Wisconsin Senate Bill SB918

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/27/26
• Refer: 1/27/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to amend 977.03 (1), 977.05 (1) and 977.05 (2) of the statutes; Relating to: eliminating obsolete provisions regarding the term of a state public defender and the removal of the state public defender (suggested as remedial language by the State Public Defender).

Summary

SB 918 is a technical, remedial bill requested by the State Public Defender and introduced by the Law Revision Committee. It updates Wisconsin statutes governing the state public defender by removing outdated references tied to a specific officeholder and time period from 1980. The bill does not create a new program or change the core structure of the public defender system; instead, it cleans up statutory language so the law reflects current practice. Specifically, the bill amends provisions on the appointment and removal of the state public defender. It deletes obsolete language that referred to a special term of office for the public defender in office as of July 1, 1980, and removes an outdated removal procedure tied to that same historical exception. The remaining law continues to provide that the board appoints a state public defender for a five-year term, who serves until a successor is appointed, and that removal follows the current statutory procedures.

Impact

The bill makes minor but real changes to Wisconsin statutes in chapter 977 by revising sections 977.03(1), 977.05(1), and 977.05(2). Its practical effect is to eliminate obsolete statutory exceptions and clarify that the state public defender is governed by the current appointment and removal rules, without the historical carve-outs for a pre-1980 officeholder. The affected parties are the State Public Defender Board and the office of the state public defender; the bill has no direct impact on defendants or public defense services beyond statutory cleanup.

Sentiment

The available context suggests generally favorable, noncontroversial sentiment. The bill was presented as remedial legislation requested by the State Public Defender and reviewed by the Law Revision Committee, which concluded that the changes were desirable as a matter of public policy. There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials indicating opposition, and the bill’s purpose is framed as technical modernization rather than policy change.

Contention

There is little apparent contention in the bill itself because it is limited to removing obsolete statutory references. The only potential point of discussion is the characterization of the changes as “minor substantive” rather than purely technical, but the bill text and prefatory note both indicate that the changes are intended to be corrective and noncontroversial. No specific opposing viewpoints, affected interest groups, or recorded objections appear in the provided committee materials.