JUSTICE GESKE, THANK FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> EVICTION RECORDS COULD GO FROM FOLLOWING A PERSON FROM 20 YEARS TO JUST TWO YEARS.

PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT TO MAKE A RULE CHANGE THAT ORDERS EVICTION RECORDS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE STATE'S ELECTRONIC CASE SEARCH AFTER ONE YEAR.

THE PETITIONERS, LEGAL ACTION OF WISCONSIN, ARGUE STATE LAW SAYS DISMISSED EVICTION CASES ARE TO BE REMOVED FROM A RECORD AFTER TWO YEARS, BUT EVEN IF AN EVICTION IS NOT GRANTED, THE RECORD OF THE EVICTION FILING REMAINS FOR UP TO 20 YEARS, THE SAME AS SOMEONE WHO WAS EVICTING.

FOR MORE, WE'RE JOINED BY HOUSING PRIORITY COORDINATOR AND STAFF ATTORNEY AT LEGAL ACTION OF WISCONSIN.

THANKS FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SO SUM UP YOUR ARGUMENT FOR ME.

WHY DO YOU THINK THIS RULE CHANGE IS NECESSARY FOR RENTERS AROUND THE STATE?

>> SO PARTICULARLY THE ISSUE OF HOUSING IS ONE THAT IS A BASIC HUMAN -- ALL OUTCOMES ARE DETERMINED BY WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE PROPERLY HOUSED.

WE THINK THAT HAVING THESE EVICTION RECORDS FOLLOWING PEOPLE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET REHOUSED.

ONE OF THE MAIN TOOLS THAT THEY'RE USING NOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT AN EVICTION IS ON THE RECORD IS OUR COURT ANIMATED SYSTEM.

IF THEY GO ON, THEY'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE OUTCOMES OF WHAT THEY SAY THESE CASES ARE -- WHERE THEY'VE GONE, WHAT THE UNDERLYING ISSUES WERE.

SOMETIMES THEY WERE IMPROPERLY FILED, BUT THIS RECORD FOLLOWS THEM AND THERE'S NOT EVEN A DEEP DIVE INTO WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT RECORD AND PEOPLE ARE -- A YEAR WE THINK IS REASONABLE BECAUSE ANY COURT OUTCOME CAN BE CONCLUDED WITHIN A YEAR AFTER THE FILING AND WE THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE HAVE A FRESH START, SO HAVING THESE RECORDS REMOVED WILL MAKE IT SO THAT MAYBE THERE'S SOME HOPE FOR GETTING PEOPLE REHOUSE IN SAFE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

>> SO THIS ISSUE GOES BEYOND RENTERS IN CITIES BECAUSE THERE'S RENTERS ACROSS THE STATE, RURAL WISCONSIN, MEDIUM-SIZED RENTERS, THEY'RE EVERY FACING SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

RIGHT?

>> YES.

THIS WILL MAKE IT AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD ACROSS THE BOARD.

WE THINK THERE SHOULD BE A UNIFIED RESPONSE.

RIGHT NOW IT COULD BE SOME PEOPLE ARE HAVING THEIR RECORDS REMOVED AFTER TWO YEARS, SOME REMOVED AFTER 10 YEARS, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IS THERE'S SOME FORM OF JUDGMENT THAT'S FILED AND SO 20 YEARS IS THE TYPICAL TIME.

AND THINKING ABOUT SOMETHING FOLLOWING YOU FOR 20 YEARS, MAYBE THERE WAS AN ISSUE WHEN YOU WERE IN COLLEGE, OUTCOLLEGE HOUSING -- YOU HAD COLLEGE HOUSING, YOU DIDN'T KEEP UP WITH YOUR RENT, YOU GOT A JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU.

PROBABLY WHAT YOU DID 20 YEARS PROBABLY IS NOT THE MATURE ADULT YOU ARE NOW AND WHY SHOULD THAT HAVE TO FOLLOW YOU AND KEEP YOU FROM BEING ABLE TO BE HOUSED.

>> SO THE LANDLORDS AGAINST THIS SAY THIS WILL DRIVE UP THE RENT FOR EVERYONE, BOTH FOR THOSE WHO FACED EVICTION AND THOSE WHO HAVEN'T, THROUGH EXTRA FEES AND COSTS.

WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE THAT THIS WILL RAISE COSTS FOR EVERYONE.

>> THE MARKETS ARE VERY TIGHT.

THERE'S A LIMITED AMOUNT OF HOUSING AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT.

SO THE IDEA THAT SOME HOW SOME RULE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY REMOVE A RECORD AFTER A YEAR WOULD DO THAT IS, TO ME, DISINGENUOUS TO MAKE THAT ASSERTION.

THESE THINGS ARE HAPPENING EVERY MONTH, EVERY YEAR.

AND ALSO, THERE'S ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF A COURT RECORD THAT'S FREE TO THEM.

RENTERS NOW ARE PAYING APPLICATION FEES OF UPWARDS OF 50 TO $200 FOR THEM TO DO THESE BACKGROUND CHECKS, AND A LOT OF TIMES THAT MONEY JUST THROWN AWAY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT EVEN USING THOSE SERVICES, THEY'RE SIMPLY RELYING ON A RECORD ON-LINE THAT'S FREE.

>> WE HEARD FROM COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS ARGUE THAT MANY RENTERS ALREADY FILED MOTIONS TO EXPUNGE EVICTION RECORDS AND THAT THIS COULD CREATE MORE WORK FOR THE COURTS.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS?

>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THESE TYPES OF FILINGS ARE ONLY HAPPENING IN CASES WHERE PRIMARILY THERE'S AN ATTORNEY LINKED TO THEM.

MOST PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING THROUGH EVICTION CASES DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HAVING COUNSEL.

MOST PEOPLE THAT ARE FACING EVICTION DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO STAY IN THEIR APARTMENTS, LET ALONE HAVE AN ATTORNEY PROVIDED TO THEM.

WE ARE ONE OF THE FEW ADVOCATE OPPORTUNITIES BECAUSE WE DON'T CHARGE CLIENTS FOR OUR SERVICES AND THERE'S A LIMITED AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS IN GRANT FUNDING, SO WE'RE NOT IN ANY WAY HELPING THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE FACING THESE EVICTIONS.

THE IDEA THAT THESE ARE GOING TO BE REMOVED AFTER A YEAR WILL PROBABLY DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF FILINGS THAT YOU'RE SEEING, RATHER THAN INCREASE IT, SO WE THINK IT'S A LARGER BENEFIT, ESPECIALLY TO THOSE THAT DON'T HAVE COUNSEL.

>> NOW, THIS POLICY COULD BE CHANGED THROUGH A BILL FROM THE LEGISLATURE, BUT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THE SUPREME COURT TO CHANGE IT AS A RULE.

IS IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK THE LIVER WILL BE RESPONSIVE?

OR WHY THIS ROUTE?

>> WE THINK THAT THE COURT PROCESS SHOULD BE OVERSEEN BY THE COURTS THEMSELVES.

WE THINK IT SQUARELY FALLS WITHIN THE PREVIEW OF WHAT THE COURTS HAVE CONTROL OVER.

WE THINK THEY'RE MOST ABLE TO COURTS SHOULD RUN THEIR OWN COURTS.

WE DON'T THINK THE LEGISLATURE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE HAS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY SO WE ARE GOING TO THE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE THE MOST INVESTED AND KNOW MOST ABOUT THE ISSUE ITSELF.

>> IF THIS HAPPENS, WILL YOU SEE PEOPLE LESS LIKELY TO BE IN SHELTERS?

OR WHAT WILL CHANGE IN HOUSING FOR SOME OF THESE PEOPLE?

>> SO WE THINK IT WILL CLEAN THE SLATE.

WE DO THINK THAT PEOPLE WILL BE REHOUSED FASTER.

WE THINK IT WILL DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE GOING INTO SHELTER AND STAYING IN SHELTER LONG-TERM.

IT MIGHT BE A SHORTER TURN-AROUND IF PEOPLE DO NEED A STAY, AND WE THINK IT WILL REFLECT ADEQUATELILY WHEN PEOPLE ARE GET BACK ON THEIR FEET AND BE READY TO RENT AGAIN.

>> THANKS FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.