Status

 

Status:

A prior researcher was active in the law making process around 2013-2016 (with bills SB62 & AB297) though Senator Dave Hansen's office, and brought up the same points "Generally felonies are reserved for violent offenses and other serious crime.... The burden of proof should be on the Register of Deeds Association to show how any of the historic documents could possibly be used to perpetrate identity theft... the President of the Register of Deeds Association admitted that the documents that I presented to the committee could not be used for identity theft."  Her attorney, James Hawkins, did also bring up that it may "make sense as an alternative to apply a rolling restriction date, rather than a fixed year."  This researcher also ran into previous (legal) issues when it came to vital records.  Note however those concerns (soft enforcement), came from the Wisconsin Historical Society staff and not someone at the Department of Health & Human Services, who would be in charge of enforcing the law.  In addition to not considering the rolling cut off then, the WRDA at the last minute add the "Not For Identity" part in the Assembly version of the bill, and no one had the decency to keep the researcher informed of that development. 

Initially I was working with Attorney Jevon Jarconi, and his untimely passing has complicated progress.  Through contact initiated by my cousin I started working with Senator Andre Jacque in June 2024.   We were trying to get rid of a questionable restriction that makes it a felony to reproduce even an uncertified vital record, even those over 100 years old.  Andre did his part by introducing the bill (SB52) in February of 2025.  It would simply shift us from a fixed year (1907) to a rolling 100 year rule.  Note that this bill is no longer adequate unless its amended.  The WRDA rebuked this compromise and thus the strict liability language must go away.  They said this themselves in their reply. 

It seemed promising as the Legislative Reference Bureau Analysis seemed to concur.  Since then it's been really going nowhere since then even though the fiscal estimate indicated no impact. I am concerned it might die in the committee before the session/season is up.   

A phone call November 2025 to Senator Tomczyk's (committee chair) office revealed there was a technical issue with the bill, and its back in the hands of the bills author to resolve that.  A subsequent phone call with Jacque's office revealed that the Wisconsin Register of Deeds Association apparently has a desire to do a wide ranging rewrite of the laws pertaining to vital records.  An email from Kyle Franson, 2025-2026 WRA president states: "WRDA did not contemplate, spearhead or re-write any efforts with the 2025-2026 bill referenced as LRB-348 (SB-52 & AB-90), or any others within Chapter 69."  Yet Senator Jacque insists "Despite what was implied from the WRDA president, I was able to confirm with one of my colleagues in the Assembly that they have been working with the WRDA and another legislator on a vital records statute rewrite that will be coming forward yet this session."  (Note the referenced session would end Jan 2027 - and expecting one to wait on a vague confirmation is unacceptable at this point)

Formal opinion from the attorney general- requests; opengov-doj 1/20/26, A. Jacque 1/22/26, R. Johnson 1/23/26, D. Lassie 1/29/26 (by phone), Baldwin 1/30/26 (mail), J. Wall 2/3/26 (in person meeting), Rebecca Biely (DHS by phone), 2/23/26

In February I received a call from a WSGS advocacy representative, however I'm unsure if the organization as whole will formally back this.  Shortly there after I found a way around my problem.  So I will likely just be leaving this battle to them or someone else.  I've spent a couple years trying to get leaders to resolve it.  I don't really believe you should need to be part of a special interest group to get service from elected people.  So its someone else's turn to step up to the plate?  Maybe you?

When and if the laws ever get straightened out, I hope there is a consideration in balancing the public's right to information (transparency) against the individual's right to privacy (security).  Right now the law appear very inconsistent and imbalanced.  It also at least partly appears to focus on protecting a government asset by some inappropriately used legal mechanisms.