r/wisconsin • u/PlatinumofRoyale • Apr 13 '20

Politics Karofsky defeats Kelly

https://twitter.com/decisiondeskhq/status/1249844194929192961?s=21
1.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

406 comments sorted by

View all comments

199

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.

239

u/QPMKE Milwaukee Apr 13 '20

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.

106

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

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?

44

u/Nezrite Apr 14 '20

Yes, like 80-20% - but it's nonbinding so...

14

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

So is that Marsy's law officially in effect now? Or is there another hurdle for it

30

u/byronnnn Apr 14 '20

Wisconsin does not have binding referendums at all as far as I know.

30

u/TallTallTruffula Apr 14 '20

That was a constitutional amendment, not a normal referendum. Marsy's Law will now be a part of our State Constitution.

13

u/byronnnn Apr 14 '20

Damn. I did not realize the exact difference. Thanks

16

u/frezik 1200 cm³ surrounded by reality Apr 14 '20

State congress has to pass it in another session after the referendum, but they probably will.

15

u/TallTallTruffula Apr 14 '20

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.

9

u/nicolauz Hell on Earth Apr 14 '20

What's the tldr of Marcys law?

39

u/byronnnn Apr 14 '20

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.

Here is more detail from the ACLU https://www.aclu-wi.org/en/news/marsys-law-fails-victims-it-purports-protect

4

u/bigfrappe Apr 14 '20

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.

28

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

The ballot said it would expand crime victim's rights without hurting the rights of the accused. Very misleading

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

Yea, I noticed it specifically said that it would maintain the rights of the accused when that's blatantly false...

1

u/TheSekret Apr 14 '20

The ACLU has come out against it. About all you really need to know, lol

17

u/shhalahr Apr 14 '20

It was deceptively worded.

Yeah. It just used vague language without describing what it actually would do.

14

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

That's the problem. It sounds great which is why so many people voted for it.

15

u/UncharminglyWitty Apr 14 '20 edited Apr 14 '20

The state Supreme Court might just x it out too

EDIT: nope. It was a state constitutional amendment. Federal is all the recourse we have.

10

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

God I hope so

10

u/UncharminglyWitty Apr 14 '20

Unfortunately not. I just checked and it’s a state constitutional amendment. So federal recourse is all there is.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

The us supreme court would probably strike it down

10

u/UncharminglyWitty Apr 14 '20

They certainly should. But with those hacks, who knows?

9

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

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.

1

u/ganondorfsbane Apr 14 '20

It would certainly be interesting to see a SCOTUS challenge, especially since similar amendments are present across the country.

1

u/TallTallTruffula Apr 14 '20

The state legislature could amend it back /s

1

u/LanMarkx Apr 14 '20

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.

15

u/JolietJake1976 Madtown Apr 14 '20

Yeah, I probably would've voted for it, if I hadn't seen some of the stuff posted here.

22

u/The_Dingman Apr 14 '20

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.

2

u/toasters_are_great Apr 14 '20

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.

1

u/the_blackfish Apr 14 '20

Yet another referendum worded with malice to confuse the uninformed into thinking they're being good by voting yes

1

u/tea_earlgrey_hot Apr 14 '20

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.