Court Opinion

ID: 9740911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:44:45.152268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:20.436470
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.
¶ 55. {concurring) . I agree that Scott R. Jensen's motion to change the venue of his criminal trial from Dane County, the place where the alleged illegal conduct occurred, to Waukesha County, Scott Jensen's county of residence, should be granted. The legislature intended this result.
¶ 56. I begin by placing in context Wis. Stat. § 971.19(12), the "home county venue" provision at issue in the instant case. This provision was enacted as part of 2007 Wisconsin Act 1, which created the Government Accountability Board and significantly overhauled how the state's elections, ethics, and accountability laws governing public officials are administered, investigated, and enforced. In practical terms, § 971.19(12) provides a special venue rule for certain offenses by public officials: trial in the county of the official's residence. This venue provision supplants the *617usual rule of venue, which is of long standing and constitutional stature, that prosecution and trial generally take place where the offense occurred.
¶ 57. In short, section 971.19(12) arguably provides preferential procedural treatment for those prosecuted in public ethics actions, who are disproportionately public officials. Perhaps not surprisingly, this provision was very controversial during the passage of the Act and was subject to much scrutiny and negotiation, as was the entire Act. That context provides valuable insight in interpreting the statutory provision. I shall return to the context after first examining the text of §971.19(12).
I
¶ 58. I turn first to the text of Wis. Stat. § 971.19(12). The text is very difficult to read and understand and hard to apply to the facts of the present case. To help analyze § 971.19(12), I format the text as follows:
§ 971.19(12). Except as provided in s. 971.223,1 in an action
[1] for a violation of chs. 5 to 12, subch. III of ch. 13, or subch. III of ch. 19, or
*618[2] for a violation of any other law arising from or in relation to the official functions of the subject of the investigation or
[3] any matter that involves elections, ethics, or lobbying regulation under subch. 5 to 12 [chs. 5 to 12], subch. III of ch. 13, or subch. III of ch. 19
a defendant who is a resident of this state shall be tried in circuit court for the county where the defendant resides. For purposes of this subsection, a person other than a natural person resides within a county if the person's principal place of operation is located within that county.
¶ 59. Part [1] of Wis. Stat. § 971.19(12) seems straightforward and clear. A defendant who violates one of the specifically enumerated statutes shall be tried in the circuit court in the county where the defendant resides. The parties, the majority opinion, and I all agree that this part of § 971.19(12) does not apply in the present case. Scott Jensen is not charged with violating any of the enumerated statutes. Rather, he is charged with a felony under Wis. Stat. § 946.12(3), misconduct in public office.
¶ 60. Part [2] of Wis. Stat. § 971.19(12) is not limited to a violation of election, ethics, or lobbying laws. Rather, under part [2] of § 971.19(12) a person who violates any law arising from or in relation to his or her official function shall be tried in the circuit court in the county where the defendant resides. Scott Jensen is charged with violating a law relating to his official functions as a legislator.2
*619¶ 61. The difficulty presented in Part [2] of Wis. Stat. § 971.19(12), however, is the meaning of the statutory phrase "subject of the investigation." The statute does not say "subject of an investigation." The legislature's use of the article "the" rather than "a" appears to refer to a specific type of investigation rather than to any type of investigation.
¶ 62. As the majority opinion points out, the phrase "subject of the investigation" appears in other sections of the Act where the phrase clearly refers to investigations by the Government Accountability Board. See majority op., ¶¶ 36-37. The ordinary rule of statutory interpretation is that the legislature intends a word or phrase used in a single Act to have the same meaning throughout the Act.3 Here, the majority opinion at ¶ 37 abandons this rule of statutory interpretation and declares that the same phrase is meant to have different meanings in different parts of the same enactment. This reasoning is unconvincing.
¶ 63. The majority opinion interprets the phrase "the subject of the investigation" to include "investigations by the Government Accountability Board, the former Elections Board, the former Ethics Board and district attorneys." This delineation of a set of investigations has no textual basis. Why include these bodies but not investigations by the Attorney General or by other executive or law enforcement entities? Subject to those arbitrary distinctions, the majority effectively equates "the subject of the investigation" with "a defen*620dant." But section 971.19(12) uses both "the subject of the investigation" and "a defendant." In interpreting statutes, the court ordinarily says that when the legislature uses two different words or phrases the legislature intended the two to have different meanings.4 The majority opinion in effect reads the phrase "subject of the investigation" to mean "a defendant."
¶ 64. Part [2] of Wis. Stat. § 971.19(12) is difficult to understand and apply, especially to the facts of the present case.
¶ 65. I now turn to the text of Part [3] of Wis. Stat. § 971.19(12). The first quandary is that the text is grammatically challenged. It cannot be understood as written. If Part [3] is read literally it does not yield an intelligible sentence: "Except as provided in s. 971.223, in an action . . . any matter that involves elections . . . ."
¶ 66. Part [3] makes sense if, for example, the word "for" is inserted in the statute. With this addition the statute would read as follows: "Except as provided in s. 971.223, in an action. . . for any matter that involves elections ... ."
¶ 67. Or, to make sense Part [3] may be read to incorporate the 13-word introductory phrase appearing in Part [2] of § 971.19(12). With the addition of these words, Part [3] would read as follows: "Except as provided in s. 971.223, in an action ... for a violation, of any other law arising from or in relation to any matter that involves elections ... ." The majority opin*621ion at ¶¶ 20-23 adopts this reading of Wis. Stat. § 971.19(12). If there was ever any doubt about this provision's textual opacity, the conclusive evidence is that the majority requires four paragraphs of judicial analysis, including two dedicated to the absence of a single comma, just to decide which words should be cobbled together to form a proper sentence.
¶ 68. Having thus rehabilitated the statute's syntax, the majority opinion at ¶ 46 also broadly interprets the word "involves" used in Part [3] to include the charge in the present case for violation of Wis. Stat. § 946.12(3), misconduct in office. With this broad interpretation of Part [3], the majority opinion has in effect incorporated all of Part [1] of § 971.19(12) into Part [3], rendering Part [1] wholly surplusage and redundant. Direct violations of the ethics, lobbying, and elections laws, covered in Part [1], are plainly swallowed up by the majority's interpretation of "any matter that involves elections, ethics or lobbying regulation." This reading of Part [3] renders Part [1] irrelevant, violating yet another basic rule of statutory interpretation.5
¶ 69. It is obvious that the text of Wis. Stat. § 971.19(12) raises many problems and questions that the majority opinion has not satisfactorily resolved. I return to the context of the "home county venue" provision for guidance. The text is more easily understood and applied by examining the findings and objectives the legislature set forth in adopting the Act.
*622II
¶ 70. The enactment of a comprehensive ethics, elections, and accountability bill was considered by the legislature for several years. In January 2007, Governor James Doyle called the legislature into special session on ethics reform, and the legislature adopted 2007 Wisconsin Act 1. Like many laws, the Act was a delicate compromise between the governor and the legislature, between the Senate and the Assembly, and between members of the two political parties.6 With all the compromises, the Act was adopted overwhelmingly— 97-2 in the Assembly and 33-0 in the Senate.7
¶ 71. Prior to the adoption of the Act, both Democratic and Republican members of the legislature had been prosecuted and convicted for violating various laws as public officials. Section 971.19(12), the "home county venue" provision, was critical to winning Republican support.8 It was reported that Republican legislators considered the "home county" provision "critical, because three of their former leaders were convicted of *623crimes in Dane County."9 By many reports, "Republicans were concerned that they would not get a fair shake in Madison courts."10 Sponsors of the Act reportedly said "they allowed for a venue change in order to placate lawmakers who were concerned about facing an overzealous Dane County prosecutor and a potentially hostile Dane County jury."11 Rep. Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) criticized the "home county venue" provision as "giv[ing] the political class in Wisconsin a home-court advantage" and tried to amend the bill to remove the venue provision; this effort was soundly defeated in the Assembly by an 80-19 vote.12
¶ 72. Legislators also expressed concern, however, that the "home county venue" provision was unconstitutional.13 Some argued that it would violate of Article I, Section 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which guarantees an accused "a speedy public trial by an impartial *624jury of the county or district wherein the offense shall have been committed...." The "home county venue" provision was therefore modified to allow an accused to opt out of the "home county venue" provision.14 This opt-out provision was included to protect an accused's constitutional right to trial in the place where the acts were committed.
¶ 73. Trepidation was expressed that the "home county venue" provision might violate the equal protection clause of the Wisconsin and United States constitutions by treating certain defendants, disproportionately public officials, differently from other persons accused of crimes.15
¶ 74. In light of these constitutional concerns, the legislature adopted Wis. Stat. § 801.64, which made specific legislative findings regarding the Act.16 The *625legislature collectively opined that the enactment of the "home county venue" and opt-out provisions was consistent with other statutes and with the protections under Article I, Section 7 of the Wisconsin constitution. The legislature further found that the "home county venue" provision "is consistent with equal protection of the laws under article I, section 1 of the [Wisconsin] constitution." Legislative findings pre-emptively defending the constitutionality of an enactment are unusual in Wisconsin legislative enactments.
¶ 75. Moreover, the legislature expressed its intent in Wis. Stat. § 801.64 that violations of offenses covered by the Act are violations of public trust and should be adjudicated in the county where the public official resides so that the individuals in the county whom the official serves will judge the official's guilt or innocence. Unfortunately, the legislature left murky in § 971.19(12) exactly which offenses are "violations of offenses covered by 2007 Wisconsin Act 1." Indeed the issue presented in the instant case is whether the charges against Scott Jensen are among those "viola*626tions of offenses covered by 2007 Wisconsin Act 1." As discussed above, it is not clear from the language whether any of the three parts of Wis. Stat. § 971.19(12) covers the charges pending against Scott Jensen.
¶ 76. The legislative goal of removing certain (but not all) cases involving public officials from prosecution and trial in Dane County to the county of the official's residence is, however, clear. The legislative findings and history inform the application of § 971.19(12) to the present case.
¶ 77. Scott Jensen was charged and convicted in Dane County Circuit Court before the Act was adopted. His appeal from his conviction was pending in the court of appeals when the Act was adopted. After the adoption of the Act, the court of appeals ordered a new trial for Scott Jensen. The parties agree that the Act applies to Scott Jensen's retrial. In light of the legislative history, the legislative findings in Wis. Stat. § 801.64, and the pendency of Scott Jensen's prosecution at the time the Act was debated, negotiated, and adopted, I would interpret the hard-to-read-and-understand home county venue provision, § 971.19(12), as including Scott Jensen.
¶ 78. For the reasons set forth, I write separately.
¶ 79. I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY joins this opinion.

 Wisconsin Stat. § 971.223 provides an opt-out provision. A defendant subject to "home county venue" under Wis. Stat. § 971.19(12) may choose instead to be tried in the county where the alleged offense was committed. As discussed further below, this opt-out provision appears to have been added to save the "home county venue" provision from running afoul of the state constitutional right to jury trial in "the county or district wherein the offense shall have been committed." Wis. Const. art. I, § 7.

 Scott Jensen's argument with regard to Part [2] is that he is the subject of the investigation and is charged with committing misconduct in public office, "in relation to" the official functions of his office, by his purported failure to comply with *619the duties of state officials, duties established in part by the laws regulating elections, ethics, and lobbying under chapters 11, 12, and 19 of the statutes.

 See, e.g., Phelps v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis., 2005 WI 85, 58, 282 Wis. 2d 69, 698 N.W.2d 643; State v. Dismuke, 2001 WI 75, 21, 244 Wis. 2d 457, 628 N.W.2d 791.

 Pawlowski v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 WI 105, ¶ 22 n.14, 322 Wis. 2d 21, 777 N.W.2d 67 (citing Graziano v. Town of Long Lake, 191 Wis. 2d 812, 822, 530 N.W.2d 55 (Ct. App. 1995) ("[W]here the legislature uses similar but different terms in a statute, particularly within the same section, we may presume it intended the terms to have different meanings.")).

 See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler v. LIRC, 2007 WI 15, ¶ 32, 299 Wis. 2d 1, 727 N.W.2d 311 ("Statutes should be interpreted so that every word is given effect."); Donaldson v. State, 93 Wis. 2d 306, 315, 286 N.W.2d 817 (1980) ("A statute should be construed so that no word or clause shall be rendered surplusage and every word if possible should be given effect.").

 See Judith Davidoff, Ethics Overhaul Headed for Passage: Some Provisions Trouble DA, Journalists, Capital Times, Jan. 30, 2007, at C1; Steven Walters & Patrick Marley, Rift over Ethics Bill Expands: Parties are at odds over legality of measure that would try legislators in their home counties, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jan. 20, 2007, at A1; Stacy Forster, If reforms are rejected, ethics, elections boards would return: Lawmaker promises option in case court strikes down changes, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jan. 17 2007, at B1.

 The bill passed without debate in the Senate. In the Assembly, supporters defeated attempts to remove the "home county venue" provision. Ryan J. Foley, Ethics Board Gets Overwhelming OK: Governor Says He Will Sign Bill, Capital Times (AP Wire Story), Jan. 31, 2007, at C1.

 Significantly, at the time this legislation was considered, the two houses of the legislature were controlled by two *623different political parties. In the previous legislative session, a bill to create the Government Accountability Board that did not include the "home county venue" provision passed the Democratic-controlled Senate but failed to pass in the Republican-controlled Assembly. See 2005 Sen. Bill 1.

 Steven Walters, DA: Ethics bill has 'loophole': Reform plan would let accused legislators be prosecuted in their home county, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jan. 19, 2007, at A1.

 Editorial: Ethics Reform Bill Passage is Good News for Wisconsin, La Crosse Tribune, Feb. 3, 2007.

 David Callender, Ethics Reform Bill Draws DA's Fire-Blanchard: It Gives Accused Lawmakers Special Breaks, Capital Times, Jan. 19, 2007, at C1.

 See, e.g., Ryan J. Foley, Ethics Board Gets Overwhelming OK Governor Says He Will Sign Bill, Capital Times (AP Wire Story), Jan. 31, 2007, at C1.

 Steven Walters & Patrick Marley, Rift over ethics bill expands: Parties are at odds over legality of measure that would try legislators in their home counties, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jan. 20, 2007, at A1.

 See Wis. Stat. § 971.223.

 Steven Walters & Patrick Marley, Rift over ethics bill expands: Parties are at odds over legality of measure that would try legislators in their home counties, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jan. 20, 2007, at A1.
The circuit court raised the equal protection issue in the present case but did not resolve it, and no equal protection argument was made in this court. The combined effect of Wis. Stat. § 971.19(12) and § 971.223 is that certain criminal defendants, especially public officials, charged with certain crimes, are able to choose one of two venues, while most defendants are tried in the county where the allegedly criminal conduct occurred, with no choice about venue.

 The full text of Wis. Stat. § 801.64 reads as follows:
801.64 Legislative findings; 2007 Wisconsin Act 1. The legislature finds that providing under 2007 Wisconsin Act 1 for the place of trial in the county where the offender resides is consistent with the legislature's authority under article I, section 7, of the constitution and with previous acts by the legislature providing for the place of trial in counties other than where the elements of the *625offense may have occurred. The legislature further finds that allowing defendants charged with violating offenses covered by 2007 Wisconsin Act 1 to request a trial in the county where the offense occurred is consistent with the protections in article I, section 7, of the constitution. The legislature finds that violations of offenses covered by 2007 Wisconsin Act 1 are violations of the public trust that should be adjudicated in the county where the offender resides so the individuals who the defendant interacts with daily, serves, or represents as a public official or candidate and whose trust was violated by the offense will judge the defendant's guilt or innocence. The legislature further finds that to so provide is consistent with equal protection of the laws under article I, section 1, of the constitution. The legislature finds the venue provision in 2007 Wisconsin Act 1 represents an appropriate balance between the rights of the defendant and the need to prevent and prosecute civil and criminal offenses covered by 2007 Wisconsin Act 1.