Wisconsin socialist Francesca Hong voted against anti-child grooming law responding to pervy teacher pursuing 14-year-old

Six votes against a bill that closes a loophole exposed by a teacher pursuing a 14-year-old. That's not a footnote, that's the whole story. Wisconsin lawmakers had a real case in front of them, a real predator, a real kid, and a real gap in the law that let the grooming behavior slide because it didn't fit neatly into existing statutes. Francesca Hong looked at that and voted no.

We'd love to hear the reasoning, because there has to be one beyond "I don't like where this bill came from." Maybe she thinks the language is too broad, maybe she's worried about prosecutorial overreach, maybe there's a civil liberties angle buried in committee notes somewhere. Fine. Say that. Stand up on the floor and explain to the parents of Wisconsin why closing a grooming loophole needs more work before it earns your vote. What we get instead is a vote total and a lot of silence, which is its own kind of statement.

This is the trouble with letting ideology run ahead of plain judgment. Hong built her brand on being the DSA's rising star, the uncompromising voice against the machine. But when the machine produces a bill responding to an actual predator targeting an actual child, and you're one of six people in the entire chamber who can't get to yes, the "uncompromising" label starts looking less like principle and more like reflex.

Wisconsin families don't need a lecture on legislative process. They need lawmakers who can tell the difference between a fight worth having and a bill that protects kids. Ninety-plus of her colleagues could tell the difference. She apparently couldn't, or wouldn't.