Senate Bill 37
Payment of judgments in traffic courts and municipal courts by installments and the suspension of operating privileges
Topics: Court: Municipal, Court: Traffic, Judgment, Motor vehicle: Driver's license, Poor
Became law
The governor signed it on May 29, 2009. It's .
-
Introduced, passed
Feb 3, 2009
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Senate vote, passed
Passed Feb 24, 2009
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed Mar 24, 2009
-
Governor, passed
Signed
-
Law, here now
2009 Wisconsin Act 17
Latest entry in the official record, Jun 5, 2009: “Published 6-12-2009.”
Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.
Terms on this page
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act. 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
What it does
Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.
Under current law, if a person is found guilty of violating a traffic regulation, the court may enter judgment against the defendant for the forfeiture and for any applicable costs, fees, and surcharges. In addition, the court may suspend or revoke the person's operating privilege for a period not exceeding one year. This bill requires the court, when entering judgment, to tell the defendant, or to notify the defendant if he or she is not present in court, that he or she should notify the court if he or she is unable to pay the judgment because of poverty. The bill requires the court to determine if the defendant is unable to pay the judgment because of poverty, and if so, to give the defendant the opportunity to pay the judgment in installments, based on the defendant's income, before suspending the defendant's operating privilege for failure to pay the judgment.
Under current law, if a defendant is found guilty in municipal court of an ordinance violation, the court orders the defendant to pay a forfeiture, restitution, and applicable surcharges and informs the defendant of the date on which the judgment must be paid and of the penalties of failure to pay the judgment, including imprisonment and operating privilege suspension. The bill requires the municipal court to also notify the defendant at the time the judgment is rendered that, if the defendant cannot pay the judgment because of poverty, he or she should notify the court. If a judgment is not paid, current law allows the municipal court to defer payments, provide for installment payments of the judgment, allow the defendant to perform community service in lieu of paying the judgment, suspend the defendant's operating privilege, or imprison the defendant for up to 90 days. This bill prohibits the judge from ordering the defendant imprisoned or the suspension of the defendant's operating privilege if the defendant has notified the municipal court of his or her poverty unless the defendant fails to comply with the court order to pay the judgment in installments or to perform community service work.
Read the full summary Show less
Currently, a person found guilty of violating a traffic regulation or ordinance who fails to pay the ordered judgment may be imprisoned for up to 90 days or may have his or her operating privilege suspended for 30 days or until the judgment is paid, but not to exceed two years. Under this bill, if a court has suspended a person's operating privilege for failure to pay a judgment, the court may terminate the ordered operating privilege suspension and substitute an installment plan for the payment of the judgment. The bill requires the court to terminate the ordered operating privilege suspension and substitute an installment plan for the payment of the judgment if the defendant is unable to pay the judgment because of poverty and the defendant has not previously failed to comply with a court-ordered installment plan.
Who's behind it
3 senators are its . All 3 are Democrats.
13 more lawmakers .
See all 16 names Hide the names
Authors (3)
- John Lehman · Democrat, Senate
- Jeffrey Plale · Democrat, Senate
- Lena Taylor · Democrat, Senate
Signed on in support (13)
- Alvin Ott · Republican, Assembly
- Annette Williams · Democrat, Assembly
- Terese Berceau · Democrat, Assembly
- Pedro Colon · Democrat, Assembly
- Jason Fields · Democrat, Assembly
- Tamara Grigsby · Democrat, Assembly
- Frederick Kessler · Democrat, Assembly
- Cory Mason · Democrat, Assembly
- Kelda Roys · Democrat, Senate
- Christine Sinicki · Democrat, Assembly
- Barbara Toles · Democrat, Assembly
- Robert Turner · Democrat, Assembly
- Leon Young · Democrat, Assembly
What it would cost
State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.
Versions and amendments
Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.
How lawmakers voted
There were 4 votes on this bill.
Senate Committee on Judiciary vote to recommend it
Passed, 5 to 0 · Feb 12, 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, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate vote to pass it
Passed, 31 to 2 · Feb 24, 2009
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Read a third time and passed, Ayes 31, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics vote to recommend it
Passed, 6 to 3 · Mar 13, 2009
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report concurrence recommended by committee on Judiciary and Ethics, Ayes 6, Noes 3”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly vote to pass it
Passed, 53 to 45 · Mar 24, 2009
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Read a third time and concurred in as amended, Ayes 53, Noes 45”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
Jun 5, 2009
The new law was published.
-
May 29, 2009
The governor signed it. It became 2009 Wisconsin Act 17.
-
May 28, 2009
Sent to the governor.
-
Apr 23, 2009
“Action ordered immediately messaged” (the official wording)
-
Mar 25, 2009
The Senate adopted it.
-
Mar 24, 2009
The Assembly passed it too, 53 to 45.
-
Mar 24, 2009
The Assembly adopted it.
-
Mar 13, 2009
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Mar 13, 2009
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 6 to 3.
-
Mar 11, 2009
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Feb 24, 2009
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics.
-
Feb 24, 2009
The Assembly received it.
-
Feb 24, 2009
The Senate passed it, 31 to 2.
-
Feb 24, 2009
The Senate adopted it.
-
Feb 24, 2009
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Feb 16, 2009
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Feb 12, 2009
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 5 to 0.
-
Feb 5, 2009
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Feb 3, 2009
Sent to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing.
-
Feb 3, 2009
Introduced in the Senate.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Feb 3, 2009 · Senate
Introduced by Senators Taylor, Lehman and Plale;Cosponsored by Representatives Grigsby, Kessler, Berceau, Colon, Fields, Mason, Roys, Sinicki, Toles, Turner, A. Williams, Young and A. Ott
- Feb 3, 2009 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing
- Feb 5, 2009 · Senate
Public hearing held
- Feb 11, 2009 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Feb 12, 2009 · Senate
Report passage recommended by committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing, Ayes 5, Noes 0
- Feb 12, 2009 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Feb 16, 2009 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- Feb 18, 2009 · Senate
Placed on calendar 2-24-2009 by committee on Senate Organization
- Feb 20, 2009 · Senate
Senate amendment 1 offered by Senator Taylor
- Feb 23, 2009 · Senate
Senate amendment 2 offered by Senator Taylor
- Feb 24, 2009 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- Feb 24, 2009 · Senate
Read a second time
- Feb 24, 2009 · Senate
Senate amendment 1 withdrawn and returned to author
- Feb 24, 2009 · Senate
Senate amendment 2 adopted
- Feb 24, 2009 · Senate
Ordered to a third reading
- Feb 24, 2009 · Senate
Rules suspended
- Feb 24, 2009 · Senate
Read a third time and passed, Ayes 31, Noes 2
- Feb 24, 2009 · Senate
Ordered immediately messaged
- Feb 24, 2009 · Assembly
Received from Senate
- Feb 24, 2009 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary and Ethics
- Mar 10, 2009 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Mar 11, 2009 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Mar 13, 2009 · Assembly
Report concurrence recommended by committee on Judiciary and Ethics, Ayes 6, Noes 3
- Mar 13, 2009 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Mar 19, 2009 · Assembly
Placed on calendar 3-24-2009 by committee on Rules
- Mar 24, 2009 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Mar 24, 2009 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representatives Grigsby and Seidel
- Mar 24, 2009 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 adopted
- Mar 24, 2009 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Mar 24, 2009 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Mar 24, 2009 · Assembly
Read a third time and concurred in as amended, Ayes 53, Noes 45
- Mar 24, 2009 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Mar 25, 2009 · Senate
Received from Assembly amended and concurred in as amended, Assembly amendment 1 adopted
- Mar 25, 2009 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Apr 20, 2009 · Senate
Placed on calendar 4-23-2009 by committee on Senate Organization
- Apr 23, 2009 · Senate
Assembly amendment 1 concurred in
- Apr 23, 2009 · Senate
Action ordered immediately messaged
- Apr 27, 2009 · Senate
Report correctly enrolled on 4-27-2009
- May 28, 2009 · Senate
Presented to the Governor on 5-28-2009
- May 29, 2009 · Senate
Report approved by the Governor on 5-29-2009. 2009 Wisconsin Act 17
- Jun 5, 2009 · Senate
Published 6-12-2009.
Terms on this page
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act. 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
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act
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
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