Bills · 2025-2026 Regular Session
Relating to: the use of videoconferencing technology in certain civil actions.
Court — Procedure Mental health — Hospitals and institutes Telecommunications Television Witness
- Introduced, stopped here
- Passes Assembly, not reached
- Passes Senate, 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, a circuit court generally may allow the use of videoconferencing technology during pretrial, trial or fact-finding, or post-trial proceedings, subject to certain technical standards and criteria. However, current law provides that a defendant in a criminal case (defendant) or a respondent in certain civil actions that could result in loss of liberty or fundamental rights with respect to the respondent’s children (respondent) is entitled to be physically present in the courtroom during his or her trial and at his or her sentencing or other dispositional hearing. Currently, if a defendant or respondent objects to the use of videoconferencing technology regarding a proceeding that the defendant or respondent has a right to attend in person, the court must sustain the objection. If a defendant or respondent objects to the use of videoconferencing technology regarding any other proceeding, current law allows the court to exercise its discretion in determining the objection.
This bill establishes a new exception to provide that, for objections by a respondent relating to the testimony of an expert witness by videoconference technology in matters relating to certain admissions, placements, or commitments, including for involuntary commitment and protective placement proceedings, even if a respondent is entitled to attend the proceeding in person, the court may exercise its discretion in determining the objection.
Sponsors
Introduced by: B. Jacobson (R) , Dittrich (R) , Franklin (R) , Gundrum (R) , Kaufert (R) , Kitchens (R) , Knodl (R) , Maxey (R) , Melotik (R) , Murphy (R) , Mursau (R) , Nedweski (R) , Novak (R) , O'Connor (R) , Piwowarczyk (R) , Subeck (D) , Tranel (R) , Wichgers (R)
7 cosponsors
J. Jacobson (D) , James (R) , Marklein (R) , Miresse (D) , Ortiz-Velez (D) , Palmeri (D) , Ratcliff (D)
Registered lobbying interests · 2
Organizations that registered lobbying activity on this bill with the Wisconsin Ethics Commission. Registration means interest, not a position for or against. Official record
Votes
Assembly: Report passage recommended by Committee on Judiciary, Ayes 8, Noes 0
Passed 8–0 Jan 14, 2026 official source full pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Full history
- Sep 19, 2025 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Novak, Dittrich, Franklin, Gundrum, B. Jacobson, Kaufert, Kitchens, Knodl, Maxey, Melotik, Murphy, Mursau, Nedweski, O'Connor, Piwowarczyk, Subeck, Wichgers and Tranel; cosponsored by Senators James and Marklein
- Sep 19, 2025 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to Committee on Judiciary
- Sep 22, 2025 · Assembly
Representative Palmeri added as a coauthor
- Oct 6, 2025 · Assembly
Representative Ortiz-Velez added as a coauthor
- Nov 5, 2025 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Nov 18, 2025 · Assembly
Senator Ratcliff added as a cosponsor
- Jan 8, 2026 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Jan 8, 2026 · Assembly
Representative J. Jacobson added as a coauthor
- Jan 14, 2026 · Assembly
Report passage recommended by Committee on Judiciary, Ayes 8, Noes 0
- Jan 14, 2026 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Jan 20, 2026 · Assembly
Placed on calendar 1-22-2026 by Committee on Rules
- Jan 22, 2026 · Assembly
Representative Miresse added as a coauthor
- Jan 22, 2026 · Assembly
Laid on the table
- Mar 23, 2026 · Assembly
Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1