Relating to: penalties for certain traffic violations where highway maintenance workers are present and providing a penalty.
By Senators Tomczyk, Ballweg, Marklein and Spreitzer; cosponsored by Representatives Penterman, Emerson, Nedweski, Armstrong, Gundrum, Moses, Novak, Rozar, Shankland, Subeck and Wittke.
Senate Bill 136
Relating to: modifying administrative rules related to supplemental aid for snowmobile trail maintenance and granting rule-making authority.
By Senators Cowles, Felzkowski, Ballweg, Quinn and Tomczyk; cosponsored by Representatives Callahan, Swearingen, Edming, Green, Magnafici, Mursau, Oldenburg, Rozar, Sapik, Schmidt, Tusler, Armstrong and Tittl.
Senate Bill 173
Relating to: providing additional information fields regarding occupation on death records.
By Joint Legislative Council
Senate Bill 175
Relating to: recommended training for persons who complete and sign medical certifications of death.
By Joint Legislative Council
Senate Bill 176
Relating to: requiring the Department of Health Services to establish and encourage best practices for coroners and medical examiners.
By Joint Legislative Council
Senate Bill 177
Relating to: fatality review teams and granting rule-making authority.
By Joint Legislative Council
Senate Bill 178
Relating to: requiring notification to the medical examiner or coroner of any death that occurs within 24 hours of presentment at or admission to certain facilities.
By Joint Legislative Council
Senate Bill 223
Relating to: designating and marking the Corporal Benjamin H. Neal Memorial Highway.
By Senators Spreitzer, Nass, Carpenter, Wanggaard and Taylor; cosponsored by Representatives Schutt, C. Anderson, Jacobson, Edming, Behnke, Cabrera, Conley, Donovan, Drake, Emerson, Joers, S. Johnson, Penterman, Ratcliff, Shankland, Sinicki, Spiros, Subeck, Wichgers and Ortiz-Velez.
Senate Bill 271
Relating to: a commercial driver training grant program and making an appropriation.
By Senators Wimberger and Cabral-Guevara; cosponsored by Representatives Pronschinske, Binsfeld, Brandtjen, Callahan, Edming, Green, Magnafici, Mursau, O'Connor, Oldenburg, Petryk, Summerfield and VanderMeer.
Senate Bill 303
Relating to: defining critical mapping data for school safety plans.
By Senators Wanggaard, James, Ballweg, Cowles, Nass and Spreitzer; cosponsored by Representatives Schutt, Allen, Binsfeld, Dittrich, Duchow, Green, Gundrum, S. Johnson, Nedweski, Michalski, Murphy, O'Connor, Rettinger, Shankland, Schraa, Snyder and Spiros.
_____________
Executive Communications
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
Madison
December 6, 2023
To the Honorable Members of the Assembly:
The following bills, originating in the Assembly, have been approved, signed and deposited in the office of the Secretary of State:
Bill Number Act Number Date Approved
Respectfully submitted,
TONY EVERS
Governor
_____________
Pursuant to s. 35.095 (1)(b), Wisconsin Statutes, the following 2023 Acts have been published: Act Number Bill Number Publication Date
hist180764Wisconsin Act 42 Assembly Bill 133 December 7, 2023 hist180768Wisconsin Act 52 Assembly Bill 335 December 7, 2023 hist180771Wisconsin Act 58 Assembly Bill 36 December 7, 2023 hist180773Wisconsin Act 59 Assembly Bill 49 December 7, 2023 hist180775Wisconsin Act 60 Assembly Bill 109 December 7, 2023 hist180777Wisconsin Act 61 Assembly Bill 166 December 7, 2023 hist180779Wisconsin Act 86 Assembly Bill 394 December 7, 2023 _____________
Governor's Veto Message
December 6, 2023
To the Honorable Members of the Assembly:
The following bills, originating in the Assembly, have been vetoed in their entirety, and were returned to their house of origin, together with the objections in writing:
Bill Number Date of Veto
I am vetoing Assembly Bill 57 in its entirety.
This bill would require that prosecutors get judicial approval prior to dismissing or amending charges for certain covered crimes, which would be defined by the bill. Under the bill, the court may only approve the prosecutor's application to dismiss or amend a charge involving a covered crime if it finds certain criteria are met. Annually, if a court approves such an application, it must submit a report to the Legislature detailing each application and how the approval is consistent with the criteria. This bill would also prohibit a prosecutor from placing a person in a deferred prosecution program if there is a complaint or information filed that alleges that they committed a covered crime or if the person is charged with a covered crime.
I have heard from victim witness professionals, district attorneys, and the defense bar about the negative ramifications of this bill and I am vetoing it for several reasons. First, I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to restricting the discretion of prosecutors and judges to address pending charges and, further, subjecting prosecutorial discretion to judicial review. As the U.S. Supreme Court has observed, the concept of prosecutorial discretion rests on the recognition that the strength of the case, deterrence, enforcement priorities, and the allocation of finite resources, among others, are factors rendering prosecutorial decisions ill-suited for judicial review.
I am also vetoing this bill because I object to restricting the availability of evidence-based deferred prosecution agreements that have been shown to have better outcomes and be more cost-effective than traditional incarceration. Further, I am equally concerned about the implications this legislation would have on crime victims and survivors across our state. By way of example, as was pointed out to me by several District Attorneys in requesting I veto this bill, prohibiting deferred prosecution agreements in certain sexual assault cases “would result in prosecutor becoming much more selective on charging sexual assault cases, and thus more victims of serious crimes receiving no level of justice.” Similarly, the Wisconsin Victim Witness Professionals also identified restricting the availability of deferred prosecution agreements as having a “negative impact” on “crime victims and communities we serve.”
For these reasons, I must veto this bill. I welcome the Legislature to seriously and meaningfully consider supporting evidence-based solutions that respect and protect victims and survivors, reduce recidivism and improve community safety, bolster our justice system workforce, and ensure our communities have the resources they need to invest in public safety services across our state.
I am vetoing Assembly Bill 146 in its entirety.
This bill would prohibit political subdivisions from expending moneys of the political subdivision for guaranteed income programs, which the bill defines as programs that provide unearned regular periodic cash payments that may be used for any purpose.
I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to the Legislature’s continued efforts to arbitrarily restrict and preempt local government partners across our state. The Legislature should focus its efforts and energy on supporting our local partners and building upon our bipartisan work this session to ensure our local communities have the resources they need to meet basic and unique needs alike. I trust our local partners to know best how to meet local needs, and the state should be a partner in—not an obstacle to—the work of our local partners to address their unique challenges and meet those needs, whatever they may be.
I am vetoing Assembly Bill 396 in its entirety.
