The Intent of the Underlying Voter I.D. Policy is Debatable

In his Final Thought opinion statement on the political I.D. issue, Attorney Pines states, as a matter of fact, that “there is an effort in many states, including Wisconsin, through restrictive voter I.D. provisions and limitations on early voting, to make it harder for citizens, especially poor people, to vote.” (See “Relearning the Lessons of Freedom Summer,” July/August 2014 Wisconsin Lawyer.)

Not so! The intent of the underlying policy is debatable. In an editorial on the subject (Milw. J. Sentinel, Aug. 4, 2014), the following was stated: “There are very few signs in Wisconsin of the kind of voter fraud that voter I.D. would prevent – voter impersonation. Why then do we have a law? We suspect it’s to discourage minorities from going to the polls” (emphasis supplied).

Atty. Russ R. Mueller
Glendale

New Trust Code Favors the Wealthy

I noted an article in the June 2014 Wisconsin Lawyer, “Estate Planning Metamorphosis: Wisconsin’s New Trust Code.” The magazine came just a few weeks after a former client asked me if an attorney could draft a revocable trust with a spendthrift provision in the trust so as to keep the IRS from collecting tax liens against the former client.

I searched the law and found the answer to be unclear. I noted that the new uniform law expressly provided that the IRS could collect taxes from the revocable trust in spite of a spendthrift provision. When I saw that the new Wisconsin trust code was silent on the issue of whether the IRS could ignore the spendthrift provision of a revocable trust and collect taxes in spite of the spendthrift provision, I contacted one of the authors of the article via email and asked him if all the members of his committee were sound asleep when the draft of the new proposed law surfaced without the Bar committee publicly noting the uniform law allowed the IRS to collect tax liens and the new draft of the Wisconsin law did not.

His response was simply that the new law does not change the old law.

I responded that perhaps the Bar committee made no innocent mistake in failing to explain why the new law did not adopt the uniform law into Wisconsin’s new law in its entirety, a rather nifty side stepping of an issue that should have been publicly debated. Otherwise it could be said that the committee was trying to favor people of wealth by quietly avoiding an issue that, if exposed to the public debate, might have been changed in the face of heat generated by that public debate. (I used more colorful language than that.)

The Bar should not put itself in the position of being perceived as being a tool of the wealthy.

Don Harman
Law Offices of Donald J. Harman Ltd., La Crosse

Here’s What You May Have Missed

Not connecting with us online? This month we highlight readers’ comments posted to online articles. Let’s hear what you have to say. Post comments to WisBar.org, InsideTrack, and Wisconsin Lawyer articles or respond to Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter posts. Or simply email the editors at wislawmag@wisbar.org.

Clarifying Mandatory E-filing Requirements

In September, State Bar legal writer Joe Forward wrote about a proposal by the Committee of Chief Judges, which voted unanimously in June to move forward on a plan to implement mandatory e-filing in Wisconsin circuit courts beginning in 2016. (See “Mandatory E-Filing: Proposal Mandates Electronic Court Filings in Wisconsin,” WisBar InsideTrack, Sept. 3, 2014.) A reader posted a question asking if the new rule would apply to mediation and Judge Randy Koschnick, a member of the E-filing Implementation Subcommittee, responded.

Responses: I am an attorney who is also a family court mediator. Close to 75 percent of the parents I meet with are unrepresented. Of those who are unrepresented most lack Internet access. In most cases the only way to obtain a signature on an agreement is by mail. Is it proposed that the new rule would apply to mediation as well? – Rachel Kamps

Self-represented litigants filing fewer than 10 actions per year will not be required to participate in the e-filing system. Proposed Rule, sec. 801.18(1)(d), (3)(a). Therefore, the vast majority of pro se parties in divorce cases will be exempt from the mandatory e-filing rule. However, they may participate on a voluntary basis if they choose to do so. The proposed rule does not apply to documents in mediation except to the extent that those documents would be filed by a party or a party’s attorney with the clerk of court for inclusion in the court file. – Hon. Randy R. Koschnick WL

Editor’s note: Read “Mandatory E-filing May Be Coming Soon to the Courts Near You”and “E-filing in Four Easy Steps” in this issue.