Gov. Tony Evers signs AB 257 into law Friday. The bill creates a credential and pathway for advanced practice registered nurses to practice independently. (Photo courtesy of Office of Gov. Evers)

As expected, Gov. Tony Evers signed legislation Friday that clears the way for nurses with advanced training to practice independently.

“Nurses play a critical role in our healthcare workforce, and I’m proud of our work to expand opportunities for nurses to not only grow their career but create a system that allows for more advanced practitioners here in Wisconsin,” Evers said in a statement released Friday announcing his plans to sign AB 257, the advanced practice registered nurses (APRN) legislation, now Wisconsin Act 17.

The bill creates a new license category and a professional pathway for nurses who qualify to practice independently.

Evers vetoed two other closely watched bills — one that would have carved out app-based drivers from protections under state employment laws and one that would require the state Department of Corrections to recommend sending back to prison people charged with a crime while they are on probation, parole or extended supervision.

Altogether the governor signed 16 of the 21 bills that the Legislature formally presented to him on Thursday and vetoed five.

Advanced practice nursing bill wins approval

The Wisconsin state nursing board will oversee the credentialing of advanced practice nurses, a group that includes certified nurse-midwives, certified registered nurse anesthetists, clinical nurse specialists and nurse practitioners.

Advocates said the measure will increase the availability of health care providers, particularly in parts of Wisconsin where doctors are scarce.

Evers vetoed previous versions of the bill in 2022 and 2024. Both times he expressed support for the concept but insisted nurses should meet tighter qualifications before they can practice on their own.

The bill he signed Friday adds those requirements — increasing the amount of supervision that an APRN must have under a physician to 3,840 hours before practicing independently; adding additional supervision requirements for certified registered nurse anesthetists who specialize in pain management; and including language to restrict the titles APRN practitioners use so patients aren’t confused about their credentials.

The Wisconsin Medical Society cited those issues in opposing APRN bills in previous legislative sessions, and with the 2025 revision shifted its stance to neutral.  

In floor votes in June, lawmakers from both parties stressed the bipartisan compromise reflected in the measure that was presented to Evers this week.

In his announcement, Evers thanked lawmakers for their work on the measure, including Republican state Sens. Patrick Testin and Rachael Cabral-Guevara, Republican state Rep. Tony Kurtz and Democratic state Rep. Lisa Subeck.

He also thanked “the many nursing and physician groups that we worked with to get this bipartisan bill across the finish line to help bring more folks into the healthcare profession and ensure that Wisconsinites get the high-quality care they need when they need it while setting our nurses up for success.”

Bill classifying gig drivers vetoed

Evers vetoed AB 269, legislation that would have blocked drivers from app-based rideshare and delivery businesses from being declared employees.  

The legislation would have automatically classified drivers for Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and similar businesses as independent contractors, bypassing current Wisconsin laws that differentiate independent contractors from direct employees. 

It would have categorically excluded app-based drivers from coverage under the state’s unemployment insurance, workers compensation and minimum wage laws. 

“I object to the bill’s definition of independent contractor status in the absence of any guaranteed benefit for workers,” Evers wrote in his veto message.

In a campaign pushed most prominently by DoorDash and other app-based businesses that enlist drivers, advocates focused  on the bill’s provisions that would permit — but not require — those businesses to establish portable benefits for drivers.

Evers acknowledged in his veto message that app-based drivers “are a growing segment of Wisconsin’s workforce.” But he said changing the state’s independent contractor definitions “demands substantive conversations among several parties,” with management and  workers both at the table. 

Evers wrote that while the bill was moving through the Legislature, his staff asked lawmakers and groups with an interest in the measure to allow time for “robust dialogue and engagement to reach consensus and compromise” over the legislation. 

“Unfortunately the Legislature declined to meaningfully provide that opportunity, choosing instead to send this bill to my desk anyway,” he wrote. “My veto today will allow time for these important conversations to occur so Wisconsin can find a path forward.”

The Wisconsin AFL-CIO praised the veto. “Legislation that makes the loss of important worker rights a certainty while holding out the possibility of flexible benefits if and when the employer chooses to provide them is a bad deal for workers,” President Stephanie Bloomingdale said. 

Bill pushing revocation for offenders rejected

Evers vetoed AB 85, legislation that would require the Department of Corrections to recommend automatically returning a person to prison who is charged with a crime while on extended supervision, parole or probation. Evers vetoed a similar bill in 2019.

Evers wrote in his veto message that the legislation was “an unfunded mandate” likely to cost the state more than $330 million in the first two years, according to the fiscal estimate, “and hundreds of millions in unknown, ongoing costs.” 

In addition, he wrote, it would likely require building more prison facilities and would be expected to impose new costs on local governments, while he blamed lawmakers for “significantly underfunding existing operations at the Department of Corrections in the most recent state budget.”

The bill “would move Wisconsin in the wrong direction on criminal justice reform without improving public safety,” Evers wrote. 

Instead, he urged lawmakers, “Wisconsin should be investing in data-driven, evidence-based programming that addresses barriers to reentry, enhances educational and vocational opportunities for individuals who will be released after completing their sentence, and provides treatment for mental health and substance use issues, which will help to reduce recidivism and save taxpayer money while improving public safety.”

In a message posted on Facebook the bill’s author, state Rep. Brent Jacobson (R Mosinee), criticized the veto. “It is unacceptable to give repeat criminals the opportunity to continue to put our families and neighbors at risk again and again without facing consequences,” he wrote.

The bill was opposed by criminal justice reform organizations, including the national prison reform group Dream.Org and Wisconsin-based Ex-incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO).

“This harmful bill would have led to more people being revoked from community supervision and incarcerated, making it harder to build safe and thriving communities in Wisconsin,” Dream.Org posted on Facebook. The organization credited campaigning by advocates and community groups with persuading Evers to veto the measure. 

Primary care medicine measure falls 

Evers vetoed SB 4, legislation that would specify that subscription-based direct primary medical care arrangements are not subject to the state’s insurance laws.

While the legislation had some bipartisan support in concept, it foundered at the governor’s desk on the issue of anti-discrimination language.

Evers listed in his veto message a number of provisions in the legislation that forbid primary care providers from refusing to treat patients. 

Nevertheless, he wrote that he objected to “the Legislature failing to provide sufficient protections for patients receiving care under direct primary care agreements from being discriminated against and potentially losing access to their healthcare.”

Evers did not specify what additional protections he believed the measure should include. “I previously raised similar concerns when I vetoed earlier iterations of this legislation five years ago — concerns the Legislature has declined to satisfactorily address in the bill that is now before me and despite having ample opportunity,” he wrote.

In 2020, when Evers vetoed the version of the legislation on his desk at the time, he wrote that he objected to an amendment in which lawmakers had removed language protecting patients from being refused treatment on the grounds of “genetics, national origin, gender identity, citizenship status, or whether the patient is LGBTQ.”

In his veto message Friday, Evers wrote, “Every Wisconsinite should be able to get the healthcare they need when and where they need it — and without fear of discrimination. I welcome the Legislature revisiting this legislation and the opportunity to enact a version of this bill that sufficiently addresses my concerns.”

The announcement issued by the governor’s office Friday includes a complete list of bills that the governor signed and vetoed, with links to the enacted measures and to Evers’ veto statements.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Waupun prison sits in the middle of a residential neighborhood (Photo | Wisconsin Examiner)

Most of those speaking at the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) online public hearing on community supervision – parole, probation and extended supervision – said the system is  too rigid. Instead of helping people successfully integrate back into society, they said, the system creates a tripwire of rules that can easily be broken and result in too many people being ordered back to prison when supervision is revoked.

The public hearing on July 8 took up proposed rules to amend the DOC’s Administrative Code because of a law passed in April 2014, Act 196, that directs the creation of a system of appropriate short-term sanctions for violation of conditions of supervision. The law sets out  eight criteria, including minimizing the impact on the offender’s employment and family, and offers rewards for those complying with conditions of supervision.

Of the 18 members of the public who spoke at the hearing, most addressed the need for implementing the spirit of the 2014 law to create a less burdensome system of community supervision and reduce the number of revocations that in 2023 represented over 30% of those entering prison and in 2024 reached nearly 60%. Update: DOC disputes the 60% figure, saying about half of those included in that number are people whose revocation was related to the commission of new crimes.

Several people who had been on community supervision or were still serving on supervision also spoke and asked that the DOC do more than just provide accountability and make the system less oppressive and also offer resources, such as help obtaining housing.

One of the first to speak was Tom Gilbert, an advocate for WISDOM, a statewide network working on reform of the prison and criminal justice systems and other social justice issues. Gilbert, whose son has twice had supervision revoked, has been pushing since 2019 for the DOC to implement Act 196.

“Act 196 is a good law passed with broad bipartisan support, and it calls for a cultural shift in how the Department of Corrections administers its supervision programs,” he said. 

“For many years, WISDOM has called on the department to implement the law and thereby provide a solid alternative to thousands of revocations each year,” he added. 

However, Gilbert said, when he read DOC’s proposed rules for implementing the law he was upset that the DOC only stated the eight criteria without creating or describing a system for “new and revised policies and practices.”

Gilbert accused the DOC of not wanting to fulfill the intent of the law.

“This cannot be an oversight. It is a conscious omission,” he said. “To me, it signals that the DOC is not committed to creating a system of short-term sanctions, that it is not serious about shifting the community corrections program from an operation that sabotages the successful reentry of people into their communities to an operation that is focused on healing individuals, families and communities by providing the treatments and supports needed to accomplish that goal.”

Gilbert challenged the DOC’s current protocol of calling 90 days of jail a short-term sanction because, he said, even 60, 30, 21, or 14 days in jail has a negative impact on employment and family.

He also challenged the DOC’s perspective that the rules revision would only impact those on community supervision, vendors and DOC staff.

 “The decisions you and your agents make every day regarding people under your supervision widely affect families, employers, health care providers, social service providers, schools — in  other words, whole communities and this whole state,” Gilbert said. “The proposed rules should be revised by adding back the language from Act 196 that explains its whole purpose — creating a system of short-term sanctions.”

Sean Wilson, senior director of organizing and partnership of Dream.Org, a national non-profit working on social justice issues, was also critical of the proposed rule for offering no description for short-term sanctions.

“There’s no real short-term sanctions framework,” Wilson said. “Instead of building a system that redirects people before they spiral back into incarceration, this proposal simply restates the existing law; meanwhile, revocations without new convictions in Wisconsin still account for 40% of our prison admissions.” (The rate rose from 40% early in 2024 to nearly 60% at the end of the year)

“Here in this state, there are no guardrails to prevent over-punishment,” Wilson added. “The proposal leaves full revocation on the table for things like substance abuse, missed check-ins, minor violations that are far too often treated as major. There’s no real focus on rehabilitation. There’s no clear investment in helping people reintegrate successfully, and no mention of support, supportive services, trauma-informed care, or reentry pathways.”

He said the rules are “vague about how sanctions will be applied, who will review them, and how racial disparities, which are deeply embedded in our system, will be addressed.”

He also raised concerns about private contractors offering supervision, creating a “financial incentive that undermines fairness and accountability.”

Carol Rubin, a former administrative judge, also encouraged the implementation of Act 196 and was also critical of the proposed rules not fleshing out the intent of the 2014 law.

“I want to express my dismay that DOC has delayed issuing formal rules for Act 196 for 11 years, despite being ordered to issue rules in 2014 by the Wisconsin Legislature,” she said. “In the meantime, thousands of individuals have been denied the benefit of a real, short-term sanction system with trained agents that could have stabilized their new lives in the community.”

Rubin said the DOC should provide examples of how short-term sanctions should be employed to minimize the impact on employment.

“For a low violation, consider imposing a short-term sanction that does not restrict the hours that a client could be available for employment, such as a verbal or written reprimand,” she said. “For a medium or high violation, consider a brief house arrest or weekend jail sanction of two days or less that will not interfere with the client’s current or future hours of employment; if appropriate, a weekend home arrest could be repeated.”

Liz Monroe noted that the DOC’s manual for Evidence Based Response to Violations (EBRV) has two mentions of using rewards, including stating that rewards are “more effective than only using sanctions” and that incentives and rewards are “helpful for compliance and positive behaviour and that there should be at least four rewards for every sanction.”

As a reward for compliance, she encouraged reducing the supervision time, such as 30 days of compliance resulting in 30 fewer days on supervision.

Barbie Jackson, vice president of MOSES, an affiliate of WISDOM, asked for a description that “clearly defines short-term sanctions to assure that they focus on helping people avoid harmful behaviors and fulfill societal obligations, minimize disruption of the impacted person’s employment, minimize the effect on the impacted person’s family and establish incentives and rewards for compliance and positive behavior.”

Jeremy Dings, who said he had been originally sentenced to five years in prison but ended up serving 12 because of two revocations, talked about how he was unable to help his family during a health crisis after he broke a rule and was revoked. He was allso not allowed to attend his mother’s funeral.

“People on supervision have families, too, just like all of you,” he said. “Revocation for rule violation ends the person’s employment and their ability to support their family and themselves.”

Marianne Oleson, operations director for Ex Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO), noted she had been on supervision for eight years and still had 18 more years to serve.

“I’ve rebuilt my life. Started over with nothing, and dedicated myself to helping others,” she said, “but despite everything I’ve done, I wake up every day with 18 more years of supervision ahead of me, not because I’ve reoffended, not because I’m a danger, but because the system has failed to evolve with science.”

She contended that recent research on community supervision says the ideal period is three to five years.

Oleson noted that her clients include many who have been revoked and sent back to prison for a technical rule violation. 

She said the present system often does not have the goal of rehabilitation but “surveillance disguised as support.”

“People on supervision are trying to live,” said Oleson. “We’re parenting, working, healing and giving back, but we live in fear that one misstep will erase years of progress. You have a chance to change that, to lead with justice instead of fear. Please rewrite this to reflect what the courts, the research and those of us directly impacted are telling you. Our futures matter. Please treat us like they do and we do.”

JenAnn Bauer of West Bend who had been in prison and on supervision said that “excessive supervision” creates challenges for rebuilding a life.

“Every job, every lease, every new agent and every step forward comes with extra scrutiny and extra risk,” she said. “I have done everything the system has asked of me. I pay taxes, I’ve reintegrated, I’ve contributed. These things don’t just affect the formerly incarcerated. They affect our families, our children and future generations. When a parent is stuck under financial pressure or the constant threat of being sent back for a technical violation, it creates instability that reaches far beyond one individual, it holds entire families hostage and in survival mode, and that affects the health, safety and future of whole communities and our entire state.”

Robert Thibault, vice president of Prison Action in Milwaukee, said he had been on supervision for 15 years and had experienced a “huge inconsistency” in how supervision was administered depending on the parole or probation officer (PO), adding the attitude of a PO over the interpretation of “arbitrary rules” could result in a revocation.

Meah Flowers of Madison talked of having family members going in and out of prison and the disruption that revocation causes. She encouraged implementing Act 196 to help families.

Eric Howland said there is an expectation that those coming into community supervision obtain employment, housing and a positive social network, but a 90- or 60-day jail sentence for a supervision violation negatively impacts those goals.

Why 11 years?

The DOC has not yet responded to questions from the Examiner on why it has taken 11 years to implement Act 196.  

Update: DOC spokesperson Beth Hardke responded to this story on Tuesday, July 15: “The idea that 60% of Wisconsin’s prison population is incarcerated for rules violations is simply untrue but it’s a common misinterpretation of the data.” She pointed to DOC’s prison admissions dashboard which shows 27.3% of people admitted to Wisconsin prisons over a one-year period are described as “revocation new sentence” while 32.5% described as “revocation only.” Taken together, those numbers represent about 60% of admissions. But, Hardke writes, about half of them were convicted of a new crime resulting in a new sentence, not for violating supervision rules. This story has been updated to include that response. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Alternatives to incarceration could drastically cut lock-up rate in Wisconsin. This week the Department of Corrections will finally take up a 2014 law that aimed to do just that. | Getty Images

The Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) will hold a public hearing this week on Act 196, legislation that received bipartisan support and was signed into law in April 2014 by then-Gov. Scott Walker. The law aimed to create sanctions for people who violate the conditions of their parole, probation and extended supervision as an alternative to revocation, which sends people back to prison sometimes for small infractions that violate the terms of their release. The hearing on implementing a new rule, 11 years after the law was signed, will finally take place on Tuesday, July 8 at 10 a.m.

The public can join the virtual hearing by going to a DOC link and selecting the “hearing information” section. The text of the rule is also available online at the same hearing link.  

Act 196 states the intent to “Develop a system of short-term sanctions for violations of conditions of parole, probation, extended supervision, and deferred prosecution agreement (an agreement not to prosecute pending the accused meeting requirements such as drug treatment).”

A sentence for a criminal violation, besides fines and fees, typically includes a period of incarceration and supervision outside incarceration via parole, probation, or extended supervision.

If a condition of supervision, such as the requirement to remain sober or stay away from minors, is not meant, the probation officer has the option of requesting a revocation hearing before an administrative judge that could result in the person serving a portion or the remainder of the “supervised” sentence behind bars.

Act 196 states “short-term sanctions” should include “examples of high, medium and low level sanctions and what factors to consider when determining which level of sanction to apply.”

The law is not  just punitive. Act 196 also says the DOC is to determine “how to reward offenders for compliance with conditions of parole, of probation, of extended supervision or of the agreement (such as deferred prosecution).”

The 2014 law also states the DOC should “minimize the impact on the offender’s employment” and also minimize “the impact on an offender’s family.”

The 2014 law would appear to meet the stated goals of the DOC and Gov. Tony Evers to lower the revocation rate for Wisconsin that has resulted in thousands returning each year to prison.

WISDOM, a statewide network working on reform of the prison and criminal legal systems and other social justice issues, is pleased the DOC is finally taking steps to implement the 2014 law into a rule.

“Adding more short-term community-based alternatives to revocation has the potential to significantly reduce the number of people sent to prison each year,” said Mark Rice, Transformational Justice Campaign Coordinator for WISDOM, a statewide network working to overhaul the criminal legal system and other unjust systems.

“Sending people back to prison for convictionless rule violations is fueling the overcrowding of Wisconsin’s prisons,” said Rice.

Tom Gilbert, a father whose son has been incarcerated and had supervision revoked and returned to prison, has led WISDOM’s efforts to get the DOC to implement Act  196.

“It is way past time for Wisconsin to transform its supervision program of people who have been released from their original sentence,” said Gilbert. “Revoking people back to prison for rule violations is counter-productive. Other states have moved to better methods of supervision and are closing prisons.”

But WISDOM officials also have concerns that DOC will use current practices of sanctions, such as 90-day jail confinements, that WISDOM say don’t meet the intent of ACT 196 to “minimize” the impact on employment and the family.

Wisdom officials are also concerned the DOC has not fleshed out how to implement ACT 196 by describing the actual “system of short-term sanctions.” The proposed rule to be considered at the July 8 hearing merely replicates language stated in Act 196 without specifying the actual short-term sanctions or the rewards for meeting the conditions of supervision.

“If the Department of Corrections truly implements both the letter and spirit of Act 196, we see the potential transformation of its community corrections programs to one that focuses on healing individuals and communities affected by crime,” said Gilbert.

Joining the public hearing

Members of the public who are not able to join the hearing online can use a call-in number for the meeting: (608) 571-2209, with conference code 930 614 929.

Persons making oral presentations at the meeting are also required to submit their comments in writing.

Written comments are also taken until August 8. Written comments can be mailed to DOC Administrative Rule Committee, Caitlin Washburn, Administrative Rules Coordinator, PO Box 7925, Madison, WI 53707-7925.

Written comments can also be sent via email to: DOCAdministrativeRulesCommittee@wisconsin.gov or can be submitted on  the DOC’s website: https://doc.legis.wisconsin.gov/code

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Update: This story was updated at 11:50 a.m. on Monday, July 7 to make requested edits to a quote by WISDOM’s Mark Rice.