Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB85

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/28/25
• Refer: 2/28/25
• Report Pass: 3/11/25
• Refer: 3/11/25
• Engrossed: 3/13/25
• Refer: 3/14/25
• Enrolled: 6/20/25
• Vetoed: 8/11/25

Caption

An Act to amend 302.113 (8m) (a), 302.114 (8m) (a), 304.06 (3) and 973.10 (2) (intro.) of the statutes; Relating to: recommendation to revoke extended supervision, parole, or probation if a person is charged with a crime. (FE)

Summary

AB85 changes Wisconsin law governing revocation proceedings for people on extended supervision, parole, or probation. Under the bill, if a person on extended supervision, parole, or probation is charged with a crime, the Department of Corrections must recommend revocation of that person’s supervision status. The bill amends the statutes covering extended supervision, parole, and probation to make that recommendation mandatory when a new criminal charge is filed. The bill applies prospectively only to charges filed on or after its effective date. It does not itself automatically revoke supervision; rather, it requires the department to recommend revocation, after which the existing administrative hearing process would still determine whether supervision is actually revoked or continued.

Impact

AB85 affects the statutes governing correctional supervision in Wisconsin by tightening the response to new criminal charges for individuals on extended supervision, parole, or probation. It changes the Department of Corrections’ discretion in those cases by requiring a revocation recommendation whenever a covered person is charged with a crime, while leaving the hearing and final revocation procedures in place. The bill therefore increases the likelihood that revocation proceedings will be initiated after new charges, but it does not eliminate due process hearings or the authority of hearing examiners and the secretary to decide the final outcome.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had enough support to pass both chambers, with recorded floor votes in the Assembly and Senate showing majority approval. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote history suggests the measure was generally favored by lawmakers who wanted a stricter supervision response to new criminal charges. At the same time, the bill ultimately failed to become law after the governor’s objections, indicating executive opposition to the policy.

Contention

The main point of contention is the bill’s mandatory approach: it removes departmental discretion by requiring a revocation recommendation whenever a person on supervision is charged with a crime, even before guilt is established. Supporters likely viewed this as a public-safety and accountability measure, while opponents likely objected that a charge alone should not trigger a required revocation recommendation and that the change could sweep too broadly. The governor’s objections and the bill’s failure to override them suggest disagreement over whether the policy was too punitive or premature in tying revocation recommendations to mere charging decisions.