Goal:
Have Wisconsin decriminalize copying uncertified vital records after 75-100 years has passed by modifying Wisconsin statute 69.24(1) This will help genealogists and researchers. The goal will be achieved by attempting to resolve this with law makers. If that fails, then seek help in filing a lawsuit.
Advocacy?
After countless trips to the register of deeds, these guys [https://www.reclaimtherecords.org/] are starting to appeal to me. The question is do any of the genealogy groups (W.S.G.S., B.A.G.S, P.G.S, etc) support them? They should! The Wisconsin State Genealogical Society should be spearheading this as its part of their stated purpose (article 1, #6).
Reasons:
It’s my belief this day in age younger people will be deterred from learning about their ancestors and heritage by these dated restrictions. Wisconsin and its government needs to get its priorities straight about what is or should be public vs private and show its citizens that they serve them rather than being in the priority market to sell their ancestors records to genealogical companies. (see notes below on past law modifications as well as a recent federal court ruling)
It’s also my belief that the Wisconsin law as it stands now conflicts with other laws. Some of those being;
-the definition of a public record (it cannot have copy restrictions- read up on FOIA, thus clearly only the per 1907 ones are truly public)
-the very law itself (69.20(4)) as it mentions the purpose of the law is to control direct access for the purposes of fraudulent use (they are also controlling indirect use of non fraudulent use where there is no privacy based justification)
-Another portion of its own law that it conflicts with is that the cause of death is restricted to 50 years (outside of next of kin), whereas the rest of the record is not. (Basically prior lawmakers have concluded that after just 50 there is nothing deemed private anymore).
-And my last law conflict example is mens rea. (This law states that to be accused of a felony you generally have to know you are doing something wrong. Many people would not assume copying a reference vital record could result in a felony. It’s not like a warning is also stamped on the record.) This has been an issue since 1985, maybe longer!
With most government documents like court records etc, after some period of time has elapsed these documents are then considered public domain archival documents. Like how it works with the census and other things.
Other countries and states do it better. Some even digitize and host them on a government website after the time has elapsed. I’m not asking for that, I am asking for the minimal fiscal impact solution. But I would like an answer to how what Wisconsin is presently doing, is serving the people?
Background:
Transcriptions have been historically the only way to share such info, but that is tedious and you are still subject to one person's interpretation of the handwriting and record. This makes it even more difficult than interpreting what was said and then written. Collaborating with people who are now out of state is problematic when you cannot share electronic copies etc.
No other state nearest I can tell has this nonsense in the books, which I concluded from reading the state information section from the “International Vital Records Handbook”, by Thomas J Kemp, 7th ed (2017). For our convoluted nonsense see: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/69/i/24/1/a
It is clearly absurd to restrict death records from 1908. And as years pass the absurdity expands. A fixed number of years before they are decriminalized makes a lot more sense to me as opposed to continually modifying this law.
The law in general is mostly a hold over from before there were ways to certify / add security features (embossments, watermarks, special paper) to the documents. The antiquated law doesn't really recognize the difference with uncertified copies (which are all that's really needed for research). For what it's worth, 69.24(1)(f) seems to give the original clue to the regulation's purpose which talks about "for the purpose of deception". That makes sense to nail someone with a felony in that case.
However it was amended in 1997 to make it even more stringent. To make it specifically illegal to make the document available to the public in electronic format. Yet by 1997, water marking and embossing were a norm for certified document issuing and acceptance by insurance companies for example: See: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/1997/related/acts/210
The last revision was in 2015. (2015 Wisconsin Act 142 [2015 Assembly Bill 297]). Now pre 1907 records are exempted, but this was partly at Ancestry's request so they could legally offer copies of them in their original handwritten form (gotta love lobbying).
This bill was introduced by a number of elected “leaders” who were clearly either; incredibly shortsighted for using a hard date vs a fixed number of years. Or more likely; saw the use of a hard date as a way to ensure the law would have to be changed again in the future (to solicit campaign donations?) There is a third possibility, fear of lawsuit. The pre-1907 records came mostly from churches as a courtesy since law did not require them till 1907. All these years till 2015, the state would would restriction something they didn’t even originally create. Clearly Xaiver Martin collected these pre-1907 records for historical purposes, never meant for identity. The 2015 law modification should have coincided with when the Wisconsin Historical Society microfilmed these records decades earlier. Their act of filming them implies the change from an perceived identity status to that of a historical role. For 2015 see: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/lcactmemo/act142.pdf It’s unclear how the 2015 Wisconsin arrangement worked. What was paid by Ancestry, and if they digitized the records etc. If nothing else, those agreements should be more transparent to taxpayers since these are public records!
Related court case:
There was a recent federal court case, which could be argued as much the same scenario in Wisconsin. There was a FOIA request for veterans benefits files where the government agency prioritized handing taxpayer-funded data to a single commercial entity, but not to the public. Reclaim the records (a not-for-profit activist group of genealogists, historians, researchers, and open government advocates), sued the VA in federal courts and won.
https://mailchi.mp/reclaimtherecords/the-birls-database-goes-online-with-eighteen-million-us-veteran-records-and-free-foia-by-fax-system
Status:
I've been working with Senator Andre Jacque since June 2024, trying to get rid of a silly restriction that makes it a felony to reproduce even an uncertified vital record, even those over 100 years old. Andre did his part by introducing the bill (SB52) in February of 2025. It would simply shift us from a fixed year (1907) to a rolling 100 year rule.
It seemed promising as the Legislative Reference Bureau Analysis seemed to concur. Since then it's been really going nowhere since then even though the fiscal estimate indicated no impact. I am concerned it might die in the committee before the session/season is up.
A phone call November 2025 to Senator Tomczyk's (committee chair) office revealed there was a technical issue with the bill, and its back in the hands of the bills author to resolve that. A subsequent phone call with Jacque's office revealed that the Wisconsin Register of Deeds Association apparently has a desire to do a wide ranging rewrite of the laws pertaining to vital records. An email from Kyle Franson, 2025-2026 WRA president states: "WRDA did not contemplate, spearhead or re-write any efforts with the 2025-2026 bill referenced as LRB-348 (SB-52 & AB-90), or any others within Chapter 69." Yet Senator Jacque insists "Despite what was implied from the WRDA president, I was able to confirm with one of my colleagues in the Assembly that they have been working with the WRDA and another legislator on a vital records statute rewrite that will be coming forward yet this session." (Note the referenced session would end Jan 2027 - and expecting one to wait on a vague confirmation is unacceptable at this point)
When and if the laws ever get straightened out, I hope there is a consideration in balancing the public's right to information (transparency) against the individual's right to privacy (security). Right now the law appear very inconsistent and imbalanced. It also at least partly appears to focus on protecting a government asset by some inappropriately used legal mechanisms.