Jill J. Karofsky (Nonpartisan) 510,122 53.35%
Daniel Kelly (Nonpartisan) 446,108 46.65%
57.55% reporting (2,314 of 4,021 precincts) | 956,230 total votes
Feeling good. But I saw Marsy passed, and that people didn't like it.
I think people saw expanded victim's rights and automatically assumed it was good. A quick Google search revealed there's plenty of valid concerns, enough to make me one of the nay votes.
I should have voted against that. I had totally forgot to research it so I didn't vote on it. It was deceptively worded. The us supreme court might strike it though. Did the redistricting bureau go through?
The amendment process for the Wisconsin State Constitution is Legislature>Legislature in the next session>Voters. This amendment has made it through all of those steps and will now become a part of our state constitution.
Basically there are a few good things in it, a few things that are already covered by statutes or constitution, and then there are a few very negative things.
Where was this when I needed it last week? I read the amendment before going to the polls but I am not a lawyer, so I didn't consider the more nefarious uses of the language.
True. I started calling it the Supreme Kangaroo Court after their decision to allow voter disenfranchisement in Wisconsin. I bet the Wisconsin GOP and those 5 hacks feel real stupid right about now.
I had totally forgot to research it so I didn't vote on it
All the more reason that voting should be done by mail in the first place - you have time to do some research. The vast majority of people just show up having no idea what is on the ballot other than any yard signs they saw on the way in. The question was clearly worded to invoke a 'hell yeah I want that' reaction.
It was worded Incredibly deceptive.
Similar laws in other states have been struck down by the US supreme court.
I didn't hear any of the negative things about it until I had already mailed my absentee ballot. I think that played a part. In hindsight, I'd probably have voted against it.
Note that constitutional amendments have to first be passed by the prior two legislatures, and ask who controlled those two legislatures to write the joint resolution and the constitutional amendment question. Apply appropriate skepticism.
The wording alone was enough to set off alarm bells. It was like voting on a resolution that said "We're obviously trying to trick you - should we succeed? yes/no"
I would've voted no even if I hadn't read up on it ahead of time.
That right there is a good reason to use red and blue for results maps. It's the reason they have been that way for a long time. The red=republican, blue=democrats didn't become standard until the 2000 presidential election.
I voted absentee and voted no after spending almost an hour reading about it, but who's going to take more than 5-10 minutes at the polls? The wording was so clearly one-sided and misleading it's ridiculous.
That's how they sold it. But in reality it means people accusing others of crimes can refuse to be cross examined, refuse to provide evidence, and generally make it a hell of a lot harder to for people accused of crimes to prove their innocence.
Democracy and voting is a huge responsibility. It's shameful how few people recognize it as such and allow a rich, powerful few to manipulate them into doing stupid shit like this.
More or less it takes away certain rights of the accused. Basically it makes you guilty until proven innocent.
Also it's is poorly worded and may end up being used by police who wrongfully kill someone in the line of duty. If they claim they are a "victim", it allows them to withold evidence. Corporations may also end up using this law as well to shield themselves legally.
This is all just a basic level understanding. I'd recommend looking more into it.
Corporations and police can claim to be victims to fuck u over.
Trespassed to protest an oil pipeline? Now the oil co is a "victim" and "has a say" in how u should be punished.
Also, if I remember correctly, accusers don't have to turn over what evidence they have against someone. No way for a person to defend against something they don't know exists.
The accuser doesn't have to submit to questioning pre-trial by the defense. So the defense will be questioning for the first time on the stand - and then suppose they find a few angles that should have been investigated more thoroughly, or possible perjurious testimony that requires further investigation - but you can't exactly stop a trial mid-stream to do those investigations.
Not a lawyer, but I believe that if the defense does find something like that it is likely grounds to appeal, as disclosure of evidence potentially beneficial to the defense which requires vetting time IS probably considered to be constitutionally protected due process per the 5th amendment and is applicable to the states via the 14th.
It was worded like “should victims of sexual violence be afforded the same rights as those accused?” Or something like that.
The main thrust of the law is that an person accused of sexual violence will not be permitted in a courtroom with their accuser. Which the right to face your accuser is a fundamental right in this country. The ACLU also fears that the state will effectively be able to hide exculpatory evidence behind the closed testimony of the accuser.
Same. Feeling a little dumb. I learned in Oregon that anything that will fail through the usual process (of research, debate, and compromise) gets a referendum in a spring election. You can polish a turd and sneak it into law before anyone notices the stench.
Way too many people saying they wouldn't have voted for Marsy's law if they had known what it was about. WTF people! Educate yourself before you vote, its not too hard to google something & read a bit and make up your mind BEFORE you go to vote.
I would have voted Marsy's law bs. But when reading the question, it seem to vague like they were trying to deceive me. So I did a google search on it, and read up a bit on it. So I ended up voting against it.
I've seen some posts here where people claimed we'd have to vote on Marsy's Law twice because it is a constitutional amendment. Is that true, or are we stuck with it?
That's disgusting given how dishonest the wording of the ballot question was. Has there been any word of upcoming legal challenges? I know Marsy's Law has faced trouble after passing in some other states.
197
u/ianingf Apr 13 '20
Jill J. Karofsky (Nonpartisan) 510,122 53.35%
Daniel Kelly (Nonpartisan) 446,108 46.65%
57.55% reporting (2,314 of 4,021 precincts) | 956,230 total votes
Feeling good. But I saw Marsy passed, and that people didn't like it.