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."   This researcher worked with long time Brown County Register of Deeds official Kathy Williquette.  Kathy was not aware of the fact that coping an uncertified record could be a felony.  But she made good and was a key figure in the changes related to implementation of state wide records issuance.

The researchers 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.  What we came up with was really simple; it merely moved us from a fixed date to a rolling window achieving the better access dilemma.  We figured this was easiest and had the greatest chance of acceptance.  Andre did his part by introducing the bill (SB52) in February of 2025.  

The WRDA rebuked this compromise, and LRB also noted that it really doesn't address the issue that non certified records have the same penalty.  Odd how they have had decades to address this and haven't.  It seems more like an attempt to stall the bill if you ask me.  So going forward, a new bill or amended one has to be made.

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)

In January 2026 I started asking elected officials to seek an official opinion on the interpretation of the law from the Attorney General on the broadness of the law.  It's clear to me there are a number of officials at register of deeds offices who are not aware themselves that the law makes no distinction between certified and non certified records in the context of the potential penalty, and there is now a question of is that overly broad, as one type of document one could commit fraud with, and the other is is not possible.

Sadly so far those requests have gone no where. It may be related to a recent eye opening article titled "Some records requests with Wisconsin DOJ take years to fulfill" by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in May 2026.  It highlights the inefficiencies under the the leadership of AG, Josh Kaul.   

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), (follow up call 5/12/26), Rebecca Biely (DHS by phone), 2/23/26, P. Ferguson 3/20/26,  AG OO request resubmitted by J. Wall 5/13/2026. 

Pub Record Board inquiry, 3/20/26.  Reply 7/10/26. Williquette Pub Records Req; D. Hemery 6/12/26, follow up call, 6/29/26.  Fulfilled 7/9/26

Summary thus far;  representative type democracy provides a convenient shield rather than force some actual accountability.  No wonder people in other states have to go so far as to get a writ of mandamus.  I doubt anyone actually gets much service from their elected officials, and regular citizens are not even represented unless they are the donor class, or affiliated with the groups having lobbyists.  I’d like to be proven wrong that the elected still represent the will of the electorate. 

In February 2026 I received a call from WSGS advocacy representative Nadine Guilbault.  However I'm unsure if the organization as whole will formally back this in terms of group effort to co-sign a letter, or formalize an advocacy position.

In April 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?  It will take some real leaders to get the job at hand done.      

Jacque announced his intention not to seek another term In May 2026, and his district director, Nic Cravillion appears to be running as a replacement.   

June 2026.  I will begin trying to understand why during the last revision to the statue (2016), the notion of a rolling window was not entertained, and why the pre 1907 records were not returned to a Capture 19 Public Records status.  

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 concern of fraudulent use.  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.  The arguments the WRDA use today as well as two decades ago are weak and unfounded.