In Madison, Wisconsin, a judge ruled on Monday that stricter cash bail measures approved by voters last year will remain in place despite procedural errors. This decision by Dane County Circuit Judge Rhonda Lanford came in response to a lawsuit brought by criminal justice advocates regarding two constitutional amendments. The lawsuit, viewed as an attempt to reverse election outcomes, was dismissed by state elections officials and the Legislature. The case raised concerns about whether the ballot questions were correctly sent to election officials and if submission deadlines were met. Lanford concluded that technical violations did not justify overturning the election results as the Legislature had substantially complied with the law.
The lawsuit was initiated by WISDOM, a faith-based statewide organization, and its affiliate EXPO Wisconsin, which advocates against mass incarceration and supports individuals with incarceration experience. Attorney Jeff Mandell, representing the groups, stated they were reviewing the ruling to determine their next steps. However, a spokesperson for the Wisconsin Elections Commission did not respond to inquiries.
One of the approved amendments enables judges to consider a defendant’s past convictions for violent crimes when determining bail for someone accused of a violent offense. The other amendment permits judges to factor in a defendant’s risk to public safety and criminal history when setting bail for pre-trial release. Additionally, voters supported an advisory referendum suggesting that able-bodied, childless welfare recipients should be obligated to seek employment.
Last year, the judge denied an attempt to prevent the vote on these questions in April 2023, stating that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate potential harm if the measures appeared on the ballot. According to state law, ballot questions must be submitted to the official responsible for ballot preparation at least 70 days before an election. Although the Legislature sent the measures to the Wisconsin Election Commission on Jan. 19, 2023, the commission did not forward them to county election officials until Jan. 26, 2023.
The plaintiffs argued that county election officials, not the state commission, were responsible for ballot preparation, suggesting that the Legislature had sent the questions to the wrong entity. Judge Lanford ruled that a potential two-day delay did not compromise the election’s integrity or the intent of the law. Moreover, she found no evidence of issues with the election commission’s certification processes, notice publication, or ballot printing and distribution related to the referenda.
The constitutional amendments received 67% and 68% approval, while 80% of voters supported the welfare resolution.
