Title: State v. Adam S. Gonzales
Citation: 2002 WI 59
Docket Number: 2001AP000224-CR
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 13, 2002

2002 WI 59 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
01-0224-CR 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
v. 
Adam S. Gonzales,  
 
Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 13, 2002 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 16, 2002   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Kenosha   
 
JUDGE: 
Michael Fisher   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-appellant there were briefs and oral 
argument 
by 
Suzanne 
L. 
Hagopian, 
assistant 
state 
public 
defender. 
 
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by 
Jeffrey J. Kassel, assistant attorney general, with whom on the 
brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Michael Patrick Murray, 
South Riding, Virginia, and Robert Dowlut, Fairfax, Virginia, on 
behalf of the National Rifle Association of America. 
 
 
2002 WI 59 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  01-0224-CR  
(L.C. No. 
98 CF 1114) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Adam S. Gonzales,  
 
          Defendant-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 13, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the Circuit Court 
for Kenosha County, Michael S. Fisher, Judge.  Affirmed.   
 
¶1 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE.   This case 
comes before this court on certification by the court of appeals 
pursuant to Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.61 (1999-2000).1  The Circuit 
Court for Kenosha County, Michael S. Fisher, Judge, entered a 
judgment of conviction and an order denying the post-conviction 
motion of Adam S. Gonzales, the defendant.  The defendant sought 
to vacate his conviction for going armed with a concealed and 
dangerous weapon in violation of Wis. Stat. § 941.23.  The 
                                                 
1 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 1999-2000 version, unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
01-0224-CR   
 
2 
 
defendant's sole ground for challenging his conviction was that 
§ 941.23 is unconstitutional.  He asserts that § 941.23 is 
incompatible with Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin 
Constitution, which creates a right to keep and bear arms.  The 
circuit court rejected the defendant's argument.   
¶2 
We do not address whether Wis. Stat. § 941.23 is 
rendered unconstitutional by Article I, Section 25.  We conclude 
that Article I, Section 25 was not in effect on the day on which 
the defendant violated § 941.23.  Accordingly, we further 
conclude that the defendant's sole defense to his conviction, 
namely, 
the 
unconstitutionality 
of 
§ 941.23, 
fails. 
 
We 
therefore affirm the judgment of conviction and the order of the 
circuit court. 
 
I 
¶3 
Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of 
disorderly conduct in violation of Wis. Stat. § 947.01 and 
carrying a concealed weapon in violation of § 941.23.  Section 
941.23 provides:  "Any person except a peace officer who goes 
armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class 
A misdemeanor."  The circuit court then sentenced the defendant 
as a repeater to thirty months for the disorderly conduct charge 
and twenty-four months for the concealed weapon charge, the 
sentences to be served consecutively.   
¶4 
For the purposes of this appeal, the facts are not in 
dispute.  On November 6, 1998, the defendant, Adam Gonzales, 
created a disturbance at the apartment building in which he 
No. 
01-0224-CR   
 
3 
 
lived, and he was arrested.  The arresting officer patted down 
the defendant and found a gun magazine in the defendant's pants 
pocket and found a gun in the pocket of a black leather jacket 
that the defendant had been wearing during the disturbance.  
¶5 
The defendant filed a post-conviction motion, seeking 
to vacate his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon.  He 
argued that Wis. Stat. § 941.23, Wisconsin's concealed weapon 
law, was unconstitutional on its face and unconstitutional as 
applied to him as a result of the adoption of Article I, Section 
25 of the Wisconsin Constitution.  Article I, Section 25 
provides in its entirety as follows: "The people have the right 
to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation 
or any other lawful purpose."   
¶6 
The circuit court denied the post-conviction motion.  
The defendant appealed the order, and the court of appeals 
certified to this court the question of whether the prohibition 
against going armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon as set 
forth in § 941.23 is unconstitutional in light of Article I, 
Section 25.  This court granted the certification. 
 
II 
¶7 
During oral argument in the present case, the question 
arose whether Article I, Section 25 was in effect on November 6, 
1998, when the defendant committed the offense of going armed 
with 
a 
concealed 
and 
dangerous 
weapon 
in 
violation 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 941.23.  The constitutional amendment was on the 
No. 
01-0224-CR   
 
4 
 
ballot in the general election on November 3, 1998, and was 
ratified that day by 74 percent of the vote cast.   
¶8 
On 
November 
30, 
1998, 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. Stat. § 7.70(3)(h), the chairperson of the State Elections 
Board determined and certified that the proposed constitutional 
amendment was approved by a majority of the electors voting 
thereon.  
¶9 
The court ordered supplemental briefs to address two 
issues: (1) when did the 1998 constitutional amendment adopting 
Article I, Section 25 become effective, and (2) in making that 
decision, what is the importance of Wis. Stat. § 7.70(3)(h), 
which 
describes 
the 
effective 
date 
of 
a 
constitutional 
amendment?   
¶10 The 
present 
case 
poses 
questions 
involving 
interpretation of the state constitution and a state statute.  
These 
are 
questions 
of 
law 
that 
this 
court 
determines 
independent of the circuit court but benefiting from its 
analysis. 
 
III 
¶11 We first examine Article I, Section 25.  This 
constitutional amendment states in its entirety: 
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for 
security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other 
lawful purpose. 
The legislative records regarding Article I, Section 25 are 
silent about its effective date. 
No. 
01-0224-CR   
 
5 
 
¶12 Article XII, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution, 
governing the adoption of constitutional amendments, is silent 
about the effective date of a constitutional amendment.  Article 
XII, Section 1 merely states in pertinent part that if the 
people ratify an amendment, it shall become part of the 
constitution: 
[I]f 
the 
people 
shall 
approve 
and 
ratify 
such 
amendment . . . by a majority of the electors voting 
thereon, such amendment . . . shall become part of the 
constitution. 
¶13 Wisconsin Stat. § 7.70(3)(h) sets forth the effective 
date of a constitutional amendment as the "time the chairperson 
of the [State Elections Board] or the chairperson's designee 
certifies 
that 
the 
amendment . . . is 
approved."2  
Section 7.70(3)(a) provides that the chairperson of the State 
Elections Board shall publicly canvass the returns and make his 
or her certifications and determinations on or before the first 
day of December following a general election.3   
                                                 
2 Section 7.70(3)(h) provides in relevant part: 
Whenever a constitutional amendment or other statewide 
validating or ratifying referendum question which is 
approved by the people does not expressly state the 
date of effectiveness, it shall become effective at 
the 
time 
the 
chairperson 
of 
the 
board 
or 
the 
chairperson's designee certifies that the amendment or 
referendum question is approved. 
3 Section 7.70(3)(a) provides: 
The chairperson of the board or a designee of the 
chairperson appointed by the chairperson to canvass a 
specific election shall publicly canvass the returns 
and make his or her certifications and determinations 
on or before the 2nd Tuesday following a spring 
No. 
01-0224-CR   
 
6 
 
¶14 Although 
statewide 
canvassing 
relating 
to 
constitutional amendments has existed since statehood,4 the 
language in Wis. Stat. § 7.70(3)(h) governing the effective date 
of a constitutional amendment was not adopted until 1955.5  The 
drafting file of § 7.70(3)(h) does not explain the reason for 
the adoption of this provision.6   
¶15 The 
State 
argues 
that 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. Stat. § 7.70(3)(h), Article I, Section 25 became effective 
when the chairperson canvassed and certified the election on 
November 30, 1998.  The State reasons that § 7.70(3)(h) is a 
valid statute that provides an effective date for constitutional 
amendments 
that 
do 
not 
expressly 
state 
the 
date 
of 
effectiveness.   
¶16 In contrast, the defendant argues that the Wisconsin 
Constitution does not grant the legislature authority to enact 
Wis. Stat. § 7.70(3)(h) and to delay the effectiveness of a 
constitutional amendment when a proposed amendment is silent 
                                                                                                                                                             
primary, the 15th day of May following a spring 
election, the 4th Tuesday in September following a 
September primary, the first day of December following 
a general election, the 2nd Thursday following a 
special primary, or within 18 days after any special 
election. 
4 See Wis. Rev. Stat. Ch. 6, §§ 82, 83 (1849).  
5 Ch. 384, Laws of 1955.  When enacted in 1955, the language 
appeared in Wis. Stat. § 6.10(1) (1955-57).  When the election 
laws were rewritten in 1965, the language was moved to 
§ 7.70(3)(g), Wis. Stat. (1965-66). 
6 Legislative Reference Bureau Drafting File to ch. 384, 
Laws of 1955, LRB-2178. 
No. 
01-0224-CR   
 
7 
 
about its effective date.  The defendant interprets Article XII, 
Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution to mean that a 
constitutional amendment becomes effective when a majority of 
the electors adopts the amendment.  According to the defendant, 
the vote of the electors is the last necessary act to make a 
constitutional amendment effective.   
¶17 Records of the Wisconsin constitutional conventions in 
1846 and 1847-48 reflect little debate about the procedure for 
amending the constitution and are not helpful in determining the 
effective date of a constitutional amendment.  
¶18 The parties rely on Wisconsin cases to support their 
respective positions, but no case directly decides the issue 
presented here.  In The Attorney General ex rel. Bashford v. 
Barstow, 4 Wis. 567 (1855), two gubernatorial candidates 
asserted a right to the office of governor.  One candidate 
asserted his right based on having received the "highest number 
of votes" in the general election as provided in Article V, 
Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution.7  The other candidate 
asserted his right based on having been issued a certificate as 
the winner by the board of canvassers.  This court held that the 
right to office is based on the highest number of votes cast by 
the electors, not the certification by the board of canvassers.  
The court reasoned that the board of canvassers possessed a 
                                                 
7 "The persons respectively having the highest number of 
votes . . . shall be elected . . . ."  Wis. Const. art. V, § 3. 
No. 
01-0224-CR   
 
8 
 
strictly ministerial8 duty created by the legislature, which may 
not supersede the state constitution's dictate that an election 
is determined by the candidate receiving the most votes.9   
¶19 Although Barstow established that the vote of the 
electors determines the right to an office, Barstow does not 
answer the question of when that right becomes effective and 
thus does not answer the question before the court in the 
present case.   
¶20 In State ex rel. Hudd v. Timme, 54 Wis. 318, 326-32, 
11 N.W. 785 (1882), this court held that a state constitutional 
amendment creating a biennial legislature was not effective 
immediately upon adoption because, as a practical matter, the 
amendment could not be effective until new legislative elections 
occurred.  The Hudd court did not address the question posed in 
the present case regarding when a constitutional amendment that 
requires no subsequent implementing action takes effect. 
¶21 The issue of the effective date of a constitutional 
amendment arose in 1955.  The joint resolution proposing a 
constitutional amendment stated that the amendment was to become 
effective on May 1, 1955.  The text of the proposed amendment 
that appeared before the electors at the election failed, 
however, to include the delayed effective date of May 1, 1955.   
                                                 
8 The Attorney General ex rel. Bashford v. Barstow, 4 Wis. 
567, 775 (1855). 
9 Id. at 825. 
No. 
01-0224-CR   
 
9 
 
¶22 The electors ratified the proposed amendment on April 
5, 1955.  The board of canvassers certified the results of the 
election on April 18, 1955.  Both an Opinion of the Attorney 
General10 and a decision of this court, State ex rel. Thomson v. 
Peoples State Bank, 272 Wis. 614, 76 N.W.2d 370 (1956), found it 
unnecessary, however, to resolve the issue of whether the 1955 
amendment went into effect on April 5 or April 18.11   
                                                 
10 The Opinion of the Attorney General states: 
It could be argued with some force here, that the 
amendment here involved took effect on April 18, 1955, 
when pursuant to the provisions of sec. 6.71(7), 
Stats., the state board of canvassers certified the 
vote and made the determination that such amendment 
was adopted by a majority of the electors voting 
thereon. 
 . . .  
On 
the 
other 
hand, 
there 
are 
indications in some of the cases that language 
respecting amendments like that in our art. XII, sec. 
1, means just what it says, namely, that an amendment 
comes into existence immediately upon the casting of 
the majority vote, and therefore there is no power in 
the 
legislature 
or 
anyone 
else 
to 
provide 
for 
effectiveness at any other time.  However it is not 
necessary at this time to resolve that question, as 
the question here is not whether this amendment went 
into effect upon the majority vote on April 5, 1955, 
or not until the certification thereof on April 18, 
1955.   
44 Op. Att'y Gen. 108, 111-12 (1955). 
11 "The amendment went into effect and became a part of the 
constitution either on April 5, 1955, following the election, or 
on April 18, 1955, following the certification of the vote by 
the board of canvassers.  It is unnecessary to determine which 
was the effective date of the amendment."  State ex rel. Thomson 
v. Peoples State Bank, 272 Wis. 614, 625-26, 76 N.W.2d 370 
(1956). 
No. 
01-0224-CR   
 
10 
 
¶23 The last Wisconsin case that the parties discuss is 
Kayden 
Industries, 
Inc. 
v. 
Murphy, 
34 
Wis. 2d 718, 
150 
N.W.2d 447 (1967).  The Kayden case addressed the question of 
whether the state constitutional amendment itself legalized 
lotteries 
or 
whether 
the 
constitutional 
amendment 
merely 
permitted 
the 
legislature 
to 
enact 
legislation 
modifying 
Wisconsin case law that prohibited lotteries based on the 
language of the pre-amended constitution.   
¶24 Kayden held that a substantive state constitutional 
amendment is self-executing and that subsequent legislative 
action is unnecessary to give effect to the amendment, unless 
the language of the amendment is ambiguous or legislative action 
is required.  Kayden does not answer the question of when a 
constitutional amendment takes effect. 
¶25 The issue posed in the present case is one of first 
impression in Wisconsin.  The states that have considered the 
issue are divided.  Several states with constitutions providing 
that 
constitutional 
amendments 
shall 
become 
part 
of 
the 
constitution 
if 
adopted 
by 
a 
majority 
of 
electors 
have 
determined that a proposed constitutional amendment becomes 
effective on the date the amendment is ratified by the 
No. 
01-0224-CR   
 
11 
 
electors.12  Several other states have held that a proposed 
constitutional amendment does not take effect until the result 
                                                 
12 See, e.g., Matheny v. Independence County, 227 S.W. 22 
(Ark. 
1925) 
(holding 
that 
state 
constitutional 
amendment 
granting rights sixty days from "approval and adoption" referred 
to sixty days from the election, not sixty days from governor's 
proclamation as provided for by statute); In re Advisory Opinion 
to the Governor, 16 So. 410 (Fla. 1895) (stating that language 
of 
state 
constitution 
mandates 
that 
state 
constitutional 
amendments become effective upon approval of a majority of 
voters); Whitcomb v. Young, 279 N.E.2d 566 (Ind. 1972) (holding 
that state constitutional amendment modifying term of office for 
state officials also elected in same election to be effective on 
date and time of closing of polls); Seneca Mining Co. v. 
Secretary of State, 47 N.W. 25 (Mich. 1890) (holding that state 
constitutional 
amendments 
take 
effect 
at 
time 
of 
their 
ratification by popular vote); State ex rel. O'Connell v. 
Duncan, 88 P.2d 73 (Mont. 1939) (holding that state constitution 
mandates that state constitutional amendments become effective 
upon approval of a majority of voters regardless of statutory 
provision stating "the amendment shall be in full force and 
effect as part of the constitution from and after the date of 
[governor's public] proclamation"); City of Euclid v. Heaton, 
238 
N.E.2d 
790 
(Ohio 
1968) 
(holding 
that 
constitutional 
amendment effective on date of ratification by voters when no 
effective date listed in text of amendment on ballot despite 
delayed 
date 
for 
effectiveness 
appearing 
in 
text 
of 
legislature's joint resolution). 
No. 
01-0224-CR   
 
12 
 
of the election is determined by a canvass of the votes.13  We 
are persuaded that unless a constitutional amendment provides 
otherwise, it takes effect upon the certification of a statewide 
canvass of the votes as provided in Wis. Stat. § 7.70(3)(h).   
¶26 First, we conclude that the language of Article XII, 
Section 
1 
allows 
the 
legislature 
to 
adopt 
Wis. Stat. § 7.70(3)(h).  Although Article XII, Section 1 can be 
read to mean that a constitutional amendment is effective on the 
date it is ratified by a vote of the people, this interpretation 
is not the only reasonable interpretation.  The legislature has 
provided for the canvass of votes and the announcement of 
election results, including those on constitutional amendments, 
since 
the 
adoption 
of 
the 
Wisconsin 
constitution. 
 
The 
certification 
process 
following 
the 
ratification 
of 
a 
                                                 
13 See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices, 36 So.2d 499 (Ala. 
1948) (stating proposed state constitutional amendment ratified 
by a majority of voters becomes effective upon the completion of 
mandatory statewide canvassing to determine voting results); 
Opinion of the Justices, 287 N.E.2d 910 (Mass. 1972) (stating 
ratified constitutional amendment becomes effective following 
completion of a final tabulation of the vote despite state 
constitutional language indicating a proposed constitutional 
amendment 
"shall 
become 
part 
of 
the 
constitution 
if 
approved . . . by a majority of the voters"); City of Duluth v. 
Duluth St. Ry. Co., 62 N.W. 267 (Minn. 1895) (holding ratified 
constitutional amendment did not become effective at least until 
the result was ascertained by the canvass of the vote); State v. 
Kyle, 65 S.W. 763 (Mo. 1901) (holding constitutional amendment 
takes effect upon the canvass of the vote and not before); Real 
v. 
People, 
42 
N.Y. 
270, 
(N.Y. 
1870) 
(holding 
ratified 
constitutional amendment not effective until the result of 
election is declared by canvassers); Torres v. State, 278 S.W.2d 
853 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955) (holding that ratified constitutional 
amendment becomes effective upon date official canvass of voting 
returns showing amendment was adopted).   
No. 
01-0224-CR   
 
13 
 
constitutional 
amendment 
by 
the 
people 
may 
therefore 
be 
considered as part of the vote of the people and as an essential 
component of the voting process.14  Therefore, Article XII, 
Section 1 can reasonably be interpreted to mean that an 
amendment becomes effective when the last step of the voting 
process occurs, namely, the canvass.  
¶27 Second, the state constitution gives the legislature 
broad powers for submitting the constitutional amendment to the 
people.  Article XII, Section 1 provides: "It shall be the duty 
of the legislature to submit such proposed amendment or 
amendments to the people in such manner and at such time as the 
legislature shall prescribe."  The manner of submitting the 
proposed amendment can be viewed as including the statutory mode 
and manner of tabulating the returns of the votes of the 
election.  Other state courts have read language in their state 
                                                 
14 The court in Real v. People stated: 
The canvass of the votes cast by various boards of 
canvassers as required by law, and announcing the 
result and certifying the same as required by law, is 
as much a part of the election as the casting of the 
votes by the electors.  The election is not deemed 
complete 
until 
the 
result 
is 
declared 
by 
the 
canvassers as required by law.   
Real v. People, 42 N.Y. 270, 276 (N.Y. 1870).  See also 
Opinion of the Justices, 287 N.E.2d 910, 912 (Mass. 1972); 
Walter 
F. 
Dodd, 
The 
Revision 
and 
Amendment 
of 
State 
Constitutions, Vol. 1, 203 (1910). 
No. 
01-0224-CR   
 
14 
 
constitutions that is similar to the language in the Wisconsin 
constitution in this way.15   
¶28 Third, as a practical matter a canvass of the vote 
upon an amendment is necessary to ascertain the result of the 
election.16  Arguments favoring the effectiveness of state 
constitutional amendments at the time of voter ratification 
originated as an analogy to the effective dates of newly enacted 
statutes.  Under the common law, statutes are effective 
immediately upon passage.17  By analogy, the argument was made 
that 
constitutional 
amendments 
should 
also 
be 
effective 
immediately upon ratification.   
¶29 This analogy is faulty.  Upon passage of a statute 
into law, generally there is no question about the vote that 
propelled the drafted statute into law.  However, in the case of 
popular votes, a certification process is necessary to assure 
the results of the vote.  As Professor Dodd in his treatise, The 
Revision 
and 
Amendment 
of 
State 
Constitutions, 
explains:  
"Unless a constitution specifically provides otherwise, the 
better rule would seem to be that an amendment does not become 
                                                 
15 See, e.g., Kyle, 65 S.W. at 766; Duluth St. Ry. Co., 62 
N.W. at 268. 
16 See, e.g., Kyle, 65 S.W. 763.  Dodd, The Revision and 
Amendment of State Constitutions, Vol. 1, at 203-04. 
17 Dodd, The Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions, 
Vol. 1, at 204. 
No. 
01-0224-CR   
 
15 
 
effective in any case until the vote has been canvassed and the 
result announced."18  
¶30 For these reasons we conclude that the legislature has 
the authority under Article XII, Section 1 of the Wisconsin 
Constitution 
to 
adopt 
reasonable 
election 
laws 
such 
as 
Wis. Stat. § 7.70(3)(h) to provide that state constitutional 
amendments are effective after canvass and certification.  We 
further conclude that pursuant to § 7.70(3)(h), Article I, 
Section 25 was not in effect on November 6, 1998, when the 
offense was committed.  Accordingly, the defendant's challenge 
to the constitutionality of § 941.23 fails, and his conviction 
is affirmed.  
By the Court.—The judgment and order are affirmed. 
 
 
                                                 
18 Id. 
No. 
01-0224-CR   
 
 
 
1