An Act to amend 304.078 (3) and 973.20 (10) (a) of the statutes; Relating to: restitution orders following a conviction for human trafficking and restoration of the right to vote to a person barred from voting as a result of a felony conviction. (FE)
Summary
AB87 makes two targeted changes to Wisconsin law. First, it revises the state’s felony disenfranchisement restoration rule so that a person’s right to vote is restored after completing the term of imprisonment or probation for the disqualifying offense and after paying all fines, costs, fees, surcharges, restitution, and any court-ordered community service tied to that offense. The bill also requires the responsible agency or jailer/elections commission to notify the person in writing when voting rights are restored.
Second, the bill amends the restitution statute for certain offenses, including human trafficking, to require immediate payment of restitution when the defendant violated the specified human trafficking-related provisions. For other cases, courts retain discretion to order restitution immediately, within a set period, or in installments, but the bill clarifies timing limits when the defendant is on probation, extended supervision, parole, or intensive sanctions.
Impact
The bill would affect Wisconsin statutes governing both criminal restitution and voting rights after felony conviction. It narrows judicial discretion in restitution timing for human trafficking-related offenses by requiring immediate payment, while leaving broader restitution procedures intact for other offenses. It also reinforces the existing framework for restoring voting rights by tying restoration to completion of sentence-related obligations and adding a written notice requirement, affecting convicted persons, courts, corrections officials, jailers, and election administrators.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had mixed but ultimately substantial legislative support, passing both chambers by majority votes. The Assembly approved it 53-44 and the Senate concurred 18-14, indicating meaningful partisan division rather than broad consensus. Despite legislative passage, the bill ultimately failed to override the governor’s objections, suggesting executive opposition to at least some part of the measure or to the bill as a whole.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on the voting-rights provision and the restitution mandate. Supporters would view the bill as clarifying when voting rights are restored and ensuring victims of human trafficking receive prompt restitution, while opponents may have objected to conditioning voting restoration on payment of all financial obligations, including restitution and fees, which can delay re-enfranchisement. The immediate-restitution requirement for human trafficking cases may also have raised concerns about judicial flexibility and the practical ability of defendants to pay.
Crossfiled
An Act to amend 304.078 (3) and 973.20 (10) (a) of the statutes; Relating to: restitution orders following a conviction for human trafficking and restoration of the right to vote to a person barred from voting as a result of a felony conviction. (FE)
Restitution orders following a conviction for human trafficking and restoration of the right to vote to a person barred from voting as a result of a felony conviction. (FE)