruction, and ended when  then-17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot two people and wounded another, in what a jury later ruled was an act of self-defense. 

During committee hearings on May 7, Sortwell said that the bill seeks to punish not only people who commit vandalism but also “those people who put together the riot.”

Several groups have either lobbied or spoken out against the bill. The Wisconsin Civil Justice Council submitted written testimony opposing the bill on the behalf of “16 business associations working together on civil liability matters.” The council said that the bill would allow for civil compensation for emotional distress stemming from property destruction, noting that emotional damages are generally limited. AB-88 would also allow for any civil compensation to include attorneys’ fees, which would be another departure from current law, the council wrote. Others spoke against the bill in person on May 7, pointing to the bill’s broad language and the chilling effect it could have on political movements. 

“This bill is just a blatant attempt to stop people from protesting,” said McCray Jones. “This is a way to silence organizers from fighting for political change and threatening the status quo in power.” Organizers could potentially be sued for anything that happens at a protest, or even just for transporting someone to a protest that later turns into a riot, as defined under the bill. 

What counts as urging or promoting a riot is broad enough to include common protest chants, like “no justice, no peace,” McCray Jones said. “And if you have ambitious or politically motivated district attorneys…politically motivated prosecutors, the vagueness of this bill could be weaponized … free speech now gets criminally turned into inciting a riot.” 

McCray Jones added that he wonders what a police figure like former Milwaukee PD Chief Harold Breier — notorious for targeting and surveilling Black, brown and LGBTQ communities — would have been able to accomplish had such a law been at his disposal. 

As police departments develop their social media surveillance capabilities, it’s possible under the bill that making posts encouraging people to attend a protest could be seen as an attempt to “urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate” a riot under the bill. After the protests of 2020, some agencies that monitored protesters enacted new intelligence-gathering policies to help prevent broad, ideology-based surveillance.  

“I think that right now this moment gives us a very opportune chance to highlight the importance of protecting the privacy of protesters here in Wisconsin,” McCray Jones told Wisconsin Examiner. McCray Jones said he hopes debate about the bill  will become “a jumping off point to talk about not just data privacy for protesters, not just privacy from law enforcement for marginalized communities, but what does it look like to re-think our position on surveillance in the midst of this regime in D.C. that is blatantly ignoring due process, the rule of law, and civil rights.”