We are committed to exploring the records of the primary candidates to educate voters on their choices; conservatives learned the hard way with the Brian Hagedorn election to Wisconsin Supreme Court what happens when they don’t vet candidates.
Republican Attorney General candidate Adam Jarchow banded together with David Bowen – who is one of the most anti-police, radical Democrats in the state Assembly – to limit mandatory minimum sentences for violent felons who repeatedly illegally carry guns.
Bowen was present at the violent mob assault against two police officers in Wauwatosa, allegedly lied about what happened in a public statement, and then refused to give police a statement about what he observed there.
He is now running for lieutenant governor.
Jarchow, a former legislator, who suggested police reform in urban cities may be necessary and voted against making it a felony to beat up a prosecutor or threaten a cop or their family, is one of two Republican candidates running for the chance to unseat Democratic AG Josh Kaul. The other candidate is Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney.
Under the mandatory minimum law, which passed in 2015, judges had to give felons who repeatedly possess firearms a minimum three-year prison sentence, if they had a prior VIOLENT felony, removing discretion from weak judges.
Adam Jarchow and David Bowen succeeded in ensuring that those mandatory minimums would affect fewer repeat violent felons by successfully getting the Legislature to limit the time frame the mandatory minimums could apply to. As a result of their amendment, the minimums only affected felons who had completed serving their sentence for a previous violent felony within five years.
In other words, if a felon was caught illegally possessing a gun and they had finished serving their sentence for a violent felony, say, six years before that, the minimums could not apply, and it would be up to the judge.
WRN came upon this amendment while researching how Milwaukee County Judge Jean Kies was able to give Lavohn Lee Carter a stayed sentence which resulted in no prison time for a 4th conviction for felon in possession of a firearm. He received probation.
Adam Jarchow and David Bowen successfully pushed the mandatory minimum amendment to Assembly bill 220 in 2015, which passed, and then went to the Senate and the governor, becoming law, although the mandatory minimums expired for all those convicted after July 2020, a sunset provision baked into the original law. In 2020, violent crime, including homicide by firearm, began skyrocketing to record levels in Milwaukee.
Adam Jarchow & David Bowen Amendment
We reached out to ask Jarchow for an explanation as to why he pushed this amendment, but he failed to respond.
A news article at the time, though, indicated that some Assembly members, without naming them, were concerned about the impact on hunters when limiting the law to the five-year window. The law before and after the amendment only applied to people convicted of violent offenses. “Some Assembly members were concerned about hunters who’d been convicted of a violent crime decades earlier but had otherwise clean records,” Fox 6 reported at the time.
At the same time, Adam Jarchow and David Bowen also changed the mandatory minimum law via their successful amendment to include some violent misdemeanors, if they occurred within five years after completing the sentence.
“Under this bill, if the person was convicted of certain violent felonies and violates the prohibition on possessing a firearm, he or she must be sentenced to at least three years of confinement in prison. If the person is convicted of using a firearm to commit certain violent Class A to Class G felonies, he or she must be sentenced to at least five years of confinement in prison. If a person is convicted of using a firearm to commit certain violent Class H or Class I felonies, he or she must be sentenced to at least three years or at least one year and six months, respectively, of confinement in prison. The bill contains a sunset provision that eliminates the mandatory minimum period of confinement for sentences imposed on or after July 1, 2020.”
The language before the Adam Jarchow & David Bowen amendment:
941.29 (4m) If the person is subject to this section because he or she was convicted of, adjudicated delinquent for, or found not guilty of by reason of mental disease or defect, committing, soliciting, conspiring, or attempting to commit a violent felony, the court shall impose a bifurcated sentence under s. 973.01 and the confinement portion of the bifurcated sentence imposed on the person shall be not less than 3 years. This subsection does not apply to sentences imposed after July 1, 2020.
The language after the Adam Jarchow & David Bowen amendment:
941.29 (4m) (a) The court shall impose a bifurcated sentence under s. 973.01 and the confinement portion of the bifurcated sentence imposed on the person shall be not less than 3 years if all of the following are true:
1. The person is subject to this section because he or she was convicted of, adjudicated delinquent for, or found not guilty of by reason of mental disease or defect, committing, soliciting, conspiring, or attempting to commit a violent felony.
2. The person committed the current offense within 5 years after completing his or her sentence, including any probation, parole, or extended supervision, or being discharged by the department of corrections, for a prior felony or violent misdemeanor.
This subsection does not apply to sentences imposed after July 1, 2020.”
So, for example, a person could have three felon in possession of a firearm convictions but if they were more than 5 years old, mandatory minimums wouldn’t apply, leaving sentencing in the hands of often liberal and weak judges who are former public defenders and/or Tony Evers’ appointee.
Bowen is unapologetically anti-police. However, Jarchow has been running a campaign, including digital ads, that claim he’s “anti-crime” and “pro-police.”
He’s lashed out at Wisconsin Right Now for reviewing, and reporting on, his legislative record and past podcast comments, which have revealed a series of controversial votes and remarks, including:
He voted against making it a felony to assault a prosecutor or law enforcement officer’s family member and to make it a felony to threaten an officer, arguing that it gave special treatment to “lawyers.” After our story on that vote, he falsely implied that then Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald blocked the bill from passing, when, actually, the state Senate approved an almost identical bill (removing only public defenders); Jarchow voted against that version too.
He trashed the state’s largest police association – the Wisconsin Professional Police Association – for ranking him the second-worst legislator in the state Assembly, even worse than radical Democrats, accusing them of being a Democratic group. Actually, the WPPA has a history of bipartisan endorsements – to be sure, they do endorse Democrats, but they also endorse Republicans, notably Republican Attorneys General Brad Schimel and J.B. Van Hollen. At any rate, an Attorney General candidate would likely need some bipartisan support, at least from independents, to prevail in a general election.
The mandatory minimum amendment provides another window into why Jarchow’s WPPA ranking was so low, but it’s up to you, the voter, to decide what to make of it.
He also was captured on podcasts saying that urban police probably need reforming; acknowledging he doesn’t know much about urban policing; and touting the fact he worked to make fewer crimes felonies during his time in the Legislature, saying, “I spent so much time voting against and fighting bills that turned things into felonies.” He voted against requiring parole revocation when people on parole commit new crimes.
Jarchow has also made comments in favor of ballot harvesting, joked about hunters invading Canada, advocated wearing gloves in bars and restaurants during the early days of the pandemic, and deleted a series of old tweets trashing President Trump. However, he’s earned the support of some powerful GOP insiders and donors, largely due to Toney’s COVID-19 prosecutions, which we were the first site to explore, and which you can read about here (Toney did refuse to enforce Gov. Tony Evers’ mask mandate.)
We are committed to exploring the records of the primary candidates to educate voters on their choices; conservatives learned the hard way with the Brian Hagedorn election to Wisconsin Supreme Court what happens when they don’t vet candidates.
Federal prosecutors on Monday began laying out what they say is election fraud in 2016 by former President Donald Trump.
Trump, 77, is the first former U.S. president to be charged with a felony. Prosecutors and defense attorneys presented their opening statements to the jury of five women and seven men.
Prosecutors said Trump corrupted the 2016 election, The Hill reported on Monday.
"This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up," Manhattan prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said. "The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election, then covered it up."
Trump will spend four days a week in court in New York for the next six to eight weeks on state charges that he disguised hush money payments to two women as legal expenses during the 2016 election. Judge Juan Merchan has not scheduled trial days on Wednesdays.
On Monday, his defense attorneys said he had done nothing wrong.
"President Trump is innocent," Trump attorney Todd Blanche told the jury. "He did not commit any crimes. The Manhattan district attorney's office should never have brought this case."
Trump pleaded not guilty in April 2023 to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
Merchan's gag order remains in place, ordered last month before the trial began. Trump, the nation's 45th president, is prohibited from making or directing others to make public statements about witnesses concerning their potential participation or about counsel in the case or about court staff, district attorney staff or family members of staff.
Prosecutors said Trump's $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels was falsely covered up as a business expense, that the money was to help keep her quiet. Prosecutors say they had a sexual encounter.
Prosecutors also said Trump paid Karen McDougal, a Playboy magazine "Playmate," and reimbursed then attorney and fixer Michael Cohen to cover it up.
"This was a planned, coordinated, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior," Colangelo said. "It was election fraud, pure and simple."
Reuters reported that Blanche countered that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg should have never brought the case to trial.
"There's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election" Blanche said. "It's called democracy. They put something sinister on this idea, as if it's a crime."
Prosecutors say Trump falsified internal records kept by his company, hiding the true nature of payments that involve Daniels ($130,000), McDougal ($150,000), and Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen ($420,000). Prosecutors say the money was logged as legal expenses, not reimbursements. In a reversal of past close relationships now pivotal to the prosecution against him, both Cohen and Daniels are expected to testify.
Under New York state law, falsifying business records in the first degree is a Class E felony that carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison.
Even if convicted and sentenced to jail, Trump could continue his campaign to return to the White House. He's facing the Democratic incumbent who ousted him in 2020, 81-year-old President Joe Biden.
Trump faces 88 felony charges spread across four cases in Florida, Georgia, New York and Washington.Trump has said the criminal and civil trials he faces are designed to keep him from winning the 2024 rematch versus Biden.
(The Center Square) – Another local prosecutor declined to bring charges against a Republican state lawmaker in a campaign funding raising case.
Waukesha County’s District Attorney Sue Opper said she would not file charges against state Rep. Janel Brandtjen. But Opper said she is not clearing Brandtjen in the case.
“I am simply concluding that I cannot prove charges against her. While the intercepted communications, such as audio recordings may be compelling in the court of public opinion, they are not in a court of law,” Opper said.
Wisconsin’s Ethics Commission suggested charges against Brandtjen and a handful of others in a case that investigators say saw them move money around to allegedly skirt Wisconsin’s limits on campaign donations.
Opper said the Ethics Commission investigation was based on “reasonable suspicion and then probable cause.” But she added that those “burdens are substantially lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt which is necessary for a criminal conviction.”
Opper said the Ethic Commission could pursue a civil case against Brandtjen and the others. She also opened the door to other investigations.
“This decision does not clear Rep. Brandtjen of any wrongdoing, there is just not enough evidence to move forward to let a factfinder decide,” Opper said.
She’s the fourth local prosecutor in the state to decide against filing charges.
(The Center Square) – Judge Brad Schmiel says he’s not going to repeat the mistakes of the last supreme court race in Wisconsin.
Schimel told News Talk 1130 WISN’s Jay Weber he isn’t going to politicize the race like liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz, and he’s not going to ignore his campaign like former conservative Justice Dan Kelly.
Schimel said he can run for the court next year without injecting Republican politics into the court.
“I've had plenty of people on our side that suggested ‘Brad, you just got to do the same.’ No. I cannot do that,” Schimel said. “We still have to respect the rule of law. We still have to respect the Constitution. We still have to respect judicial ethics. I'm not going to go out and promise people what I'm going to do. But I will promise people that they can look at my record, and they know that I've done the right thing. That I have put the law above politics. I put the law above my own personal opinions.”
Republicans roundly criticized Protasiewicz for her comments about abortion and Wisconsin’s state legislative maps during the 2023 campaign.
Republicans also roundly criticized former Justice Dan Kelly, who lost to Protasiewicz, for his perceived lack of campaigning.
“We couldn’t have put a brighter, more reliable conservative on the Wisconsin Supreme Court than Dan Kelly,” Schmiel added. “But, with the campaign there were some mistakes that were made.”
Chief among them, Schimel said, was Kelly’s decision to reject money from the Wisconsin Republican Party that could have gone toward TV ads.
Schimel said that left Kelly at a huge disadvantage.
“Janet Protasiewicz took almost $10 million from the state [Democratic] Party. Dan took the money too late. He realized ‘Oh my gosh, I'm going to get burned on this.’ By the time he took it the best ad buys were gone, and he wasn't able to spend the money effectively,” Schimel said. “He spent $585,000 on TV. That was what his campaign spent. Janet Protasiewicz’s campaign spent $10.5 million. When you are out-spent 20-to-one on TV, you better just start writing your concession speech.”
Schmiel vowed not to be outspent this time around.
“I have made it clear. I will take all legal, ethical contributions to my campaign because we have to win,” Schimel said. “Because we have to stop standing on this hill of principle that we end up dying on.”
Several U.S. House Republicans introduced multiple pieces of legislation to defund National Public Radio following new allegations of “leftist propaganda” from the taxpayer-funded news source.
House Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good, R-Va., Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., and Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., introduced similar legislation to prohibit federal funding for NPR, including barring local public radio stations from utilizing money from federal grants to “purchase content or pay dues to NPR.”
Over the years, Republicans have made multiple attempts to defund NPR, citing similar complaints. The latest outrage follows an editorial from former NPR Editor Uri Berliner, who criticized the news source claiming it had "lost America's trust."
Berliner criticized NPR’s coverage of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the COVID-19 lab leak theory and of Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop as examples of the outlet’s left-leaning bias. He described “the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity.”
Banks took aim at NPR’s new Chief Executive Officer Katherine Maher, who has expressed criticism of the First Amendment in efforts to combat “misinformation.”
“NPR’s new CEO is a radical, left-wing activist who doesn’t believe in free speech or objective journalism. Hoosiers shouldn’t be writing her paychecks. Katherine Maher isn’t qualified to teach an introductory journalism class, much less capable of responsibly spending millions of American tax dollars,” said Banks.
The Indiana congressman continued by describing the news outlet as a “liberal looney bin” under prior leadership, drawing attention to a systemic problem.
“It’s time to pull the plug on this national embarrassment. Congress must stop spending other people’s hard-earned money on low grade propaganda,” Banks lamented.
Good was a bit more reserved in his take-down of the news outlet.
“It is bad enough that so many media outlets push their slanted views instead of reporting the news, but it is even more egregious for hardworking taxpayers to be forced to pay for it. National Public Radio has a track record of promoting anti-American narratives on the taxpayer dime,” Good said in a news release. “My legislation would ensure no taxpayer dollars are used to fund the woke, leftist propaganda of National Public Radio.”
Tenney, a former newspaper owner and publisher, accused NPR of using taxpayer funds to “manipulate” and promote a political agenda controlled by “left-wing activists.”
"I understand the importance of non-partisan, balanced media coverage, and have seen first-hand the left-wing bias in our news media. These disturbing reports out of NPR confirm what many have known for a long time: NPR is using American taxpayer dollars to manipulate the news and lie to the American people on behalf of a political agenda. It’s past time the American people stop footing the bill for NPR, and the partisan, left-wing activists that control it," Tenney said in a news release.
The lawmakers cited the political make-up of the NPR’s D.C. news team, which they say includes 87 registered Democrats and no registered Republicans.
Good underscored the original purpose for the publicly funded news outlet, which he says was “created to be an educational news source and to ‘speak with many voices.’” He added that NPR has now become “a primary outlet for advancing biased and radical media coverage of political and social issues.”
(The Center Square) – One of the biggest critics of Wisconsin’s election administrator says no one should be threatening her and says threats don’t help fix election integrity issues.
State Rep. Janel Brandtjen, R-Menomonee Falls, on Tuesday offered her thoughts after the Wisconsin Elections Commission confirmed elections administrator Meagan Wolfe is receiving extra security protection.
"Threatening Administrator Meagan Wolfe, or any election official, is unacceptable and counterproductive. Venting frustrations on individuals like Wolfe, clerks, or poll workers is not only illegal but also harmful to rebuilding trust in our elections,” Brandtjen said. “Threats only undermine our republic and empower the courts and media. It's essential to address any concerns about election processes through legal channels. Threats have no place in our democracy.”
Brandtjen has been one of Wisconsin’s loudest critics of Wolfe. She led hearings as far back as 2021 into Wolfe’s role in the 2020 election. Brandtjen also led the push to get Wolfe removed from the Elections Commission.
“Wolfe’s term has indeed expired, and according to Wisconsin Statutes 15.61(1)(b)1, she should be removed, but Republicans are too worried about the press or too compromised to follow existing law.” Brandtjen said.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission on Monday clarified that Wolfe is receiving extra security but refused to offer any details.
“The Wisconsin Elections Commission has had productive conversations about safety and security with state leadership, including the governor’s office, which is tasked with approving security measures for state government officials,” WEC spokesperson Riley Vetterkind said in a statement. “Those conversations have resulted in additional security measures being approved for Administrator Wolfe and the WEC when the need arises.”
Brandtjen on Tuesday blamed Wisconsin Republicans, and once again blamed Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, for Wolfe’s continued time on the Elections Commission.
“It's disappointing that Sen. Dan Knodl and Rep. Scott Krug, chairs of the election committees, have not exercised their investigative and subpoena powers. This inaction has allowed the neglect of essential laws, such as providing ballots to individuals declared incompetent, lack of checks in military ballot requests, an insecure online system, and improper guidance on voting for homeless individuals without proper documentation,” she said. “The Legislature, particularly Speaker Vos' control, is responsible for the frustration caused by election irregularities due to their inaction.”
Wisconsin’s local election managers have reported an uptick in threats and angry rhetoric since the 2020 election, and some local election offices have taken extra precautions. But there haven’t been any cases in Wisconsin where someone has acted on an election threat.
(The Center Square) – There is now a legal challenge to Gov. Tony Evers’ 400-year school funding veto.
The WMC Litigation Center on Monday asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take up their challenge to the governor’s summer veto that increased per-pupil funding for the next four centuries.
“At issue is Gov. Evers’ use of the so-called ‘Vanna White’ or ‘pick-a-letter’ veto,” the group said in a statement. “The governor creatively eliminated specific numbers in a portion of the budget bill that was meant to increase the property tax levy limit for school districts in the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years. By striking individual digits, the levy limit would instead be increased from the years 2023 to 2425 – or four centuries into the future.”
The WMC Litigation Center is an affiliate of Wisconsin Manufactures & Commerce (WMC), the combined state chamber and manufacturers’ association.
Litigation Center Executive Director Scott Rosenow said while Wisconsin’s governor has an incredibly powerful veto pen, there are limits.
“No Wisconsin governor has the authority to strike individual letters or digits to form a new word or number, except when reducing appropriations,” Rosenow said. “This action is not only unconstitutional on its face, but it is undemocratic because this specific partial veto allows school districts to raise property taxes for the next 400 years without voter approval.”
Wisconsin lawmakers and voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1990 that put limits on the governor’s veto power.
Rosenow and the WMC Litigation Center say the governor’s veto goes beyond those limits.
The legal challenge also raises the constitutional issue that all state spending has to originate with, and be approved by, the legislature.
“In no uncertain terms, 402 years is not less than or part of the two-year duration approved by the Legislature – it is far more,” concluded Rosenow. “The governor overstepped his authority with this partial veto, at the expense of taxpayers, and we believe oversight by the Court is necessary.”
The WMC Litigation Center is asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case as quickly as possible.
Jarchow, a former legislator, who suggested police reform in urban cities may be necessary and voted against making it a felony to beat up a prosecutor or threaten a cop or their family, is one of two Republican candidates running for the chance to unseat Democratic AG Josh Kaul. The other candidate is Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney.
