Republican legislators introduce bill to move lawsuits out of Dane County
A pair of Republican legislators have introduced a proposal that would allow the parties in lawsuits against state officials filed in Wisconsin's largest, and most Democratic, counties to have the venue changed to another county court. Critics of the proposal say it amounts to an attempt to gerrymander the court system.
The legislation from Rep. David Steffen (R-Howard) and Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) is currently circulating for co-sponsorship. Under the 'Court Fairness Bill,' if a lawsuit against certain government officials is filed in a county with a first or second class city — the designation given to cities with more than 39,500 residents — any party to the lawsuit can request a venue change to a different circuit court. The second court would be chosen randomly and no further venue changes would be allowed.
Steffen told the Wisconsin Examiner that the bill was designed to allow Republicans to move lawsuits out of Dane County court because they believe they don't 'get a fair shake' when arguing in front of judges elected by the state's most Democratic voting county. Current law doesn't require lawsuits against the state government to be filed in Madison, but because most state government offices are in the capital city, many of those lawsuits are heard in the Dane County Circuit Court.
'If you are a liberal entity or individual, you increase your chance of success substantially by filing that case in the Dane County Circuit,' Steffen said. 'That type of judge shopping should not only be discouraged but prevented when possible, and so I don't believe that that is the way our Founding Fathers, both at the national or state level, envisioned courts to work where individuals or organizations are making decisions where they file based on the chance of it being a more favorable outcome.'
Steffen added that he thinks the number of lawsuits filed against state government would decrease if people thought they might be heard by judges outside of Dane County.
'So by providing an option for either party to request a random selection to another circuit, we increase the public's perception and support of the decision that is made, and we decrease the number of frivolous and politically motivated lawsuits and decisions,' he said.
Current law already allows parties to a lawsuit to change the venue at the appellate level. Wisconsin is divided into four appeals court districts. If a case is heard at the circuit court level in Dane County, its appeal would generally be heard in the District IV Court of Appeals, which covers 24 counties across most of southwestern and central Wisconsin. In 2011, Republicans enacted a law that allows a party in a lawsuit to request that an appeal be heard in a different district.
Jeff Mandell, general counsel of the voting rights focused firm Law Forward, told the Examiner the proposal is an attempt to disenfranchise voters in cities that Republicans don't like because of the people they elect to be judges.
'It's a further attempt to gerrymander the courts,' he said. 'The gerrymandered Legislature has already gerrymandered the appellate courts and now it's trying to gerrymander the circuit courts. It is anti-democratic. It is anti-rule of law, it is inappropriate, it is inefficient, and there's no good reason for it, and here, fascinatingly, they only want it to apply to lawsuits that are filed in counties that have cities of the first or second class. So they're really just targeting counties that have larger populations or that they don't like. It's a very weird thing.'
While the proposal would allow venue changes in Milwaukee County and more than a dozen counties with second class cities, Steffen said it's targeted at Dane County because he believes Republicans lose 90-95% of their cases there.
'There is no place other than downtown Madison that has a 91% concentration of a party,' he said.
Mandell said Steffen is exaggerating how poorly conservative causes do in Dane County court and there's no requirement right now that lawsuits against the state be filed there. Wisconsin's judges are elected for a reason, Mandell said, and this bill would nullify the choices of hundreds of thousands of Dane County voters.
'We have elected judges in Wisconsin, and one of the theories is that we do that because our judges are responsive to and come from the community,' he said. 'So if I have an issue with the way that a local election official, or any other local official is doing something in my local area, part of the reason to bring the suit where I live is because the judge knows and understands the conditions of my local area. To then send it someplace completely different is truly bizarre.'
He added that if someone were trying to sue their member of Congress, the proposal would allow that suit to get moved to another side of the state where there is less knowledge about that representative and the community that elected them.
'You are looking to the court to give you relief, but you are probably also looking for other people who are constituents of your member of Congress to know about this and be able to follow the case,' he said. 'But now the venue is going to be randomly reassigned, and it could be assigned well outside of the congressional district. The judge is no longer a constituent or doesn't know as much about the member of Congress and the local media no longer has the same kind of access. The whole thing is just really, really bizarre.'
Experts also say there are a number of logistical concerns with the proposal.
Bree Grossi Wilde, executive director of UW-Madison's State Democracy Research Initiative, said because of Wisconsin's political geography, the proposal wouldn't make things even. Moving a case out of Dane County doesn't give a 50-50 shot at landing that case in a conservative or liberal county because a higher number of Wisconsin's 72 counties lean conservative.
'If the concern is to try to level the playing field and have a more diverse kind of set of circuit court judges deciding these important cases that are brought against state or federal officials, or whatever it might be, then actually, it's going to swing in the opposite direction,' she said. 'It's not going to be more level. It's going to be likely more conservative judges deciding these cases.'
She added that a similar bill authored by Republicans in Kentucky was struck down by that state's Supreme Court. Steffen said he's not concerned about that happening here if the bill were passed — though it's unlikely it would be signed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.
Plus, Grossi Wilde said, because Dane County has been the venue for many of these cases for so long, there's a level of expertise and institutional knowledge in cases involving complex areas of state law such as elections.
'Sometimes it's more about expertise … these are judges that are familiar with these claims and are able to sort of manage them more efficiently,' she said, adding that 'Dane County Circuit Court has built up that bench, has built up this sort of expertise, because they're used to managing these type of cases.'
Sending cases out around the state to judges who deal with many issues and are not particularly familiar with certain areas of the law — 'whether it be … civil, criminal, family, juvenile, probate … [or] complicated or constitutional claims' could burden courts and cause them not to work as well, she said.
Steffen said he hadn't nailed down the details of how the new venue would be randomly selected, but suggested drawing cards or names out of a hat.
But Mandell questioned what would happen if a case was filed in Milwaukee County and the name drawn out of the hat was far-away Bayfield County.
'It's highly inefficient,' he said. 'I mean … every time the court wants to hold a hearing, everybody might have to, you know, schlep all the way to Bayfield. For what purpose?'
The deadline for lawmakers to sign on to the bill as co-sponsors is Feb. 18.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
a few seconds ago
Texas GOP State Rep. Tepper weighs in on redistricting fight
Republican State Representative Carl Tepper joined ABC News Live to talk about the ongoing showdown between Texas state lawmakers over congressional redistricting.
USA Today
a few seconds ago
- USA Today
Byron Black executed for triple murder despite concerns of disabilities, heart device
The execution came after Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee declined requests, including from some Republicans, to intervene because of the inmate's intellectual disabilities and heart device. Tennessee has executed a man for the 1988 murder of his girlfriend and her two young daughters despite arguments he suffered from intellectual disabilities and concerns his heart device would shock him back to life during the lethal injection. The state executed Byron Black on Tuesday, Aug. 5, after Gov. Bill Lee declined requests from attorneys, advocacy groups and even some Republicans to intervene. He was pronounced dead at 10:43 a.m. CT. "This is hurting so bad," Black said during the execution, according to news media witnesses who saw him die. On March 28, 1988, Angela Clay and her eldest daughter, 9-year-old Latoya, were found shot dead in bed. Clay's other daughter, 6-year-old Lakeisha, was found dead on the floor in another bedroom with multiple gunshot wounds. Black became the 28th inmate executed in the U.S. this year, a 10-year high, with at least nine more executions scheduled. He's the second inmate to be put to death in Tennessee this year after a five-year break in executions in the state. Black's case stands out for two reasons. What his legal team said was an "undisputed intellectual disability" had many calling for a reprieve, including some Republicans. And his attorneys raised serious questions about whether Black's implanted heart device would cause "a prolonged and torturous execution" in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told USA TODAY in a statement that expert testimony "refutes the suggestion that Black would suffer severe pain if executed" and that the state was seeking "to hold Black accountable for his horrific crimes." Here's what you need to know about the execution, the crime and the issues surrounding the case. What was Byron Black convicted of? Black was convicted of fatally shooting his girlfriend, Angela Clay, and her two daughters: 9-year-old Latoya and 6-year-old Lakeisha. They were murdered on March 27, 1988. At the time, Black had been on work release from prison for shooting Clay's estranged husband and her daughters' father, Bennie Clay, in 1986. Prosecutors told jurors at trial that Black killed Angela Clay because he was jealous of her ongoing relationship with her ex. Investigators believe that Angela Clay and Latoya were shot as they slept, while Lakeisha appeared to have tried to escape after being wounded in the chest and pelvis. Bennie Clay previously told The Tennessean, part of the USA TODAY Network, he believes Black killed the girls to spite him. "My kids, they were babies," he told the newspaper. "They were smart, they were gonna be something. They never got the chance." More recently, he told The Tennessean he planned to attend the execution, though he said he has forgiven Black. 'God has a plan for everything,' he told the newspaper. 'He had a plan when he took my girls. He needed them more than I did, I guess.' Judge ordered Byron Black's heart device removed before execution On July 22, a judge ordered that a heart device implanted in Black needed to be removed at a hospital the morning of his execution, a development that appeared to complicate matters as a Nashville hospital declined to participate. But the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the judge's order, and the U.S. Supreme Court backed that up, clearing the way for Black to be executed despite the heart device. His attorneys argued that the device, designed to revive the heart, could lead to "a prolonged and torturous execution." "It's horrifying to think about this frail old man being shocked over and over as the device attempts to restore his heart's rhythm even as the State works to kill him," Henry said in a statement. The state argued that Black's heart device would not cause him pain. Robin, Maher, executive director of the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center, told USA TODAY that an inmate being executed with a defibrillator implant was "a completely unprecedented issue." But, she added, "one I fear we will see again as states move toward executing aging prisoners on death row." A reporter for The Tennessean was among the witnesses to the execution and USA TODAY will update this story with her observations. Tennessee governor declined to intervene With their arguments over Black's heart device at the end of the legal road, his attorneys re-focused their attention on his intellectual disabilities during his final days and hours, calling on Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee to stop the execution and prevent "a grotesque spectacle." Citing Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and exposure to toxic lead, Black's attorneys said mental impairments meant that he always had to live with and rely on family. More recently on death row, his attorneys said that other inmates had to "do his everyday tasks for him, including cleaning his cell, doing his laundry, and microwaving his food." "If ever a case called for the Governor to grant clemency or, at the very least, a reprieve, it is this one," Henry said in a statement. The director of Tennessee Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty said that she supports accountability for people who commit heinous crimes, but "the law is clear that we do not execute people with intellectual disability." "Governor Lee can insist on accountability while ensuring that the law is also followed. A situation such as this is exactly why governors have clemency power," Jasmine Woodson said in a statement. "Mr. Black has spent over three decades in prison for this crime and will never be released. As a conservative, I believe that he should remain behind bars, but he should not be executed." Lee's office did not respond to repeated requests for comment from USA TODAY. In his statement to USA TODAY, Attorney General Skrmetti pushed back at findings that Black was intellectually disabled and said that "over the decades, courts have uniformly denied Black's eleven distinct attempts to overturn his murder convictions and death sentence." Angela Clay's family long sought justice Earlier this year, Angela Clay's sister, Linette Bell, told The Tennessean she and her family were frustrated with years of delays, court hearings, and uncertainty: "He needs to pay for what he did." Angela Clay's mother, Marie Bell, told The Tennessean she had been waiting far too long. "I'm 88 years old and I just want to see it before I leave this Earth," she said. Outside the prison ahead of the execution on Tuesday, Angela Clay's niece, Nicoule Davis, told The Tennessean "it's time for a celebration." "It's time for a celebration," Davis said. "We've been waiting for years and years." Family members, some of whom witnessed the execution, were expected to address reporters afterward, and this story will be updated with their comments. What was Byron Black's last meal? Black's last meal was pizza with mushrooms and sausage, donuts, and butter pecan ice cream. Byron Black's execution is second in the state this year Black is the second inmate to be executed in Tennessee this year following a five-year break in the death penalty in the state. The break followed an independent review that found the Tennessee Department of Corrections was not consistently testing execution drugs for potency and purity. Nationwide, nine more executions are scheduled for this year, with more expected to be carried out as governors sign more death warrants. The next execution is Kayle Barrington Bates in Florida on Aug. 19 for the 1982 stabbing death of a 24-year-old woman named Janet White, who was kidnapped from her office and taken to the woods before Bates beat her, tried to rape her and ultimately killed her. Contributing: Kelly Puente, The Tennessean Amanda Lee Myers is a senior crime reporter for USA TODAY. Follow her on X at @amandaleeusat.
Associated Press
a few seconds ago
- Associated Press
The Trump administration dismisses most on a federal board overseeing Puerto Rico's finances
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — The Trump administration has dismissed five out of seven members on Puerto Rico's federal control board that oversees the U.S. territory's finances, sparking concern about the future of the island's fragile economy. The five fired are all Democrats. A White House official told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the board 'has been run inefficiently and ineffectively by its governing members for far too long and it's time to restore common sense leadership.' Those fired are board chairman Arthur Gonzalez, along with Cameron McKenzie, Betty Rosa, Juan Sabater and Luis Ubiñas. The board's two remaining members — Andrew G. Biggs and John E. Nixon — are Republicans. Sylvette Santiago, a spokesperson for the board, said none of those fired had received notifications ahead of their dismissal. The board was created in 2016 under the Obama administration, a year after Puerto Rico's government declared it was unable to pay its more than $70 billion public debt load and later filed for the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. In remarks to the AP, the White House official claimed the board had operated ineffectively and in secret and said it 'shelled out huge sums to law, consulting and lobbying firms.' The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the subject, also accused the board's staff of receiving 'exorbitant salaries.' The board spokesperson did not return a message seeking additional comment. Puerto Rico is struggling to restructure more than $9 billion in debt held by the state's Electric Power Authority, with officials holding bitter mediations with creditors demanding full payment. It's the only Puerto Rico government debt pending a restructuring, with the White House official accusing the board of preferring to 'extend the bankruptcy.' In February, the board's executive director, Robert Mujica Jr., said it was 'impossible' for Puerto Rico to pay the $8.5 billion that bondholders are demanding. He instead unveiled a new fiscal plan that proposed a $2.6 billion payment for creditors. The plan does not call for any rate increases for an island that has one of the highest power bills in any U.S. jurisdiction as chronic power outages persist, given the grid's weak infrastructure. Alvin Velázquez, a bankruptcy law professor at Indiana University, said he worries the dismissal of the board members could spark another crisis in Puerto Rico. 'This is really about getting a deal out of (the power company) that is not sustainable for the rate payers of Puerto Rico,' he said. Velázquez, former chair for the unsecured creditors committee during the bankruptcy proceedings, also questioned if the dismissals are legal, since board members can only be removed for just cause. 'What's the cause?' he said. 'What you're going to see is another instance in which the Trump administration is taking on and testing the courts.' The dismissals were first reported by the Breitbart News Network, a conservative news site.
