Union Law in Wisconsin Blocked by Judge

[Stealth Hunter]

Madison — Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order Friday, barring the publication of Gov. Scott Walker's law that would sharply curtail collective bargaining for public employees.

Sumi's order will prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law - and allowing it to take effect - until she can rule on the merits of the case. Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat, is seeking to block the law because he says a legislative committee violated the state's open meetings law in passing the measure, which Walker signed on Friday.

Sumi, who was appointed to the bench by former GOP Gov. Tommy G. Thompson, said Ozanne was likely to succeed on the merits.

"It seems to me the public policy behind effective enforcement of the open meeting law is so strong that it does outweigh the interest, at least at this time, which may exist in favor of sustaining the validity of the (law)," she said.

The judge's finding - at least for now - is a setback to Walker, a Republican, and a victory for opponents, who have spent weeks in the Capitol to protest the bill. Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said the governor's side will ultimately prevail in court.

Assistant Attorney General Steven Means, who was part of the state's legal team, said after the ruling that "we disagree with it."

"And the reason they have appellate courts is because circuit court judges make errors and they have in this case."

Asked if the state would appeal, Means said: "We'll have to think about that."

He said that, if the Legislature tries to come back to re-enact the bill, they would have the right to do that.

Rep. Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) said he was pleased with the judge's ruling.

"I am very pleased with her action," Barca said. "We felt from the beginning this was a violation of the open meetings law. And now we go on from here."

Amanda Todd, a spokeswoman for the state courts system, had no immediate comment on when any possible appeal might be taken up by a higher court.

Republicans deny they violated the meetings law and say they passed the law properly.

The state constitution protects legislators from lawsuits during the legislative session. Lawmakers are expected to vote on bills through May 2012, but the session technically runs through Jan. 7, 2013 - the same day the next session begins.

Nonetheless, Sumi said Friday that the courts had the authority to hold up the law, based on past rulings.

The bill to curtail collective bargaining for public employee unions has drawn protesters to the Capitol for more than a month, with crowds swelling to tens of thousands of people on some days. Opponents now see the court cases as their only shot at stopping the law, though they are also pursuing recalls to win back Democratic control of the state Senate.

Republicans created a conference committee late March 9, and the committee met shortly thereafter to make changes to Walker's bill, setting up passage by the state Senate later that night. Passage by the committee was key to getting the bill to Walker's desk two days later.

The open meetings law requires 24 hours' public notice of meetings, or two hours in emergencies. Ozanne's suit argues the emergency standard did not apply and that even if it did, the meeting didn't follow the law because the committee met with less than two hours' notice.

Ozanne argues the meeting also violated the law because people had difficulty getting into the Capitol amid tight security and because it was held in a small room that could not accommodate the large crowd trying to get in.

Ozanne's complaint was against four Republican legislative leaders who were on the committee - Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald of Juneau, Senate President Mike Ellis of Neenah, Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald of Horicon and Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder of Abbotsford.

Named in both suits is Secretary of State Doug La Follette, a Democrat charged with publishing the new law. La Follette has said unless ordered otherwise, he will publish it March 25 and the law will take effect the next day.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118242814.html

I lol'd. Next step should be an SSC appeal which will probably agree.

[Ducimus]

Oh this thread should be good.

[August]

We needed a separate thread? Never complain about too many Obama threads again.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

We needed a separate thread? Never complain about too many Obama threads again.

I think this is only the second thread on this topic. You have a long way to go to compare this to the number of Obama threads.

[Gerald]

Should it be interpreted, as there is room for more Obama related topics

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I think this is only the second thread on this topic. You have a long way to go to compare this to the number of Obama threads.

True dat but we're off and counting!

[gimpy117]

Sounds like they wanted to push that bill through the legislature so fast they actually broke the law. It sounds really shady how they don't give notice until the last minute, but then again union busting is often cloak and dagger business so why is it any surprise?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Sounds like they wanted to push that bill through the legislature so fast they actually broke the law. It sounds really shady how they don't give notice until the last minute, but then again union busting is often cloak and dagger business so why is it any surprise?

They didn't break the law. There isn't a legal expert (liberal or conservative) in Wisconsin that thinks this will hold up. You probably don't know this, but the 2009 Budget Repair Bill passed by the DEMOCRATS would have violated the same rule.

Furthermore, if the Republicans wanted to they could just have another vote. They don't, however, because they know that some Dane County Circuit Court judge will find yet another reason to issue a temporary restraining order. So they are intentionally allowing this to elevate to the next level.

This ruling is a partisan joke and will be overturned at the next level. If it were not, it would throw out practically the last 10 years of laws in the state.

[Aramike]

Get this: judge is actually IGNORING the law which EXPRESSELY PERMITS the process Republicans used.

From Senate Rule 93, enacted BY DEMOCRATS, including one that still serves in the state senate, that pertains to special sessions:

no notice of hearing before a committee shall be required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board

Isn't it interesting how liberals love to bypass their OWN laws when it suits their needs? Aren't we supposed to have three separate branches of government?

Judges are supposed to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, not intervene on the legislative process. This is an outrage, albeit an expected one.

[gimpy117]

You can cry over partisan politics all you want but hey, laws are laws if they didn't give proper notices to meetings then its wrong. If the democratic bill has the same mistake then it shouldn't stand either. Two wrongs do not make a right though, and even if the democrats did the same thing it goes to show how people are trying to rush these bills in for their respective side.

But im sure the republicans are freaking right now. They'll be climbing the walls screaming of partisan politics (I actually have a very amusing image of a yelling politician hanging from the ceiling right now in my head). The Ironic part of this whole boondoggle is that the GOP one of, if not the most partisan party out there will be the one complaining this time.

[Aramike]

You can cry over partisan politics all you want but hey, laws are laws if they didn't give proper notices to meetings then its wrong.

Did you read senate rule 93 yet?

It's not wrong. You're just like the judge - you find comfort in ignoring things that don't support your predetermined notion. Blind liberalism used to be funny, now it's just sad.

Seriously - even if this were to hold up (which it won't) ... so???

Republicans just call another special session, leave 24 hour notice, and pass it again.

But again, this judge's ruling is way over her authority, and goes against senate rules PASSED by democrats.

Sorry gimpy, your side's gonna lose this one too - even WITH judges content to ignore the law.

[Aramike]

Stealth Hunter, I just noticed this:

I lol'd. Next step should be an SSC appeal which will probably agree.

Are you kidding?

What makes you think that a conservative Supreme Court is going to overturn a law when the senate rules are explicit, AND they have written that legislature procedure is determined by the body?

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Sorry gimpy, your side's gonna lose this one too - even WITH judges content to ignore the law.

okay yeah we knew that all along. I'm not talking about who's winning or losing I'm speaking about the law. Obviously she thought it might have violated a law otherwise she wouldn't have done it.

[vienna]

Just because a law is a law, it is not automatically right or legal. If a law violates a state's constitution, it is technically an "illegal" law and will be struck down by state courts. Further, if it violates the U.S. Constitution, it will be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. What is galling and frustrating is how members of both parties will, when in power, enact laws or regulations they know will never meet judicial, much less constituional muster, just to make political capital. The cost in man-hours and monetary expense to pursue this partisan windmill tilting would be better served in correcting and improving problems and situations that really matter.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

okay yeah we knew that all along. I'm not talking about who's winning or losing I'm speaking about the law. Obviously she thought it might have violated a law otherwise she wouldn't have done it.

Really? Your faith in a judge that IGNORED state law and refused to order school teachers back to work from an illegal strike is stunning.