Bills · 2011-2012 Regular Session
eliminating substitution of judges in criminal matters.
- Introduced, stopped here
- Passes Senate, not reached
- Passes Assembly, not reached
- Governor signs, not reached
- Law, not reached
Unfamiliar terms? Glossary
What this bill does
Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau
Under current law, there are two methods by which a judge who is scheduled
to handle a case is replaced: disqualification and substitution. A judge is required
to disqualify himself or herself in a case if the judge may be considered to have an
interest in the matter, such as if the judge is related to a party, has previously been
involved with the case as counsel, or has a significant financial or personal interest
in the outcome.
Substitution is the method by which parties in the case may have a judge who
is scheduled to handle a case taken off the case without having to give a reason. Each
party in a civil case and the defendant in a criminal case generally have a right to
one substitution, except that additional substitution rights occur in certain cases if
there is a successful appeal or if the judge who handles a preliminary hearing is
assigned to handle the trial.
This bill retains the provisions relating to the disqualification of a judge for both
civil and criminal matters, but eliminates the defendant's right to substitution of a
judge in criminal matters.
What it would cost
Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs
Sponsors
Votes
Senate: Report passage recommended by committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations, Ayes 3, Noes 2
Passed 3–2 May 12, 2011 official source full pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Full history
- Apr 27, 2011 · Senate
Introduced by Senators Zipperer, Kedzie, Darling and Wanggaard;Cosponsored by Representatives Jacque, Bies, Knilans, Mursau, Rivard, Spanbauer, Vos and Ziegelbauer
- Apr 27, 2011 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations
- May 3, 2011 · Senate
Public hearing held
- May 4, 2011 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- May 11, 2011 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- May 11, 2011 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- May 11, 2011 · Senate
Executive action taken
- May 12, 2011 · Senate
Report passage recommended by committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations, Ayes 3, Noes 2
- May 12, 2011 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Jun 7, 2011 · Senate
Placed on calendar 6-8-2011 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Jun 8, 2011 · Senate
Read a second time
- Jun 8, 2011 · Senate
Placed at the foot of the 11th order of business on the calendar of 6-8-2011
- Jun 8, 2011 · Senate
Senate amendment 1 offered by Senator Grothman
- Jun 8, 2011 · Senate
Senate amendment 1 adopted
- Jun 8, 2011 · Senate
Ordered to a third reading
- Jun 8, 2011 · Senate
Rules suspended
- Jun 8, 2011 · Senate
Read a third time and passed
- Jun 8, 2011 · Senate
Ordered immediately messaged
- Jun 8, 2011 · Assembly
Received from Senate
- Jun 8, 2011 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary and Ethics
- Jan 11, 2012 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Jacque
- Mar 23, 2012 · Assembly
Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1