Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Assembly Bill 61

Motor vehicle operating privilege suspensions for controlled substance violations

Topics: Court, Implied consent or alcohol concentration, Motor vehicle: Driver's license, Transportation, Department of: Vehicles

Stopped before the full Assembly voted

The recommended passing it, but the full Assembly never voted on it. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Feb 17, 2009

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The full Assembly never voted on it.

  4. Senate vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to pass pursuant to ⁠”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Current law requires a court to suspend the motor vehicle operating privilege of a person, including a juvenile, if the person is convicted of any violation of the state's Uniform Controlled Substances Act (drug violation). Under this bill, a court may, but is not required to, suspend a person's motor vehicle operating privilege if the person is convicted of a drug violation.

Also under current law, the Department of Transportation (DOT) must suspend a person's operating privilege whenever DOT receives notice that the person has been convicted in another state for an offense that, if committed in this state, would be a drug violation. Under this bill, DOT may, but is not required to, suspend a person's motor vehicle operating privilege if the person is convicted in another state for an offense that, if committed in this state, would be a drug violation.

Who's behind it

13 lawmakers are its ⁠. 12 are Democrats and 1 is a Republican.

5 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 18 names

Authors (13)

Signed on in support (5)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

How lawmakers voted

There was one vote on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics vote to recommend it

Passed, 9 to 0 · Mar 13, 2009

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage recommended by committee on Judiciary and Ethics, Ayes 9, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Apr 28, 2010

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Mar 13, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  3. Mar 13, 2009

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 9 to 0.

  4. Mar 10, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  5. Feb 24, 2009

    The committee held a public hearing.

  6. Feb 24, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  7. Feb 17, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics.

  8. Feb 17, 2009

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Feb 17, 2009 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Grigsby, Kessler, Berceau, Colon, Fields, Mason, Roys, Sinicki, Toles, Turner, A. Williams, Young and A. Ott;Cosponsored by Senators Taylor, Grothman, Lehman, Plale and Erpenbach

  2. Feb 17, 2009 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary and Ethics

  3. Feb 24, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Feb 24, 2009 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Mar 10, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. Mar 10, 2009 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  7. Mar 13, 2009 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by committee on Judiciary and Ethics, Ayes 9, Noes 0

  8. Mar 13, 2009 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  9. Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote