John
on June 14, 2011 at 3:26 pm
The Wisconsin Supreme Court overrules circuit court judge
Sumi:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court handed Republican Gov. Scott
Walker a major victory on Tuesday, ruling that his polarizing union rights law
can go into effect.
In a 4-3
decision, the court said Dane
County Circuit Judge
Maryann Sumi overstepped her authority when she said
Republican lawmakers violated the state’s opening meetings statutes in the
run-up to passage and declared the union rights law void.
The law,
which eliminates most of public employees’ collective bargaining rights and
requires them to pay more for their health care and pensions, sparked weeks of
protests when Walker
introduced it in February. Tens of thousands of demonstrators occupied the
state Capitol for weeks, thrusting Wisconsin
to the forefront of a national debate over labor rights.
Here’s more from the Milwaukee
Journal-Sentinel:
Supreme Court reinstates
collective bargaining law
By Patrick Marley and Don Walker of the Journal Sentinel
June 14, 2011
Madison - Acting with unusual speed, the state
Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the reinstatement of Gov. Scott Walker's
controversial plan to end most collective bargaining for tens of thousands of
public workers.
The court found that a
committee of lawmakers was not subject to the state's open meetings law, and so
did not violate that law when it hastily approved the collective bargaining
measure in March and made it possible for the Senate to take it up. In doing
so, the Supreme Court overruled a Dane
County judge who had
halted the legislation, ending one challenge to the law even as new challenges
are likely to emerge.
The changes on collective
bargaining will take effect once Secretary of State Doug La Follette
arranges for official publication of the stalled bill, and the high court said
there was now nothing to preclude him from doing that. La Follette
did not return a call Tuesday to say when the law would be published.
The ruling came on lines that
have become familiar in recent years for the often divided court.
The majority opinion was by
Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler. The other three justices -
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick
Crooks - concurred in part and dissented in part. Abrahamson's dissent was
particularly stinging as she upbraided her fellow justices for errors and
faulty analysis.
Republicans who run the
Assembly were prepared late Tuesday to insert the collective bargaining changes
into the state budget if the court hadn't acted. But the court's ruling just
before 5 p.m. spared them from again having to take up a contentious issue that
spawned weeks of massive protests earlier this year.
The court ruled that Dane
County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's ruling, which had
held up implementation of the collective bargaining law, was in the void ab initio, Latin for invalid
from the outset.
"The court's decision
...is not affected by the wisdom or lack thereof evidenced in the act,"
the majority wrote. "Choices about what laws represent wise public policy
for the state of Wisconsin
are not within the constitutional purview of the courts. The court's task in
the action for original jurisdiction that we have granted is limited to
determining whether the Legislature employed a constitutionally violative process in the enactment of the act. We conclude
that the Legislature did not violate the Wisconsin
Constitution by the process it used."
The court concluded that Sumi exceeded her jurisdiction, "invaded" the
Legislature's constitutional powers and erred in halting the publication and
implementation of the collective bargaining law.
But Abrahamson wrote that the
order seems to open the court unnecessarily to the charge that the majority has
"reached a predetermined conclusion not based on the facts and the law,
which undermines the majority's ultimate decision."
The majority justices
"make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties' arguments,
misinterpret statutes, minimize (if not eliminate) Wisconsin constitutional
guarantees, and misstate case law, appearing to silently overrule case law
dating back to at least 1891," Abrahamson wrote.
GOP lauds ruling
Republicans praised the
majority decision.
"The Supreme Court's
ruling provides our state the opportunity to move forward together and focus on
getting Wisconsin working again," Walker said in a
one-sentence statement.
"We didn't violate any
rules," said Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon). "We upheld
the constitution all the way through the passage of Act 10. We feel great about
the decision."
Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River
Hills) praised the high court and disparaged Sumi for
her earlier rulings, saying she "stepped all over the people of Wisconsin."
"You think of all the
chaos and discord and acrimony that's gone on in this Capitol as the result of
her decision and just doing what she wanted, which she had no cause, no basis,
no rule of law," Darling said. "She just did what she wanted for
political reasons. To me, it was despicable."
But Democrats decried the
Supreme Court decision for finding lawmakers do not have to follow the open
meetings law. They said they would move to amend the state constitution to make
them subject to the meetings law, a process that would take years and be
difficult to start while they remain in the minority.
"The majority of the Supreme
Court is essentially saying that the Legislature is above the law. It's now
clear that unless the constitution is amended, the Legislature is free to
ignore any laws on the books," said a statement from Assembly Minority
Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha).
During the meeting at the heart
of the case, Barca had screamed at Republicans to
halt the meeting because he said they were violating the open meetings law.
They ignored him as cameras recorded the dramatic confrontation.
Tens of thousands of public workers
and their supporters demonstrated at the Capitol in February and March to
oppose the collective bargaining changes. They have returned in smaller numbers
this week as the Legislature prepared to take up the state budget, and
thousands of people rallied on the Capitol lawn shortly after the court issued
its order.
"I had a sickening feeling
in my stomach," said Barbara James, a Madison middle school teacher who
demonstrated at the Capitol.
Lawmakers' stance on collective
bargaining triggered efforts to recall state senators, and elections are
scheduled this summer for six Republicans and three Democrats.
The legal fight over Walker's plan will
continue on other fronts. Two other lawsuits are already pending, and
"numerous" others are expected, according to Madison attorney Lester Pines, who
represented Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) in the case the
Supreme Court decided Tuesday. The other cases challenge the law on other
grounds, rather than on open meetings violations.
The justices issued their order
just one week after hearing oral arguments that lasted more than five
hours, making them the longest in memory if not state history, attorneys said.
In addition to limiting
collective bargaining, the bill also requires state employees to pay more for
their health care and pensions. Those changes were to take effect in April, but
were stopped from going into place because of Sumi's
order.
Last week, Administration
Secretary Michael Huebsch said that if the court
ruled in the administration's favor, implementation of the law could move
quickly. State employees should expect to see the changes in pension and health
care costs to become effective on their paychecks by the middle of August, Huebsch said.
In February, Walker proposed eliminating most collective
bargaining for public workers except police, firefighters and State Patrol
troopers.
The day the Senate was to take
up the bill, the Democrats prevented action on the bill by fleeing to Illinois. Under the
state constitution, at least 20 senators had to be present to pass the measure
because it included fiscal elements. Republicans hold just 19 seats.
After three weeks, Republicans
- with less than two hours' notice - created a conference committee with
lawmakers from both houses and stripped out the parts of the bill that were
considered "fiscal" under the narrow state definition. The
Legislature then passed it and Walker
signed it.
Within days, Democratic Dane
County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne
filed a court complaint alleging the committee violated the open meetings law.
He said the committee needed to give 24 hours' notice before meeting and had to
allow more people into the room.
In addition, the room was
packed with legislative aides, reporters and camera crews, but just 20 members
of the general public were allowed into the meeting. Hundreds
if not thousands of others attempted to get inside.
The state constitution requires
the doors of the Legislature to remain open when it is in session, and that
portion of the constitution is referenced in the state's open meetings law.
The court majority found
lawmakers must obey the state constitution, but not the open meetings law,
which spells out when meeting notices must be published and when public
entities can meet in closed session.
Sumi initially blocked the law with a temporary restraining order, saying Ozanne was likely to succeed on his open meetings
arguments. Walker's
administration then filed a petition for what is known as a supervisory writ -
a request that the high court take over the case.
The court held arguments June 6
on whether to take the case. Until issuing its ruling Tuesday, the court had
not formally accepted the case.
In May, while the high court
was studying whether to take the case, Sumi entered
her final order enjoining the implementation of the collective bargaining law.
In its ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court said it took up the case because the
lower court had "usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin
Constitution grants exclusively to the Legislature."
***
Collective bargaining law
- Law eliminates most collective bargaining for most public unions.
Workers will contribute more toward health insurance and pensions.
Bargaining limited to negotiating wages; unions required to hold a vote of
members every year to continue.
- Supreme Court sees no impediment to Secretary of State Douglas La Follette publishing the law. Once published, it would
take effect.
- State employees can expect to make higher pension, health care
contributions as soon as August.
Bill Glauber,
Jason Stein and Rustin Fakheri
of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/123859034.html