A referendum is a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision. In other words, a referendum means voting “yes” or “no” on a policy.
Referendums give voters a direct say in the way their government functions. But all too frequently, voters feel confused and misled by deceptive wording.
Wisconsin has three important referendums on the ballot this April. Questions 1 & 2 deal with law enforcement. Question 3 deals with welfare. Today’s article of Smart Voter is lengthy and examines the nuances of the proposals. For readers who prefer a short read, here’s a simplified overview:
Question 1: “Authorize the state legislature to define serious harm in relation to the conditions a judge imposes on an accused person released before conviction”
Question 2: “Authorize judges to impose cash bail on an accused person of a violent crime based on circumstances, like the need to protect the community from serious harm and the probability the accused will not appear in court”
Question 3: “Advises the state legislature to require able-bodied childless adults to look for work in order to receive tax-payer funded welfare benefits”
What would Question 1 do?
“Question 1 would amend Section 8(2) of Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution to authorize the state legislature to define serious harm when deciding the conditions under which an accused person can be released before conviction. Currently, the constitution states that an accused person may be released under certain conditions meant to "protect members of the community from serious bodily harm or prevent the intimidation of witnesses."”
Who supports and opposes Question 1?
“Question 1 was sponsored in the state legislature by State Sen. Van Wanggaard (R) and State Rep. Cindi Duchow (R). It has received endorsements from the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, Americans for Prosperity, and Wisconsin State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police.”
“The amendment is opposed by the ACLU of Wisconsin, the Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the Wisconsin Justice Initiative.”
Arguments for “Yes”
State Sen. Van Wanggaard (R): "First, it allows a judge to consider 'serious harm' to others instead of 'Serious Bodily Harm' when setting conditions of release. This is an important change, because 'Serious Bodily Harm' is a statutorily defined term, essentially meaning harm that could cause death or serious, permanent, disfigurement."
State Rep. Scott Allen (R): "There are too many crimes occurring by too many individuals awaiting trial with a lengthy (criminal record). We need to take away this shield from these soft-on-crime judges that are harming our communities."
Arguments for “No”
State Rep. Sue Conley (D): "There is also no question that the cash bail system is broken. However, we must invest in proven strategies to reduce violent crime and recidivism. Our justice system should not continue to favor those with the resources to post bail. We need to look at successful models that better assess risk and develop a long term, evidence-based solution to the problem."
What would Question 2 do?
“Question 2 would amend Section 8(2) of Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution to authorize judges to consider the following conditions when imposing and setting cash bail:
a previous conviction of a violent crime as defined by the legislature,
the probability the accused will not appear in court,
the need to protect the community from serious harm as defined by the state legislature,
the need to prevent witness intimidation, and
the potential affirmative defenses of the accused.[2]
Currently, the state constitution authorizes judges to consider whether "there is a reasonable basis to believe that the conditions are necessary to assure appearance in court" when they consider cash bail.”
Who supports and opposes Question 2?
“Question 2 was sponsored in the state legislature by State Sen. Van Wanggaard (R) and State Rep. Cindi Duchow (R). It has received endorsements from the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, Americans for Prosperity, and Wisconsin State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police.”
“The amendment is opposed by the ACLU of Wisconsin, the Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the Wisconsin Justice Initiative.”
Arguments for “Yes”
State Rep. Cindi Duchow (R): "We’re making a common sense change to give judges all the information they need when setting bail for a violent offender. Right now, in the state of Wisconsin, how you set bail is you look at what kind of monetary incentive you’re going to need to ensure their appearance in court, you don’t take into account the dangerousness to the community and you don’t take into account their past criminal convictions."
State Sen. Van Wanggaard (R): "The proposed amendment also broadens the factors that a judge can consider when setting a monetary condition for release, or cash bail for violent crimes. As I said earlier, Wisconsin is the only state that only allows judges to consider a single factor when setting cash bail. Under our proposal, and for violent crimes only, judges will have the flexibility to determine bail based on the totality of circumstances."
Arguments for “No”
State Rep. Sue Conley (D): "There is also no question that the cash bail system is broken. However, we must invest in proven strategies to reduce violent crime and recidivism. Our justice system should not continue to favor those with the resources to post bail. We need to look at successful models that better assess risk and develop a long term, evidence-based solution to the problem."
ACLU of Wisconsin: "Wisconsin’s reliance on cash bail has perpetuated a two-tiered system of justice: one for the wealthy and one for everyone else. AJR1 and SJR 2 propose amendments to the Wisconsin Constitution that would undermine the safety and stability of people detained pretrial and their communities, exacerbate inequities in the state’s cash bail system, and raise significant concerns under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the excessive bail prohibition under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
What would Question 3 advise the state to do?
“The advisory question would ask voters if able-bodied childless adults should be required to look for work in order to receive welfare benefits. The question is not legally binding and would not enact a work requirement law for welfare benefits.[2]
Currently, state law requires able-bodied individuals without dependents to look for work in order to receive unemployment insurance. There is also a work requirement for Wisconsin's food stamp program, Wisconsin Foodshare, but the requirement has been waived since October 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic.”
Who supports and opposes Question 3?
“The question was introduced by Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R). Foundation for Government Accountability also supports the measure.”
“Senate Minority Leader Melissa Agard (D) spoke out in opposition to the question.”
Arguments for “Yes”
Sam Adolphsen, policy director of the Foundation for Government Accountability: "The workforce crisis in the Badger State has been driven largely by rapidly expanding welfare programs like food stamps, BadgerCare, and other cash benefits that, for three years, have been disconnected from work. Wisconsin has nearly a quarter million open jobs. Employers are desperate for workers, and voters will soon weigh in on whether they prefer able-bodied adults to be working for a paycheck or receiving a welfare check."
State Sen. Chris Kapenga (R): "We are confident the public supports this. We think this will put public pressure on the governor."
Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R): "It's so important to show the support of Wisconsin voters that if you're going to receive welfare benefits that you need to apply for work. Able-bodied adults should be working."
Arguments for “No”
Senate Minority Leader Melissa Agard (D): "Their resolution, simply put, attacks low-income people in the state of Wisconsin, and it's born out of a consideration to their base for the spring election. They're trying to gin up their voters, simply put."
The information in today’s article has been adapted from the information provided by Ballotpedia. For access to the complete encyclopedia, please click here.
Helpful Links
Register to Vote Online (Deadline: March 15)
Request an Absentee Ballot (Deadline: March 30)
Upcoming Election Day
Spring Election: April 4