In the coming months, Wisconsin residents will hear plenty of arguments before they vote on a constitutional amendment to change state policy on cash bail.

Some say there is a need to protect the public, while others say it is simply time to end the practice. The Republican-led Legislature recently approved putting the question before voters in April.

Under the plan, judges would be required to consider a larger set of factors in deciding whether to grant bail to violent offenders.

Marianne Oleson, executive assistant to the directors for EX-incarcerated People Organizing of Wisconsin, said the conversation should be about eliminating cash bail.

"A bail system that is based on cash is based on what you can afford; where is the community safety in that?" Oleson asked. "Where is the justice in that?"

Her group believes the practice contributes to Wisconsin leading the U.S. in incarcerating Black defendants.

She argued cash bail also disproportionately affects women and their families. Currently in Wisconsin, bail is only tied to court appearances. The amendment's sponsors contended judges should base decisions on more information, including a person's past criminal record, to keep the public safe.

Oleson countered other approaches, such as ending the cash bail system, also keep public safety in mind.

"If an accused came before a judge, accused of a violent crime, there would be no cash bail, that person would stay," Oleson explained. "But a nonviolent offender would be able to be released, continue working, continue being part of their family."

Efforts to eliminate cash bail have surfaced in states like Illinois and California, but the plans have run into obstacles. Sponsors of the Wisconsin amendment have suggested they will introduce language to make it clear only certain types of violent offenses should be applied to a judge's decision-making, if the ballot question is approved.

California will soon become the first state in the nation to offer health insurance to income-eligible individuals who are incarcerated - starting 90 days prior to their release. The feds just agreed to match funds spent on Medi-Cal or CHIP for people leaving jail, prison or juvenile correctional facilities.

Hagar Dickman, senior attorney at the nonprofit Justice in Aging, said it is in everyone's interest to set justice-involved people up for success.

"The idea is to ensure that people are connected with services prior to their release, and individuals with mental-health needs and substance-abuse disorder also can have their medication given to them prior to the release," Dickman said.

Previously the feds would only reimburse the state's Medi-Cal expenses for people upon their release. In addition, the state passed a law last fall put people's Medi-Cal into suspension instead of terminating it while incarcerated. Now their status will be reactivated without them having to reapply.

This is not just a health initiative, it's an equity initiative - since a disproportionate number of people of color face incarceration, Dickman said. And it puts people on stronger footing as they re-enter society.

"This is really an important way to combat the significant effects of mental illness, mental health issues, and substance abuse in the jails particularly in light of both high rates of homelessness and also suicide and overdose as people are released," she said.

The move is part of the larger project called Cal AIM
which will modernize Medi-Cal - and allow it to cover things like housing supports, since secure housing is considered a social determinant of health.

The Louisville Metro Police Department engaged in patterns of conduct which violated people's civil rights, said a U.S. Department of Justice report released Wednesday.

The result of a nearly two-year long investigation, the document outlines repeated excessive use of force and unlawful search warrants.

Corey Shapiro, legal director for the ACLU of Kentucky, said for years officers have targeted Black people for minor offenses such as wide turns and broken taillights, while serious crimes such as sexual assault and homicide went unsolved. He pointed out officers videotaped themselves throwing drinks at pedestrians from their cars, insulted people with disabilities, and called Black people "monkeys," "animal" and "boy."

"The style of policing that LMPD engaged in was very aggressive, very targeted against Black people, and also against vulnerable people like those with disabilities," Shapiro stated.

The report also highlighted the city's flawed accountability system for addressing misconduct by its officers. Since the 2020 shooting death of Breonna Taylor by police, the city has implemented some reforms, including banning no-knock search warrants.

Shapiro note it is likely the city will enter into a consent decree with the Justice Department, requiring the police department to make legally enforceable changes. He believes city officials also need to reckon with the affected communities and involve them directly in the solution-building process.

"The Black community, which has been harmed and essentially terrorized for years, the city needs to look to them and find out what are the solutions that they want," Shapiro urged.

The Louisville Metro Police Department report is one of eight investigations into law enforcement agencies opened by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, including the Minneapolis Police Department, the Phoenix Police Department, and the Louisiana State Police.


get more stories like this via email

Criminal justice reform groups are rallying behind a new bill that would make it easier for people hurt in encounters with police to get support from the California Victim Compensation Board.

Right now, most claims - aside from domestic violence or sexual assault - require that the person be identified as a victim in a police report.

Michelle Monterrosa's brother Sean died at the hands of Vallejo Police in 2020. The officer was fired but never charged.

Monterrosa said the bill would help families like hers cope.

"And unfortunately," said Monterrosa, "because our loved ones were killed the way they were, you know, we're not considered victims, they are not considered as victims. So, therefore, we're continuing the cycles of trauma and harm. The whole household is also a victim, you know - we're the ones who deal with the loss every day."

The bill would exclude cases in which the person inflicted "great bodily injury" in a law enforcement encounter before being killed.

Families or survivors would be able to use evidence other than a police report to access the program, which provides assistance with burial costs, medical bills and counseling. The victim would be eligible regardless of whether the officer is arrested or convicted.

Cristine Soto DeBerry, founder and executive director of the nonprofit Prosecutors Alliance, oversaw a similar program in San Francisco and said the system needs to be more flexible and compassionate.

"We see families having to turn to GoFundMe pages and car washes to try and cover the cost of burying their loved one after an incident like this," said Soto DeBerry. "And that, to us, seems inhumane and unnecessary."

The California District Attorneys Association opposed a similar bill in last year's legislative session, arguing the law would allow compensation to perpetrators of crimes.

Soto DeBerry argued that the outreach is a win-win.

"Supporting families through this process is a smart public safety strategy," said Soto DeBerry, "and one that strengthens legitimacy rather than undermining it."

Senate Bill 838 is currently in the Senate Rules Committee.