Republican state lawmakers said Tuesday they would introduce a bill to force local law enforcement to verify the citizenship status of people in custody for a felony offense and to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if citizenship cannot be verified. Counties that do not comply would be at risk of losing state money.

Lawmakers said that Wisconsin needs to assist President Donald Trump and the federal government with its work deporting “illegal immigrants” from the United States. Since inauguration day, federal agents have arrested more than 8,000 people, including some people who had no criminal history.

State Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) said at a press conference that the legislation is meant to “keep communities safe” and that the message to sheriffs is “do not put your personal politics above the safety of the citizens who elected you.”

Under the bill, noncompliance by a sheriff would result in a 15% reduction in the county’s shared revenue payments from the state in the next year. Counties across Wisconsin rely on those payments to fund public safety, emergency medical services, transportation and other services. Sheriffs would have to certify compliance each year with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

The bill would also require sheriffs to comply with detainers and administrative warrants received from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for individuals held in the county jail for a criminal offense. Sheriffs would also need to seek reimbursement from the federal government for any costs incurred while holding people.

“We don’t want Wisconsin on the hook for this,” Bradley said.

The bill would also require sheriffs to keep a record of people who were verified as unlawfully residing in the U.S. and submit the information to the Legislature in a biannual report.

Lawmakers said that sheriffs would continue to have discretion over whether to report people who aren’t detained for a felony offense.

Bradley said that only “far left extremists in this country believe that someone here illegally that commits a felony should be allowed to stay.” He noted that the Laken Riley Act, which expands the mandatory detention requirements of immigrants charged and arrested on petty and other crimes, passed Congress with the help of 46 House and 12 Senate Democrats. He said the issue should be one with bipartisan support and called on his Democratic colleagues to sign on.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel first reported the legislation after obtaining a copy of the draft bill.

Similar legislation was enacted in North Carolina last year.

Democratic opposition

Gov. Tony Evers has already committed to vetoing the legislation should it make it to his desk.

In a statement released to the Journal Sentinel, Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback called the bill an “unserious proposal” that is “trying to micromanage local law enforcement decisions by threatening to gut state aid by 15% for our local communities — that’s a non-starter.”

“We shouldn’t be threatening law enforcement with deep budget cuts, we should be working together with local law enforcement to improve public safety, reduce crime, and keep dangerous drugs and violent criminals off of our streets,” Cudaback said.

Assembly Majority Leaders Tyler August (R-Walworth) said it’s “unbelievable” Evers would threaten a veto of the legislation.

“It’s unbelievably unfortunate, but not unexpected that the governor would threaten to veto a bill that he hasn’t even seen yet,” August said. “[It] seems to be his M.O. that he governs by veto.”

Currently, seven Wisconsin counties have agreements with ICE to hold in jail immigrants without legal status to reside in the U.S. At one point, that number was eight, but Lafayette County ended its participation in ICE’s 287(g) program.

August said lawmakers talked with county officials, including those in Waukesha, while drafting the bill.

“A lot of the sheriffs already do this by practice because they know that it’s what’s right for their communities,” August said.

Dane, Milwaukee counties considered noncooperative

In a cosponsorship memo, lawmakers point to a June 2024 ICE report that lists Dane and Milwaukee counties as “noncooperative institutions.”

Dane County until recently participated in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), in which it provided the names of immigrants lacking legal status to the federal government and in return were reimbursed for the costs of their incarceration.

Dane County Sheriff Kalvin Barrett recently ended the county’s participation in the program. He told Channel 3000 that it’s a “different time” and that the “the previous administration is completely different than our current administration, and we have to be able to continue to represent the values of our community.”

Milwaukee County Supervisors Caroline Gómez-Tom, Juan Miguel Martínez, Anne O’Connor, Steven Shea, Sky Z. Capriolo and Justin Bielinski denounced the legislation in a statement, calling it a “dangerous” proposal that would make sheriffs “a tool of the Trump administration’s bigoted obsession with scapegoating immigrants.”

The supervisors said that mandating that sheriffs honor ‘administrative warrants’ not approved by a judge would “bog down law enforcement with false alarms — preventing them from focusing on real public safety concerns like reckless driving, drug overdoses, and rising crime.”

They also warned that the bill could force Wisconsin residents to carry documents at all times to prove they have “the right to live in their homes, go to work and pick their children up from school,” and that “anyone detained by a Wisconsin sheriff who cannot immediately prove their legal status would be at risk of being handed over to federal authorities.”

A 2024 survey conducted by the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland in conjunction with the Brennan Center for Justice found that more than 9% of American citizens of voting age don’t have documents — including a passport, birth certificate, or naturalization papers — to serve as proof of citizenship readily available. The survey found that the lack of documentation could be for various reasons including documents being in the home of another family member or in a safety deposit box or that the documents have been lost, destroyed or stolen.

“The only thing this proposal accomplishes is to bankrupt Wisconsin law enforcement both morally and fiscally,” the supervisors said, adding that they encourage the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s office to “remain focused on actual public safety instead of enabling the worst policies of Trump extremists.”

ACLU of Wisconsin condemned the legislation, saying it “sends the wrong message.” The group noted that it could mean that any one who invokes their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent would have to be reported to ICE along with anyone who cooperates but fails to have access to the specific documents listed in the bill.

“It sends the message that local law enforcement should take on the additional tasks and risks of immigration status investigations,” Executive Director Melinda Brennan said in a statement. “It will encourage xenophobic sheriffs to investigate the status of not just persons accused of serious crimes but of anyone who enters their custody.”

Republican lawmakers accused Democrats of being extremist. Democratic lawmakers announced a proposal last week that would block state and local government officials from cooperating with federal deportation efforts without a judicial warrant. It would apply to detentions in a public building or facility, school, place of worship, place where child care services are provided, or place where medical or other health care services are provided.

August said Democrats’ proposal “basically would turn the entire state into a sanctuary state.”

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.

Wisconsin Republicans are proposing a constitutional amendment that would restrict the governor’s partial veto power on appropriation bills.

The lawmakers — Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha), Sens. Cory Tomczyck (R-Mosinee) and Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) — said in a statement that the partial veto power has been “abused” by governors to “twist legislation passed by elected representatives into something that is unrecognizable.”

“We need a permanent fix to this problem,” the lawmakers stated.

Wisconsin has one of the strongest partial veto powers for its executive in the country, but it has been limited several times across history.

The ability to exercise the “Vanna White” veto — eliminating single letters within words — was barred in 1990 by a constitutional amendment. Another constitutional amendment passed in 2008 eliminated the “Frankenstein veto” — the ability for governors to create new sentences by combining parts of two or more sentences.

In 2020, a decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled three of Evers’ partial vetoes unconstitutional, limiting the power further. There still is no consensus about the extent of the power.

Currently, the state Constitution says that the veto may “not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill, and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences.” This would be replaced, under the current proposal, to say the governor may “only reject one or more entire bill sections.”

Allen said during a press conference that the proposal would return the state to the “original intent” of the veto power. He pointed to a Legislative Reference Bureau report that states “there is no evidence that the partial veto power was originally intended to allow the governor to fashion new words or sentences or to embark on new policy directions not intended by the Legislature. The partial veto was intended to be a check on the Legislature, not a means for the governor to rewrite legislation.”

The attempt to limit the power comes after Evers used it last session to extend school funding increases for 400 years — a move that Republicans criticized as overstepping his power.

The Court has taken a case considering the veto. Republican lawmakers pointed to a comment by Justice Jill Karofsky during arguments, in which she said, “It does feel like the sky’s the limit, and perhaps today, we are at that fork in the road, and… we’re trying to think, like, should we today in 2024 start to look at this differently?”

Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback said in a statement about the proposal that “it says a lot about Republicans’ priorities that they are attempting to put yet another Republican-drafted and Republican-backed constitutional amendment on the ballot while they refuse to give the people of Wisconsin that same opportunity.”

Evers has criticized Republican lawmakers for repeatedly legislating by constitutional amendment and has proposed implementing a citizen ballot initiative in Wisconsin to allow voters to amend the law without input from lawmakers.

“Republicans’ message to the people of Wisconsin is clear: power for me but not for thee,” Cudaback said. “If Republican lawmakers are going to continue ignoring the will of the people and legislating by constitutional amendment, then they should approve Gov. Evers’ plan to give the people of Wisconsin the power to pass policies by a majority vote at the ballot box.”

When it comes to ongoing use of the amendment process, Allen said, “the Constitution gives us the power to amend. It specifically calls on the Legislature to amend the Constitution.”

When it comes to citizen-led initiatives, Allen noted that he lived in California for four years and said it can be “very intimidating” to receive information about ballot initiatives. He said that he thinks the current process of passing legislation “works quite well.”

“What we don’t want to do is we don’t want to discourage people from voting, so I think that the process is designed — in a democratic republic like we have — where citizens want to see law changes, they talk to their representatives,” Allen said.

As a constitutional amendment, the lawmakers’ proposal would need to pass the Legislature in two consecutive sessions before going to voters, who would decide whether to ratify it.

This is the second constitutional amendment lawmakers have proposed in recent years to curb the governor’s veto power. One passed the Legislature last session that intends to prevent the governor “from creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee” using the partial veto.

Allen said the new proposal encompasses the issue the tax-related proposal was seeking to address, but that lawmakers “may be interested” in putting both measures before voters.

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.

Several of the Wisconsin Supreme Court liberal justices appeared opposed to the enforcement of a 174-year old law when it comes to abortion during oral arguments Monday in a high-profile case meant to clarify law in the state.

Wisconsin abortion law has been unsettled since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, sending decisions about abortion legality back to states. Health care providers in Wisconsin immediately ceased providing abortion care due to the state’s 1849 law. Attorney General Josh Kaul and Democratic Gov. Tony Evers filed a lawsuit challenging the statute in June 2022, arguing that it had been superseded by other laws passed by the state, including a ban on abortions after 20 weeks enacted in 2015, and could not be enforced as applied to abortions.

Access ceased for 15 months until a Dane County judge ruled in December 2023 that the law applies to feticide, not abortion, allowing providers to resume services. Sheboygan District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a defendant in the case, appealed the decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and Kaul also wanted a review of the decision from the Court. Milwaukee County DA John T. Chisholm and Dane County DA Ismael Ozanne are also defendants in the case, but both oppose enforcing the law.

The pre-Civil War Wisconsin statute states that any person “other than the mother, who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child is guilty of a Class H felony” and that any person who “intentionally destroys the life of an unborn quick child” is guilty of a Class E felony. It specifies that “unborn child” is defined as “a human being from the time of conception until it is born alive. It includes no exceptions for rape or incest or specific medical complications. The only exception for the law is the life of a mother.

Urmanski’s attorney, Matthew Thome, defended the enforcement of the statute Monday morning, saying lawmakers never repealed it. Republican lawmakers have proposed updates to the 1849 law in the last two years, including a 14-week abortion ban, but the proposals have failed to become law.

“Policymakers have not repealed it. Indeed, they have expressly declined to do so at multiple opportunities and until they do, it can be enforced,” Thome said.

He argued that the question over whether Wisconsinites would be “better served” by a different law is not for the Court to decide.

Justice Jill Karofsky appeared immediately opposed to Thome’s proposed interpretation of the law.

“Just to be clear, a 12-year-old girl, who was sexually assaulted by her father, and as a result became pregnant under your interpretation [of the law], she would be forced to carry her pregnancy to term, correct?” Karofsky asked.

“Under the policy choice the Legislature made…, that would be correct,” Thome said.

“So in that case, a child would be forced to deliver a baby,” Karofsky said.

Karofsky pushed the point, asking about the consequences of a victim of sexual assault seeking an abortion under the law if it were enforceable.

“How about a woman who is a college freshman here at the University of Wisconsin-Madison? If she is sexually assaulted and it’s charged as a third degree sexual assault… that would be intercourse without consent. If she became pregnant, as a result of the sexual assault, it would be illegal for her to obtain an abortion?” Karofsky said.

“Correct, it would be illegal for a doctor to provide an abortion to her in the state of Wisconsin,” Thome said.

“If her assaulter is charged…, he would be facing a 10-year maximum imprisonment because that would be a Class G felony,” Karofsky said. “In that case, the penalty for aborting, after a sexual assault, would be more severe than the penalty for the sexual assault.”

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that since the Dobbs decision more than 64,000 pregnancies have been cause by rape in states with abortion bans.

“I fear what you are asking this Court to do is to sign the death warrants of women and children and pregnant people in this state because under your interpretation they could all be denied life-saving medical care while the medical professionals who are charged with taking care of them are forced to sit idly by,” Karofsky said. “This is the world gone mad.”

Justices also asked about the web of laws passed in the state, and appeared to disagree with Thome’s argument that the 1849 law completely negates them.

“We have statute after statute that you are somehow asking us to just absolutely ignore in your interpretation,” Justice Rebecca Dallet said. “We have a statute that talks about when an abortion can be performed and that’s after 20 weeks. We have a 24-hour waiting period. We have informed consent provisions. We have a ban on what they label to be partial birth abortion.”

Dallet asked Thome how he reconciles the 1849 statute with the later statute passed in 2015 that prohibits abortion after 20 weeks and the other laws related to abortion.

“I fit those things together… because that statute doesn’t say you can have an abortion,” Thome said.

Justice Brian Hagedorn appeared to agree that the 1849 law applies to abortion, and said later laws don’t negate it.

“It’s a matter of straight reasonable statutory interpretation,” Hagedorn said. “The law’s still there. It’s still there. The judiciary doesn’t get to edit laws. The judiciary doesn’t get to rewrite them. We didn’t delete it. We prevented its enforcement now, it’s still there.”

Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Hannah Jurss, who represented Kaul, argued that there was an “implied repeal” of the 1849 law, when lawmakers passed other statutes regulating abortion access in the state.

“The standard implied repeal rule is it’s the earlier law that falls and there’s nothing in the text of the Wisconsin statutes… that would say disregard all of that, and instead in the event of Roe being overturned go back to 940.04, and we know state Legislatures knew how to do this because… a number of states enacted trigger bans,” Jurss said. “Wisconsin did not.”

Kaul said at a press conference following the arguments that the Legislature should take up some of the other laws related to abortion access in the state, no matter the outcome of the lawsuit.

“There are now relatively narrow majorities for Republicans in the state Legislature,” Kaul said. The Assembly is now a 54-45 Republican majority, while the Senate is an 18-15 Republican majority. “It is very clear that Wisconsinites overwhelmingly support having safe access to abortion in the state. For those legislators in these districts that are very moderate, where those districts could go either way, I think we ought to ask those folks, do they support some common sense changes that will protect access to abortion care in Wisconsin.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has also agreed to hear a second lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin against Urmanski, which asks the Court to find that the state Constitution’s right to equal protection grants a right to receive an abortion and a doctor’s right to provide one.

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com. Follow Wisconsin Examiner on Facebook and X.

Republican State Sen. Rob Cowles announced on Thursday that he will vote for Vice President Kamala Harris over former President Donald Trump, saying Trump “has to be defeated.”

Cowles has represented parts of the Green Bay area for over 40 years in the state Legislature, starting with a stint in the Assembly from 1982 through 1986 before winning a special election for the state Senate in 1987. He decided to retire at the end of his current four-year term this year rather than run for reelection.

In an interview on the Civic Media show “Rational Revolution,” Cowles said about publicly announcing his decision that he “probably should’ve done this sooner,” but he was concerned about “blowback and public safety.”

“I’m going to be ready for that. I really think this is one of the most important things I’ve done and hopefully people will accept that and listen to me…,” Cowles said. “We have to make a change here and Trump has to be defeated and we have to protect the Constitution and the country will go on, even with some liberal things that Harris might do.”

Cowles said the 2020 election wasn’t stolen, there is no evidence it was stolen and Trump’s continued claims otherwise were a “check” against him. He said he believes Trump is a “totalitarian” and “very much a fascist.”

Cowles’ endorsement comes as Harris has been publicly trying to gain the support of Republicans and independents. She has campaigned with former Republican U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney in Wisconsin, saying people need to put “country over party.”

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com. Follow Wisconsin Examiner on Facebook and X.