MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Stricter cash bail measures approved by voters last year will stand despite procedural flaws, a judge ruled Monday.

What You Need To Know

  • A Wisconsin judge says stricter cash bail measures that voters approved last year will stand despite procedural flaws

  • The decision Monday from Dane County Circuit Judge Rhonda Lanford came in a lawsuit filed by criminal justice advocates over two constitutional amendments

  • State elections officials and the Legislature say the lawsuit was a cynical attempt to undo election results

  • One amendment allows judges to consider past convictions for violent crimes when setting bail for someone accused of a violent crime. Another allows judges to consider a defendant’s risk to public safety, including their criminal history

The decision from Dane County Circuit Judge Rhonda Lanford came in a lawsuit filed by criminal justice advocates over two constitutional amendments. State elections officials and the Legislature said the lawsuit was a cynical attempt to undo election results.

The case revolved around whether the Legislature sent the ballot questions to the correct elections officials and whether deadlines for submission were met. Lanford ruled that technical violations did not warrant overturning the election results. She found that the Legislature still substantially complied with the law.

WISDOM, a faith-based statewide organizing group, and its affiliate, EXPO Wisconsin, which stands for Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing, brought the lawsuit. Both groups fight against mass incarceration and work with people who have spent time behind bars.

Jeff Mandell, attorney for the groups, said they were reviewing the ruling and deciding on next steps. A spokesperson for the Wisconsin Elections Commission did not return a message.

One amendment allows judges to consider past convictions for violent crimes when setting bail for someone accused of a violent crime. Another allows judges to consider a defendant’s risk to public safety, including their criminal history, when setting bail required to release someone before trial.

Voters also approved an advisory referendum, which is not enforceable, saying that able-bodied, childless welfare recipients should be required to look for work.

The judge last year rejected the effort to stop the April 2023 vote on the three questions. She ruled then that those bringing the lawsuit failed to prove they would suffer “irreparable harm” if the measures were not blocked from appearing on the ballot.

State law requires ballot questions to be “filed with the official or agency responsible for preparing the ballots” at least 70 days before the election. That made the deadline for the measures Jan. 25, 2023. The Legislature sent the measures to the Wisconsin Election Commission on Jan. 19, 2023, but the commission did not file the measures with county election officials until Jan. 26, 2023.

The groups suing argued that county election officials are responsible for preparing ballots, not the state commission, and therefore the Legislature filed the ballot questions in the wrong place.

“There is no evidence that the potential two-day delay undermined any potential reasonable objectives of (state law) or the integrity of the election,” Lanford ruled.

She also ruled that there was no evidence of any problems with the elections commission’s certification and ordering of the referenda, publication of notices or work related to the printing and distribution of ballots.

The constitutional amendments were approved with 67% and 68% support, while 80% of voters approved of the welfare resolution.

Related Stories