By Melissa R. Collum

Courier Press

There are three referendums on the April 4 ballot. Two of the questions posed relate to broadening the criteria judges may use when setting cash bail. The third is a non-binding referendum on workfare requirements. 

It is important that voters not only understand the details of the referenda but also how a yes or no vote will change the shape of the Wisconsin constitution, workings of the government, and their lives. There are two types of measures that can appear on a Wisconsin ballot. The first, for elections and the second being legislatively referred constitutional amendments.  In order for a referendum to appear on the ballot, it must be brought forth by the Wisconsin Legislature. 

There are three types of questions that can be put to the citizens of Wisconsin: 1) to ratify a law extending the right of suffrage, 2) to ratify a law that has been passed contingent on voter approval, and 3) to seek voter opinion through an advisory referendum. 

What is a referendum?  A referendum is a general vote by the people on a single political question that has been ‘referred’ to them for a decision. Wisconsin uses three types of referenda: advisory, binding, and petition. According to the 2020 Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, an advisory referendum is when a legislative body places a proposed measure on the ballot to gauge the opinion of the electorate. The results of an advisory referendum are not binding, and governing bodies are not required to act in accordance with the majority opinion. 

By contrast, binding referendum are constitutional or statutory provisions, which mandate that certain proposed measures be submitted to the electorate for ratification in order to take effect. 

The term petition referendum has two possible meanings: it can refer to the referendum election that completes the ballot initiative process, or it can refer to the process by which citizens can force a referendum election on whether or not a law already passed by a legislative body will remain in effect.

On the April 4 ballot the first two questions are calling for a change in the Wisconsin Constitution (Referenda One and Two) and the third is an advisory referendum. 

Question One, paraphrased, asks if the Wisconsin Constitution should be amended “to allow a court to impose on an accused person being released before a conviction conditions that are designed to protect the community from serious harm.” Current law states that “proper considerations” for courts to consider when determining whether to release defendants include “the nature, number and gravity of the offenses” as well as “the defendant’s prior record of criminal convictions and delinquency adjudications, if any, the character, health, residence and reputation of the defendant, [and] the character and strength of the evidence which has been presented to the judge.” There is currently no definition of ‘serious harm’ in state law.

Question Two, paraphrased, asks if the constitution should be changed “to allow a court to impose cash bail on a person accused of a violent crime based on the totality of the circumstances” including the person’s previous convictions. Under current laws, cash bail may only be set to assure that the accused reappears in court. 

Many law enforcements groups, including the Wisconsin State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, have testified in favor of the proposal. Backers of the referendum state the changes will protect the public by allowing judges to comprehensively consider all circumstances related to the alleged crime. 

In an interview on Wisconsin Public Radio (WPR), Adam Plotkin, a lobbyist for the State Public Defender’s Office, states that these changes will actually make Wisconsinites less safe. He contends that expanding cash bail is a bad idea, since the system is often less about risk and more about who can and cannot afford to pay. The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin likewise opposes the amendments, saying they would perpetuate a “two-tiered system of justice” and may violate clauses in the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing due process and prohibiting excessive bail.

“This bail system and the changes that are on the ballot could affect thousands, tens of thousands of people in a given time period. The examples we hear about are horrific and horrible and tragic,” stated Adam Stevenson, University of Wisconsin law Professor on WPR. “What we don’t hear about are the hundreds and thousands of individuals who are currently out on bail, who do not commit criminal offenses, and yet they might be the ones who might be given higher bail.”

Question Three, an advisory referendum, asks: “Shall able-bodied, childless adults be required to look for work in order to receive taxpayer-funded welfare benefits?” It is important to note that many Wisconsinites are already subject to work requirements as a condition for certain taxpayer-funded benefits. A person who is receiving FoodShare benefits must register for work when applying for the benefit and provide proof of job searches. Additionally, persons receiving unemployment benefits must show proof they are searching for work a least four times per week.

According to the League of Women Voters, this question is misleading and vague. They contend that the voters do not know which ‘taxpayer funded welfare benefits’ are being refereed to and the referendum could be applied to any and all types of welfare. Nor is the term ‘able-bodied’ is defined. 

In a message to members from the Wisconsin Council of Churches, an ecumenical organization with participants from 21 Christian traditions, the Council stated, “The question not only fails to tell the voter which programs are meant, but misleads by lumping them all together and implying that there are currently no work requirements for any,” as referenced in the Wisconsin Examiner. 

Democrats have accused Republicans of placing the bail and welfare-related questions on the spring ballot as a way to drive up conservative turnout in the crucial April 4 Supreme Court race. 

For Republicans the potential political benefit is that the chosen referendum questions could appeal to voters who may otherwise be unlikely to cast ballots for the officially nonpartisan, sometimes low-key office of supreme court justice.