See id. The legislature need not state the purpose or rationale justifying the classification. See State v. Martin, 191 Wis.2d 646, 658, 530 N.W.2d 420, 425 (Ct.App. 1995). As long as there is a plausible explanation for the classification, the reviewing court will look no further.
Wisconsin case law defines "fundamental rights" as "those which are either explicitly or implicitly based in the Constitution." State v. Martin, 191 Wis. 2d 646, 651-52, 530 N.W.2d 420 (Ct. App. 1995). This court reaffirmed that definition in Vincent v. Voight, 2000 WI 93, ¶ 80, 236 Wis. 2d 588, 614 N.W.2d 388 ("Fundamental rights are based on the Constitution either explicitly or implicitly."
The legislature's assumptions about recidivism may be erroneous, but they are arguably correct and that is sufficient on a rational basis review to protect the legislative choice from constitutional challenge. State v. Block, 222 Wis.2d 586, 592, 587 N.W.2d 914 (Ct.App. 1998) (citing State v. Martin, 191 Wis.2d 646, 658, 530 N.W.2d 420, 425 (Ct.App. 1995) (quoting FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 320 (1993))). Indeed, the defendant concedes that a legitimate purpose of the "two strikes" law is to protect children from becoming the victims of sexual assaults and that if the legislature has come to believe that child sex offenders have a high recidivism rate, the legislature could have decided that an individual who has committed two sexual assaults against a child is likely to do so again and is unlikely to be rehabilitated. Brief and Appendix of Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner at 16-17.
Under this test, equal protection is violated "only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State's objective." State v. Martin, 191 Wis. 2d 646, 657, 530 N.W.2d 420 (Ct.App. 1995) (citation omitted). ¶ 24.
See id. Accordingly, legislative attempts to create classifications on the basis of race or national origin would receive stringent judicial attention. See State v. Martin, 191 Wis.2d 646 [ 191 Wis.2d 647], 651-52, 530 N.W.2d 420, 422-23 (Ct.App. 1995). Likewise, statutory classifications affecting fundamental rights like procreation and free speech would be subject to strict scrutiny.
967 to 979 and the criminal penalties provided for those crimes, unless a court of criminal jurisdiction transfers jurisdiction under s. 970.032 to a court assigned to exercise jurisdiction under this chapter.See State v. Martin, 191 Wis.2d 647, 651, 530 N.W.2d 420, 422 (Ct.App. 1995). Thereafter, Verhagen filed a timely request for substitution of judge against Judge Foster, and the matter was assigned to the Honorable Marianne E. Becker, who presided over the preliminary hearing and the concurrent reverse waiver hearing pursuant to § 970.032, STATS.
Hazen also initially raised constitutional challenges against these statutory sections under the equal protection and substantive due process clauses. However, State v. Martin, 191 Wis.2d 647, 530 N.W.2d 420 (Ct.App. 1995), resolved those issues against him. Section 48.183, STATS., provides:
Fundamental rights are based on the Constitution either explicitly or implicitly. State v. Martin, 191 Wis.2d 646, 652, 530 N.W.2d 420 (Ct.App. 1995) (citing San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 33 (1973)). We treat the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution as equivalent.
The result, he contends, is that the circuit court applied WIS. STAT. §§ 48.357 and 48.358 in a manner that violated his equal protection rights under the federal and state constitutions. See State v. Feldmann, 2007 WI App 35, ¶¶7-9 & n.2, 300 Wis. 2d 474, 730 N.W.2d 440; State v. Martin, 191 Wis. 2d 646, 651-52, 530 N.W.2d 420 (Ct. App. 1995). After a thorough review of the record, however, we find no factual basis for this assertion.
In this context, “strict scrutiny requires that the statute must be the least restrictive way of achieving a compelling governmental interest.” State v. Martin, 191 Wis.2d 646, 654, 530 N.W.2d 420 (Ct.App.1995). If neither a fundamental right nor a suspect class is implicated, the statute is subject to the far more deferential “rational basis review” and “ ‘must be sustained unless it is “patently arbitrary” and bears no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.’ ”