The Wisconsin Assembly has approved two proposed changes to the state constitution, which could proceed to voters in November. Additionally, lawmakers advanced a bill defining and criminalizing 'grooming' and another addressing judicial pay during suspension.
Proposed Constitutional Amendments
Anti-Discrimination and Preferential Treatment
One proposal seeks to prohibit governmental bodies from 'discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment' in public education or employment. This amendment passed the Assembly with only Republican support.
- Supporter Stance: Republicans stated the amendment would enhance fairness and enable individuals to seek legal recourse in state courts if they believe they have been wronged. Representative David Murphy, R-Hortonville, who authored the proposal, indicated it is part of an ongoing effort by legislative Republicans to modify or restrict Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices.
- Opponent Stance: Democrats argued the measure could hinder efforts to improve outcomes for individuals from marginalized backgrounds. Representative Margaret Arney, D-Wauwatosa, suggested that the concept of 'preferential treatment' might be used to target assistance for students of color.
Houses of Worship Protection
The second proposed amendment would prevent the government from closing houses of worship during emergency situations. This initiative stems from actions taken by Governor Tony Evers' administration in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, which included prohibiting gatherings exceeding 10 people.
- Supporter Stance: Supporters, including Representative Ron Tusler, R-Harrison, who co-authored the proposal, characterized it as a measure to uphold the separation of church and state, asserting that First Amendment religious freedoms should take precedence over emergency restrictions.
- Outcome: The proposal passed with the support of all Republicans and two Democrats, Representatives Sylvia Ortiz-Velez and Russell Goodwin, both D-Milwaukee.
- Path Forward: If both proposals pass the Senate this session, they would then require voter approval and could appear on statewide ballots as early as November. Constitutional amendments are not subject to a governor's veto.
Defining and Criminalizing Grooming
Lawmakers also advanced a bill to legally define 'grooming' and establish it as a felony offense.
- Author's Intent: Representative Amanda Nedweski, R-Pleasant Prairie, explained that the bill aims to criminalize "patterned and intentional conduct that predators use to entice a child for further abuse," specifically requiring intent for sexual contact with the victim.
- Penalties: The bill establishes felony charges for such behavior, with increased penalties if the convicted person holds a position of authority over the child, if the child has a disability, or if multiple children were targeted.
- Background: The issue gained public attention after reports in October indicated that the Department of Public Instruction had investigated numerous incidents of educators engaging students in inappropriate contact without parental disclosure.
- Outcome: The bill passed the Assembly with a vote of 93-6, with only Democrats voting against it, and now proceeds to the Senate.
Judicial Pay During Suspension
A separate bill approved by the Assembly proposes pausing a judge's salary when they are suspended by the state Supreme Court due to a criminal allegation.
- Context: This legislation directly responds to the case of Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan, who was suspended after leading a man through a side door of her courtroom to avoid federal immigration agents in April. Dugan was subsequently found guilty of felony obstruction and resigned, but continued to receive her salary for eight months while suspended.
- Supporter Rationale: Co-author Representative Shae Sortwell, R-Two Rivers, stated that if an accused judge is later found innocent, they would receive back pay.
- Opponent Argument: Representative Andrew Hysell, D-Sun Prairie, argued that the bill would not have saved taxpayer money in the Dugan case, as her suspension was based on the Wisconsin Supreme Court's authority rather than a specific statute. He characterized the bill as "an exercise in messaging."
- Next Step: This bill now heads to the Senate.