Riot bill shelved by Assembly Committee
A Republican-sponsored bill that would have defined a riot as a gathering of at least three people that could pose a threat of property damage or injury has been removed from the Assembly Judiciary Committee's executive session agenda. The bill has been criticized for being overly broad, and potentially chilling First Amendment protections of protest and free speech. Besides defining a riot, the bill also exposed accused rioters and riot organizers to felony charges and civil liability including restitution for attorneys' fees and property damage, and carried a prohibition on government officials with authority over law enforcement from limiting an agency's response to quell unrest.
Rep. Andrew Hysell (D- Sun Prairie), a member of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, said that he criticized the bill because it 'actually weakens existing law for the very people it was supposed to help.' The committee held a public hearing on the bill on May 7, at which a large number of Wisconsinites voiced opposition to the bill. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R- Two Rivers), one of the bill's authors, testified in favor of the bill, saying that it's needed to prevent protests from spinning out of control into riots, property destruction, and injury. Sortwell and other republican supporters of the bill referenced protests and unrest in 2020 in Kenosha and Madison.
Among those who testified against the bill was Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Madison). Like other critics, Clancy said the bill was written vaguely in order to be applied broadly to crack down on protest movements. 'While myself and many of my Democratic colleagues are tired of wasting our time and our constituents' resources on badly written, unconstitutional bills like AB-88, I'm ecstatic that Republicans have abandoned this one for now,' Clancy said in a statement after the bill was shelved by the Assembly committee. 'It's clear that passionate, thoughtful testimony from the public, free speech advocates and civil rights experts – along with excellent technical critiques from Rep. Andrew Hysell – has stopped this so-called 'anti-riot' bill dead in its tracks.'
Clancy added that 'in reality, however, this isn't an 'anti-riot' bill: it's a threat to free speech, expression and assembly disguised as a public safety measure. Thankfully, it's now unlikely to move forward this session.'
During the May 7 committee hearing where people spoke either in favor of or against the bill, one man wore a hat which used an expletive to denounce President Donald Trump. Committee Chair Ron Tulser (R- Harrison) demanded that the man remove the hat because it was offensive. Tulser threatened to have law enforcement remove the man, and called the hearing into recess. Later, when the hearing continued, the man was allowed to continue wearing the hat. Clancy told Tulser his emotional reaction to the hat and his impulse to call for police was an example of how a broad, penalty-heavy bill for protests like AB-88 is a bad idea.
In his statement, Clancy urged his colleagues to spend 'less time trying to dismantle our rights and getting angry at rude hats' and more time 'addressing the actual needs of Wisconsin residents. Until that changes, we must all remain vigilant to fight back their next, terrible idea.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
13 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
California pushes partisan plan for new Democratic districts to counter Texas in fight for US House
LOS ANGELES — California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday his state will hold a Nov. 4 special election to seek approval of redrawn districts intended to give Democrats five more U.S. House seats in the fight for control of Congress. The move is a direct response to a similar Republican-led effort in Texas, pushed by President Donald Trump as his party seeks to maintain its slim House majority in the midterm elections. The nation's two most populous states have emerged as the center of a partisan turf war in the House that could spiral into other states — as well as the courts — in what amounts to a proxy war ahead of the 2026 elections. Texas lawmakers are considering a new map that could help them send five more Republicans to Washington. Democrats who so far have halted a vote by leaving the state announced Thursday that they will return home if Texas Republicans end their current special session and California releases its own recast map proposal. Both were expected to happen Friday. However, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is expected to call another special session to push through new maps. Texas House Democrats planning their departure from Illinois and back to AustinIn Los Angeles, Newsom staged what amounted to a campaign kickoff rally for the as-yet unreleased new maps with the state's Democratic leadership in a downtown auditorium packed with union members, legislators and abortion rights supporters. Newsom and other speakers veered from discussing the technical grist of reshaping districts — known as redistricting — and instead depicted the looming battle as a conflict with all things Trump, tying it explicitly to the fate of American democracy. 'We can't stand back and watch this democracy disappear district by district all across the country,' Newsom said. 'We are not bystanders in this world. We can shape the future.' An overarching theme was the willingness to stand up to Trump, a cheer-inducing line for Democrats as the party looks to regroup from its 2024 losses. 'Donald Trump, you have poked the bear and we will punch back,' said Newsom, a possible 2028 presidential contender. Thursday's announcement marks the first time any state beyond Texas has officially waded into the mid-decade redistricting fight. The Texas plan was stalled when minority Democrats fled to Illinois, New York and Massachusetts on Aug. 3 to stop the Legislature from passing any bills. Elsewhere, leaders from red Florida to blue New York are threatening to write new maps. In Missouri, a document obtained by The Associated Press shows the state Senate received a $46,000 invoice to activate six redistricting software licenses and provide training for up to 10 staff members. In California, lawmakers must officially declare the special election, which they plan to do next week after voting on the new maps. Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers — enough to act without any Republican votes — and Newsom said he's not worried about winning the required support from two-thirds of lawmakers to advance the maps. Newsom encouraged other Democratic-led states to get involved. 'We need to stand up — not just California. Other blue states need to stand up,' Newsom said. Republicans hold a 219-212 majority in the U.S. House, with four vacancies. New maps are typically drawn once a decade after the census is conducted. Many states, including Texas, give legislators the power to draw maps. California is among states that rely on an independent commission that is supposed to be nonpartisan. The California map would take effect only if a Republican state moves forward, and it would remain through the 2030 elections. After that, Democrats say they would return mapmaking power to the independent commission approved by voters more than a decade ago. Some people already have said they would sue to block the effort, and influential voices including former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may campaign against it. 'Gavin Newsom's latest stunt has nothing to do with Californians and everything to do with consolidating radical Democrat power, silencing California voters, and propping up his pathetic 2028 presidential pipe dream,' National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said in a statement. 'Newsom's made it clear: he'll shred California's Constitution and trample over democracy — running a cynical, self-serving playbook where Californians are an afterthought and power is the only priority.' California Democrats hold 43 of the state's 52 House seats, and the state has some of the most competitive House seats. Outside Newsom's news conference Thursday, U.S. Border Patrol agents conducted patrols, drawing condemnation from the governor and others. 'We're here making Los Angeles a safer place since we don't have politicians that will do that,' Gregory Bovino, chief of the patrol's El Centro, California, sector, told a reporter with KTTV in Los Angeles. He said he didn't know Newsom was inside nearby.
The Hill
13 minutes ago
- The Hill
Mississippi social media law upheld
In an emergency ruling Thursday, the justices denied internet trade group NetChoice's request to reinstate a lower court's order protecting social media giants like Meta, X and YouTube from the new requirements. The Supreme Court did not explain its order or disclose the vote count, as is typical in emergency cases. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, wrote a solo opinion cautioning that NetChoice is likely to ultimately succeed on its First Amendment claims even though he was siding against the group at this stage. 'In short, under this Court's case law as it currently stands, the Mississippi law is likely unconstitutional,' Kavanaugh's brief opinion reads. 'Nonetheless, because NetChoice has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time, I concur in the Court's denial of the application for interim relief,' the conservative justice continued. NetChoice had asked the court to intervene after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit lifted the district judge's decision shielding the platforms from the 2024 law without explanation. 'Neither NetChoice nor this Court can know why the Fifth Circuit believed this law satisfies the First Amendment's stringent demands or deviated from the seven other decisions enjoining similar laws,' NetChoice wrote in its request. It argued it would face 'immediate, irreparable' injury should the law be allowed to go into effect. Mississippi's law establishes requirements for social media companies to confirm their users' ages. Minors must have express consent from a parent or guardian to use the platform, and covered websites must strive to eliminate their exposure to harmful material or face a $10,000 fine. U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden found the law unconstitutional as applied to NetChoice members YouTube, X, Snapchat, Reddit, Pinterest, Nextdoor, Dreamwidth and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram. The Hill's Ella Lee has more here.
Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
Pentagon belatedly defends Driscoll against Loomer attacks
He also 'stands by every single Medal of Honor recipient,' Wilson said. 'They are all heroes in our eyes and that includes Flo Groberg.' Hegseth, who is prolific on both his personal and official X accounts, has not commented about Loomer's posts. Loomer, in an interview this week before the Pentagon comments, said she and Hegseth had spoken, but would not say whether the conversation involved Driscoll. 'I'm not telling Pete Hegseth how to do his job,' Loomer said. 'He's a good leader in the sense that he's not just ignoring [issues I raise] and saying, 'Oh, well, it doesn't matter.'' The conservative activist, in her rant against Driscoll, also complained that he hired former Biden cyber policy official Jen Easterly for a part-time teaching position. Easterly is a West Point graduate who served in uniform for two decades. The Army secretary isn't normally consulted on hiring decisions at West Point, but Driscoll ordered the offer rescinded after a previous Loomer post and called for a review of how appointments at the academy are made. She also lashed out at Groberg — who was honored by the Army's social media account for his heroism — for being 'an immigrant who voted for Hillary Clinton.' Loomer didn't back down from her criticism of Driscoll, an Army combat vet and longtime Republican. 'When is this guy going to realize that he doesn't have the political acumen or the political knowledge of the MAGA movement?' she said in the interview, adding she wasn't trying to get him fired. She also suggested Driscoll's close friendship with Vice President JD Vance, who know each other from their time at Yale Law School, has helped deflect some criticism. 'Is being friends with the vice president a qualification in today's world?' she said. 'I personally thought that there would be a higher bar aside from just being really good friends with the vice president.' The Defense Department's support came too late from some in the Pentagon, who were frustrated that leaders didn't defend the combat heroes more quickly. 'A medal of honor recipient shouldn't need defending, but leadership has let this slide,' said a defense official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. The Pentagon, when asked for comment, wouldn't say whether Hegseth agreed with Loomer's criticisms. 'Secretary Hegseth appreciates Ms. Loomer's outside public advocacy,' Pentagon spokesperson Joel Valdez said. 'He has total confidence in Army Secretary Driscoll.'
