By Charles Brace
The Daily Cardinal
The state Assembly held a public hearing on a bill restricting online access to criminal records on Thursday, with both supporters and opponents saying it is unlikely to pass.
Assembly Bill 418 would limit access to the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access website, a searchable online database of court records that uses the Consolidated Court Automation Programs. State Rep. Frederick Kessler, D-Milwaukee, was a co-author of the bill and testified in favor of it at the hearing on Thursday.
Kessler said he and the other bill authors feel CCAP has been misused to discriminate against people with criminal records. People found on CCAP are often denied access to jobs or housing, according to Kessler.
We feel the unlimited use of this system has had a pretty devastating effect on people,"" Kessler said.
Mike Schoenfield, legislative aid to state Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, the chief author of the bill, said CCAP would still be open to court officials and ""legitimate journalists."" Access would also be given to individuals who formally request it from the state, Schoenfield said.
Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued a statement opposing the bill Thursday, and said it would limit the state's policies of public access.
Van Hollen's letter coincided with a lack of support for the bill in the Assembly Corrections and Courts Committee, according to Andrew Nowlan, spokesperson for state Rep. Garey Bies, R-Sister Bay, who chairs the committee.
Nowlan said there were many more opponents to the bill than supporters at Thursday's hearing. No vote is scheduled on the bill in the committee because there is so little support, according to Nowlan.
""It is bipartisan opposition to the bill at the moment,"" Nowlan said.
Nowlan said an amendment to the bill might decrease the amount of opposition, but it would also be difficult to amend the bill without changing its basic meaning. Kessler also said an amendment, possibly one that made people pay to access CCAP, might help the chances of the bill.
Kessler and Schoenfield similarly said it was obvious the bill lacked support in the committee, but it still might create a better dialogue on the issue of privacy rights.
