Wisconsin, Illinois sued over prohibition on name changes for persons required to register as sex offenders
Attorneys sued Wisconsin and Illinois Wednesday over laws that forbid transgender individuals from changing their names if they have certain criminal convictions.
Both federal lawsuits argue that the states are violating free speech rights and are preventing people from expressing how they identify themselves.
In Wisconsin, registered sex offenders are forbidden to change their names and face up to six years in prison if they do.
The plaintiff in the Wisconsin case was born Kenneth Krebs but has been going by Karen Krebs since she came out as transgender in 1999, the lawsuit states. She’s a registered sex offender because of a 1992 conviction and can’t change her name.
“This causes confusion and raises questions whenever Plaintiff applies for a job, interacts with medical professionals, or seeks to manage her personal finances,” the lawsuit states.
Krebs’ attorney, Adele Nicholas, said her client is not trying to hide her past or conceal her identity. In fact, Nicholas said Krebs reports herself to the sex offender registry as both Kenneth Krebs and Karen Krebs so people can find her. She would continue to use both names in the registry if she’s allowed to change her name, Nicholas said.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
First of all on it’s face it would appear that the law that denies the person the ability to change their name based on a conviction would be a bill of attainder. But secondly most states in their Constitution have a ban on the passing of special legislation or special laws and as part of that band one of the things that is covered is the ability of a person to change their name any legislative attempt to stop a person from doing this is in violation of the ban on special laws.
Local or special laws prohibited.
The Legislature shall not pass local or special
laws in any of the following cases, that is to say:
For granting divorces.
Changing the names of persons or places.
Laying out, opening altering and working roads or
highways.
Vacating roads, Town plats, streets, alleys, and public
grounds.
Locating or changing County seats.
Regulating County and Township offices.
Regulating the practice of Courts of Justice.
Regulating the jurisdiction and duties of Justices of
the Peace, Police Magistrates and Constables.
Providing for changes of venue in civil and criminal
cases.
Incorporating Cities, Towns and Villages, or changing
or amending the charter of any Town, City, or Village.
Providing for the election of Officers in Townships,
incorporated Towns or Cities.
Summoning or empaneling Grand or Petit Juries.
Providing for the bonding of cities, towns, precincts,
school districts or other municipalities.
Providing for the management of Public Schools.
The opening and conducting of any election, or
designating the place of voting.
The sale or mortgage of real estate belonging to
minors, or others under disability.
The protection of game or fish.
Chartering or licensing ferries, or toll bridges,
remitting fines, penalties or forfeitures, creating, increasing
and decreasing fees, percentage or allowances of public officers,
during the term for which said officers are elected or appointed.
Changing the law of descent.
Granting to any corporation, association, or
individual, the right to lay down railroad tracks, or amending
existing charters for such purpose.
Granting to any corporation, association, or individual
any special or exclusive privileges, immunity, or franchise
whatever; PROVIDED, that notwithstanding any other provisions of
this Constitution, the Legislature shall have authority to
separately define and classify loans and installment sales, to
establish maximum rates within classifications of loans or
installment sales which it establishes, and to regulate with
respect thereto. In all other cases where a general law can be
made applicable, no special law shall be enacted.
Source:
Neb. Const. art. III, sec. 15 (1875);
Amended 1964, Laws 1965, (Appendix),
Seventy-fourth Extraordinary Session, 1963, c. 3, sec. 1, p. 1921
3. Classification
A legislative act can violate this provision as
special legislation (1) by creating a totally
arbitrary and unreasonable method of
classification or (2) by creating a permanently
closed class. MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline v. State Bd. of Equal.,
238 Neb. 565, 471 N.W.2d 734 (1991).
A classification which limits the application of the
law to a present condition, and leaves no room or opportunity for
an increase in the numbers of the class by future growth or
development, is special. Haman v. Marsh, 237 Neb. 699,
467 N.W.2d 836 (1991).
A legislative act can violate this provision as
special legislation in one of two ways: (1) by creating a totally
arbitrary and unreasonable method of classification, or (2) by
creating a permanently closed class. Haman v. Marsh, 237
Neb. 699, 467 N.W.2d 836 (1991).
The term “class legislation” is a characterization
of legislation in contravention of this provision. It is that
which makes improper discrimination by conferring privileges on a class arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons standing in the same relation to the privileges, without reasonable
distinction or substantial difference. Haman v. Marsh,
237 Neb. 699, 467 N.W.2d 836 (1991).
Section 60-1701 contains classifications and exceptions which
are unreasonable, arbitrary, and unrelated to the public interest,
and is therefore unconstitutional and void in violation of this
section. State v. Edmunds, 211 Neb. 380, 318 N.W.2d 859 (1982).
Provisions of legislation creating the Local Government Revenue
Fund were unconstitutional because classifications created by
the act were arbitrary and unreasonable closed classifications
in that they prevented a county from moving from one classification
to another and the legislation was, therefore, a special law
as to each of the state’s counties. State ex rel. Douglas v.
Marsh, 207 Neb. 598, 300 N.W.2d 181 (1980).
Arbitrary classification may result in special legislation.
United Community Services v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 162 Neb. 786,
77 N.W.2d 576 (1956).