Based on national guidelines, 1971 and 1972: Action to protect the citizen's right to know, to facilitate citizen participation in government and to oppose major threats to basic con­stitutional rights.

_____________________________________

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES

Support of the following:

The individual liberties guaranteed by the Wisconsin Constitution. The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin is convinced that individual rights now protected by the Wisconsin Constitution should not be weakened or abridged.  (This position paraphrases the position on Individual Liberties of the LWVUS in reference to the U.S. Constitution.)

The right and responsibility of individuals and groups to oppose by any non-violent means government actions that weaken or abridge the individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution.

The responsibility of state and local government officials to uphold their oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and Wisconsin Constitution by protecting the individual rights of their constituents in the face of federal laws and executive orders that weaken or abridge them.

At its 2003 Convention, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin adopted a study of “The Role of State and Local Governments of Wisconsin in protecting individual liberties, including the USA Patriot Act”.

The study was a response to federal legislation and executive orders and regulations after the attack of 9/11/01 that were judged by the LWVUS and local Leagues in Wisconsin to weaken and abridge constitutionally guaranteed individual rights. Leagues recognized that security is a major function of government, but that in times of crisis governments tend to go to excesses which infringe on the equally important protection of constitutionally guaranteed liberties. The LWVUS position on individual liberties adequately covers advocacy at the national level of government.  The goal of taking a state consensus was to empower Wisconsin state and local Leagues to advocate for action to protect individual liberties on the state and local levels of government. Consensus was taken in the spring of 2004, returning a clear consensus supporting the following position. The new position on Individual Liberties was adopted by the Board of the LWVWI in May.

_______________________________________

VOTING RIGHTS

The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin believes that voting is a fundamental citizen right that must be guaranteed.  Wisconsin election laws should provide citizens with maximum opportunity for registration, voting at the polls, and absentee voting.  Election administration should be adequately coordinated and funded to achieve both statewide standards uniformly applied and local municipal effectiveness.

Regarding Voter Registration, we support:

• Convenient hours and places for registration
• Provision for well trained statewide special deputy registrars
• An accurate statewide voter registration list that is adequately maintained and protected from undue deletions
• Eligibility requirements applied uniformly to all electors
• Wisconsin’s successful Election Day registration to be preserved
• A variety of eligible proofs of identification and of current address to be retained

Regarding Voting, we support:

• Poll workers who are adequately recruited, trained and remunerated
• No photo ID or other requirements that place undue burden on the voter or erect barriers to voter participation
• Restoration of the voting rights of felons who are not currently incarcerated
• Provisions for observers at the polls
• Public observation of tabulation of votes
• Provisional ballots and well-defined redress of grievance procedures
• Protection against fraud at the polls

Regarding Absentee Ballots, we support:

• Broad availability of absentee ballots with no excuse needed to obtain a ballot
• Ease of obtaining and executing absentee ballots including adequate timing for voters to exercise their right to vote and election officials to process the ballots.

Regarding Election Administration, we support:

• A Statewide Voter Registration System (SVRS) that is adequately funded to allow municipal and county clerks to do their jobs without additional undue financial burden
• A system of early voting primarily for presidential primary, presidential and gubernatorial elections that provides for the early ballots to be entered into the machine for validation but with no tallying until Election Day.  The system should include security measures for the machines and a time frame that provides ample time for poll lists to be updated by Election Day.  Multiple sites should be allowed at the discretion of the municipalities.
• HAVA (Help America Vote Act)-required matching of the SVRS with other state data lists should be done only for the purpose of improving the quality of the SVRS lists and not to determine voter eligibility.

_______________________________________

The Wisconsin League has based its voting rights action on the League principle that every citizen should be protected in the right to vote and on the specific positions above, reflecting member convictions that protecting the right to vote is indivisibly part of the League's basic purpose. League's voting rights actions have been taken not only to ensure access to the electoral process but to extend and enhance that pro­cess and the govern­ment's role there­in.

In 1977-78 the legislature enacted major election law changes, which the League supported.  These included: the establishment of regis­tration at the polls; the option for students to designate their student address as their place of residence for voting purposes; repeal of the 6 month resi­dency requirement; and the requirement that all communities have voter regis­tration.

There have been many proposals for change in election laws, some of which were enacted.  Because they would not necessarily make the legislature more responsive to the voters, the League has supported a number of these, opposed a few and has watched them all.  The following is a summary.

Changes enacted that were supported by the League:

1.     1st Tuesday in January deadline for filing nomination papers for spring elections in order to leave enough time for voting by absentee ballot, 1979.

2.     Authorization for special registra­tion deputies and additional officials at the polls, 1978.

3.     Provision for training for election officials and clerks, 1978.

4.     Definition of identification needs for registration, 1978.

5.     Automatic sending of absentee ballots to registered voters confined indefinitely to a home or institu­tion, 1978.

6.     Constitutional amendment requiring primaries in recall elections as in regular elections, 1981.

7.     Referendum questions worded so that a positive vote means approval and a negative vote means disapproval, 1986.

8.     All polling places acces­sible to persons in wheel chairs by 1982, 1986.

9.     Where voting machines are used there must be a notice informing voters that a separate ballot must be cast (lever pulled) for president/vice president and another for all other candidates rather than just one vote for the straight party ticket, 1986.

10. Minimum pay of $25 for election officials, 1986.

The 1989-90 legislature enacted an omnibus bill on election laws. It was sup­ported by the League because of its improvements in election law. The changes included giving military spouses and dependents the same voting privileges as military electors, spe­cial absentee voting provisions, tightening of recall petition proce­dures, restricting use of stickers in voting, increased auth­ority of election in­spectors and so forth.  The League did question the provision that gives the Elections Board authority to exempt a polling place from the handicapped accessibil­ity requirement and reassigning the voter to another polling place. League believed that it might result in unnecessary and ex­tended difficulty for some handicapped people to vote.

Unsuccessful proposals that the League has supported over the last few years provided for:

1.     Groups other than political parties providing official observers at pol­ling places.

2.     Late registration.

3.     Jurisdiction by the courts over decisions determining incompetence to exercise the right to vote.

4.     Limitation on the number of times an elector may corroborate the resi­dency of other electors.

5.     Clerks to check on voters who appear to have voted more than once.

6.     Referenda to include only 6th grade level vocabulary.

7.     Shortening of the time an elective office would remain empty by allowing the governor to call a special elec­tion on having received an irrevocable letter of resignation rather than being forced to wait until the resig­nation actually occurs.

8.     Mandatory appointment of all ap­plicants for special registration deputy except when an individual has previously been revoked for cause.

The League has successfully opposed various bills introduced in almost every session to repeal the mandatory provi­sion for registration availability in high schools and to repeal the re­quirement for registration at pol­ling places.

In 1991 we opposed attempts to change the dates of spring elections and related deadlines for the sole purpose of favorably affecting the date of Wisconsin's presidential preference primary and its role in the presidential nomination process.  Our concerns have been that spring elec­tions are scheduled when best suited for Wisconsin and thus that polling days do not occur when the winter weather is more likely and that nomin­ation paper filing dates are not any more affected by the holiday season than at present.

In 1992 we opposed term limitations because we believe that limits deny voters the right to choose those they want to represent them, because policy

Other bills we acted on: support for impartial captions on referenda on the ballot (1991); concerns about filing date changes in “open seat” contests (1993). There has been little activity in election law since then.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

Based on the speci­fic campaign fi­nance positions as adopted by the LWVUS in 1974, the Wisconsin League has had many oppor­tunities to act in the area of cam­paign finance reform. The issues, proposals and solutions are very similar at the state level and the positions have been and remain timely.

In 1974 the State Elections Board was created and modern campaign finance regulation got its start in Wisconsin. In 1977 the legislature established a 45% limit on combined PAC funds and public grants as a percentage of spending limits. Thus, this means that a candidate who takes a full public grant cannot take any PAC money. The Wisconsin Election Cam­paign Fund was established to provide partial public funding for state elections through a check-off on the income tax form. Also in these years legislation was enacted which created contribution limits, spending limits when public funding is used, full disclosure and reporting requirements, and threshold contribution and minimum vote level to qualify for public funds.  The League strongly supported all of this and has worked since then to maintain and improve the system.

Several times we have successfully opposed legislation which would have replaced the income tax check-off with an add-on, meaning we would no longer have had public funding. We also opposed attempts to: 1) repeal special reporting of large contributions in the final two weeks; 2) raise the threshold level at which registration and reporting begins (this was done in 1986); 3) raise the amount of personal funds a candidate can spend without repor­ting (this level was raised from $100 to $1,000 in 1986).

Many good changes have been made in the campaign finance system with our support:

1.     public financing has been extended to special elections;

2.     conduits must register with the state and report contributions passed through to candidates;

3.     committees which spend independent­ly (without the knowledge or coopera­tion of the candidate) must speci­fically report any disbursements of more than $20 within the last 10 days before an election;

4.     tax forms now inform the tax filer that checking off does not increase liability;

5.     there is a provision for voluntary unrestricted contributions to the Wisconsin Elections Campaign Fund;

6.     $1 will be transferred to the fund for taxpayers whose liability is less than $1 or who have a refund;

7.     Legislative and party campaign committees cannot spend independently without registering as a PAC; this imposes lower limits on a committee's direct contributions to candidates;

8.     candidates do not need to limit spending even if receiving a grant if the opponent does not accept a grant, unless the opponent voluntarily agrees to accept the spending limit;

9.     a candidate must return grant money (in order to accept PAC money) more than three weeks before the election, so that this action will be reported before the election.

The League supported a number of bills which did not pass.  One bill would have increased the check-off to $2 to maintain the level of the fund.  We also supported a proposal allowing the Elections Board to set aside 3% of the election fund be used for public information about the purpose and effect of the fund. Other provisi­ons we supported would:

1) exempt a candidates' travel expen­ses from spending limits, if paid for by com­mittee; 2) prohibit a candidate from withdrawing voluntary acceptance of spending limits later than a week after the primary; 3) subject the costs of all thank you ads to campaign finance limita­tions; 4) establish a sliding scale which would allow pri­mary sur­vivors in state elections a portion of the grant beginning with 20% for those who receive 1% of the vote; 5) provide state funding for U.S. campaigns.

One major proposal, which the League supports, is a call for passage of a constitution­al amendment to both the federal and state constitutions to allow campaign spending limits. We believe that this is a necessary component for any lasting solution to campaign finance excesses and abuses.

In 1991-92 League continued to lobby for these and other changes, many of which were included in the Legislative Council bill in 1993. This proposal has been reintroduced in every session, but has never been passed.

In 1997, the League was generally critical of the report of the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Campaign Finance Reform because of its failure to recommend comprehensive reform including: a sure source of enough public funding; control of spending levels; lowering contribution levels and other provisions. The League did support prompt electronic filing of contributions and reports by all candidates; requiring out-of-state organizations with campaign activity in Wisconsin to abide by Wisconsin laws; limiting PAC-to PAC and Campaign-to-campaign contributions; counting money left over from one campaign against the spending limit to the next.

League also urged other provisions, not included in the Commission report: adequate enforcement of election laws through prompt review of complaints and increase in fines; increasing the income tax check-off and allowing a small portion to be used for public education about the role of the funds in financing campaigns.

One of the commission’s recommendations was enacted. Candidates could voluntarily file financial reports electronically in the 1998 elections, but are required to do so after January 1, 1999.

In 1996, the League joined the coalition, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, to intensify the educational, organizing and lobbying efforts for campaign reform, and to closely monitor elections until such time as legislation passed.  In 1998, the coalition has publicized the sources of funds and their expenditure in the most expensive campaigns Wisconsin has seen.

RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES

__________________________________________

Action to protect constitutional right of privacy of the individual to make reproductive choices.

______________________________________

In 1983 Wisconsin Leagues concurred with Leagues across the nation in support of a national position to allow action to protect the individu­al's constitu­tional right to privacy in reproduc­tive matters. This right had been guaranteed by the 1973 Supreme Court decision in the Roe vs. Wade case. The decision prohibits states from restricting the right to abortion during the first trimester, allows regulation to protect health and safety during the second and permits prohibition during the third trimester except to save the life or health of a pregnant woman.

­Occasions for action came very quick­ly­ and continue to the present time. In taking action the League has worked cooperatively with the Reproductive Rights Task Force of the Wisconsin Women’s Network. For the most part, action has been successful in maintaining the legal right to choose. Although  anti-choice activists have failed to get abortion banned, they  have had considerable success in gaining separate  restrictions one at a time.

League has opposed all four major restrictions enacted into law. The first restriction denies the use of public funds to pay for abortions. Because most hospitals receive public funds, they have been unable to provide abortion services to Medicaid patients, who must now seek private funding. League has supported a number of bills in unsuccessful attempts to restore this funding.

The second restriction, passed in 1992, requires consent of an adult for a minor to have an abortion.  The original bill called for “parental consent,” but we were able to get modification to allow consent to be given by a close family member, a member of the clergy, or the court and to provide for anonymity. The League holds that the majority of teens do tell their parents, but for those who, for what­ever reason, cannot talk to their parents, and who will be responsible for a child for 18 years if abortion is not available, the right of personal choice should not be restricted. 

In 1985 a law was enacted containing a number of provisions intended to reduce the number of abortions.  It should be noted that while the League supports the right to choose abortion, it also supports programs to reduce teen pregnancies under Social Policy positions. These positions combined with the reproduc­tive rights position allowed the League support the bill that became law.

In 1996 the third major restriction was adopted, requiring a 24-hour waiting period between the first consultation and the actual procedure. The law also requires the doctor to provide state-prepared information about all aspects of the procedure and all options open to the client if the pregnancy were to continue. League opposition was based on the lack of accessibility of clinics in most parts of the state, causing many clients undue problems of cost, time, transportation, and confidentiality. Objection to the “informed consent” requirement was on the grounds of state interference with a doctor’s practice. The concerns of pro-choice advocates that the information required provide unbiased content resulted in very comprehensive, medically accurate materials.

 

Last of the four major restrictions was enacted in 1997. The term “partial birth abortion” was designed to shock the public to gain support for anti-abortion legislation. The term is not used by the medical community; it implies that a healthy, viable fetus is aborted at the request of pregnant woman. Under Roe vs. Wade and Wisconsin law, third trimester abortion is illegal unless the life and health of the woman is at stake.  If the fetus is healthy and viable, the doctor would choose to induce live birth. If the fetus is not healthy, the doctor might choose this procedure as the best means of protecting a woman’s ability to conceive in the future.

Although the bill became law, a suit in federal court contests its constitutionality.  The U.S. 7th District Court of Appeals in November 1998 enjoined enforcement until trial determines its constitutionality.

The 1989 U.S. Supreme Court's Webster vs. Missouri decision, giving states more authority to limit the right to abortion if the restrictions did not place an “undue burden” on the woman, stimulated a number of bills.

The League continues to work for bills to remove Wisconsin’s existing criminal sanctions for performing an abortion, none of which have passed. Thus the law remains in place if the Supreme Court should overturn Roe vs. Wade.

The League has supported with some small success efforts to prevent opponents from blocking access to abortion services although picketing and demonstrations are still allowed.

Abortion opponents wanted the durable power of attorney for health care law to exempt pregnant women. In a compromise supported by the League, a bill passed containing a legal form for a “durable power of attorney” for health care, with a check-list that must be marked if the ap­pointed attorney is to have the power to make decisions for a woman who is pregnant. Other conditions also re­quire check-off.

In 1989 League joined other groups objecting to the action of the state attorney general in signing for Wisconsin an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme court that urged the overturn of the Roe vs. Wade decision. League argued that Wisconsin has taken no such position either legislatively or by citizen vote.

League has also opposed a number of bills which have sought to define the fetus as an “unborn child” in order to establish a legal status for a fetus, as well as bills that create some 20 penalties for intended or unintended injury or death to an “unborn” child. We have opposed another bill which prohibits use of public funds or use if public facilities to programs which provide information on abortion, and prohibit public employees from taking part in such programs.

Another bill would confine pregnant women with drug dependencies to treatment centers, opposed because of denial of personal freedom and because such facilities are not available in most places. An effort to permit pharmacists to refuse to provide prescriptions on the basis of their own beliefs has been opposed because it would deny contraceptives and abortifacients and anything else to customers. A bill that would protect doctor from being sued  for failing to inform a pregnant woman about the condition of the fetus in time for an abortion was also opposed. 

None of these latter bills has passed, but they and others seeking new restrictions are sure to be introduced in the future.

For other action affecting women, see Social Policy.

___________________________________________

 

GUN CONTROL

State action on gun control is based on national position, adopted in 1992 and found in “Impact on Issues, 1998-2000." Using these positions, the League first lobbied in 1992 for safety education and hand gun control laws, supporting limiting the accessibility of hand guns, regulating ownership, establishing a waiting period for the purchase of guns, and licensing ownership with annual renewal.

In 1995, League vigorously but unsuccessfully opposed a bill preempting the right of local communities to pass gun control laws which were more stringent that the laws of the state. We supported a bill requiring trigger locks on hand guns and a bill which would prohibit an abuser or harasser from buying a gun while under a restraining order. 

In the 1997-98 session, a constitutional amendment was passed which would add a clause guaranteeing the right to bear arms. League opposed the amendment because the federal constitution already guarantees this right, and because it causes confusion for police officers in enforcing the law. However, because of the great public support for the amendment, League decided not to waste resources and limited its action to education on the issue in the ensuing referendum.  The amendment passed by a large majority in 1998.