Question 1 - Statewide Referendum

Arguments

"Wisconsin victims deserve better than Marsy’s law. Forcing voters to choose between empathy for victims and protections for the accused is a false choice. We do not have to take away defendants’ rights or cause mass confusion in our justice system in order to protect victims’ rights. We can and should protect victims and defendants – both. The alternative is to jeopardize the integrity and fundamental fairness of our judicial system. On April 7th, Wisconsin voters should vote “no” on this misguided and harmful amendment.", in opposition to Question 1 (Learn more)

"In reality the proposal, called "Marsy's Law," would push the criminal justice system so far to the prosecution's side that it would violate the U.S. Constitution, interfere with law enforcement's ability to provide information that members of the public need to better protect their safety, and be costly to local taxpayers to implement.", in opposition to Question 1 (Learn more)

"In testimony submitted to a joint legislative hearing on the proposal in January, the ACLU said: 'Marsy’s Law was promoted and funded by an out-of-state organization and is not tailored to Wisconsin. Its negative effects will likely be felt by prosecutors, defense attorneys, defendants, and even victims. Other states that have amended their constitutions with similar provisions have had significant operational issues which have created unintended consequences. Issues have included increased costs, delays in court proceedings, conflicts with open records laws, court scheduling conflicts, litigation related to conflicts with U.S. Constitutional provisions, definitions of victims that have been expanded to include retailers such as Walmart, and litigation from victims for unequal application or violations of the new constitutional provisions.'", in opposition to Question 1 (Learn more)

"While considerate treatment of victims is important, and it can make sense to take steps to assure them (e.g.) better notice of proceedings and return of their lost property, it is dangerous to let the conduct and timing of criminal process itself depend too much on their wishes. Interests of evenhanded justice counsel against letting patterns of conviction and punishment depend too much on whether the complainant in any particular case is angry, energetic, articulate, or for that matter present at all. The function of criminal prosecution cannot be to validate the victim’s suffering. It must instead be to ascertain the truth as best as possible and impartially carry out the legal consequences on the guilty. In short, there are very good reasons why the Framers included in the Constitution and Bill of Rights many protections for criminal defendants, but relatively few for victims. We forget that wisdom at our peril.", in opposition to Question 1 (Learn more)

"Not only does Marsy’s Law endanger innocence, it might even backfire and protect the guilty. A prosecutor is constitutionally required to disclose any exculpatory evidence under the law established in the Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland. If a prosecutor is prevented from making those disclosures, any conviction secured against a defendant runs a high risk of being overturned. That means a victim who is exercising her rights under Marsy’s Law may pave the way for a successful appeal for someone who is guilty.", in opposition to Question 1 (Learn more)

"Marsy’s Law proponents argue that their legislation deserves constitutional protection because statutory rights are often not enforced. This is debatable, but constitutional rights are no more self-enforcing than statutory rights. Moreover, enshrining vague and ambiguous language open to multiple interpretations in state constitutions isn’t the solution. The remedy is ensuring that lawmakers and state governments enforce the victims’ rights laws already in force and appropriate enough money to do so.", in opposition to Question 1 (Learn more)

"Sturtevant Chief Sean M. Marschke, Past President of the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, said: 'In my 25 years of law enforcement, I understand the horrific effects criminals leave on their victims. I believe as a state we need to work together to hold these criminals accountable and help give our victims a voice while they seek justice. I fully support Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin and urge you to support it with your vote on April 7th.'", in support of Question 1 (Learn more)

"Outagamie County District Attorney Melinda Tempelis said: 'I think it’s important that we pass Marsy’s Law so that we can help support victims of crime in our communities and give them a voice. A yes vote on April 7 affords victims the opportunity to participate in the criminal justice system, have their voice be heard, and elevate their rights to a constitutional level so that their input can be valued, appreciated, and enforced.'", in support of Question 1 (Learn more)

"I am proud the next step on my journey of survival is as a passionate advocate for Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin, a bipartisan proposal to amend the Wisconsin Constitution to grant equal rights to crime victims. This proposed crime victims’ constitutional amendment will appear on Wisconsin’s April ballot, and, if approved by Wisconsin voters, will strengthen the rights of Wisconsin crime victims. It will give crime victims a stronger voice in the criminal justice process that I believe will help survivors of all kinds of crimes recover from the trauma they’ve faced.", in support of Question 1 (Learn more)

"Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin follows a proud tradition in our state of protecting victims’ rights, unlike many other states. Wisconsin already has a constitutional amendment on victims’ rights that passed in 1993, and was the first state in the nation to pass a Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights. The state also is recognized as having some of the strongest statutory rights for victims in the country. This means the changes we are proposing are about making sure victims’ rights are truly equal alongside the constitutional rights of the accused – nothing more, nothing less.", in support of Question 1 (Learn more)

“At [the Social Development Commission], our mission is to serve those in our community who are living in poverty and to empower people with the resources to move beyond poverty,” said George P. Hinton, CEO of SCD. “Throughout Milwaukee, and particularly in some of the city’s lowest income neighborhoods, vulnerable residents remain likely to be impacted by crime. At the same time, they have minimal access to resources to help them navigate the legal system. Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin will have a real impact on the communities that we serve. SDC is proud to endorse this effort to strengthen victims’ rights.”, in support of Question 1 (Learn more)

Measure Details