Dane County judge Maryann Sumi today struck down Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s new collective-bargaining law, arguing that its passage by the state senate on March 9 violated the state’s open-meetings law. Sumi’s decision (PDF) isn’t a surprise, though the timing was surprising in that it came earlier than expected.
Sumi argues that the state senate violated the open-meetings law by failing to provide 24 hours’ notice of a legislative meeting — in this case, the conference committee meeting that forwarded the bill to the full senate. Yet, in her order, she doesn’t address the clear exemption to the rule provided in Senate Rule 93, which allows for no notice of proceedings for conference committee bills. The state statutes clearly give precedence to legislative rules in the case of conflict; Sumi simply believes no conflict exists, ignoring the fact that the bill was, in fact, a conference committee bill.
Naturally, unions and their legislative allies are celebrating. Assembly minority leader Peter Barca called Sumi’s ruling “a huge win for democracy in Wisconsin.” Of course, in this case “democracy” is when two duly elected branches of the legislature pass a law, the state’s popularly elected governor signs it, and then it gets struck down by one of 17 judges in one of 72 state counties. (In the decision, Sumi laughably casts herself as a champion of taxpayers, haranguing legislative leaders for “the needless expenditure of taxpayer money to continue this lawsuit.”)
Sumi’s position was never really in doubt — she repeatedly denied all attempts to discard the lawsuit, and issued a restraining order to keep the law from taking effect. Her order today is simply an appetizer to the inevitable supreme court battle ahead (which made the election of conservative justice David Prosser last month so critical). Otherwise, legislative leaders could add the invalidated provision to the pending budget bill and re-pass it — an option they have not ruled out.
— Christian Schneider is a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.
Update: This might explain the timing of Sumi’s ruling. Just yesterday, the state Department of Justice wrote a letter to Sumi warning her that they may seek her recusal based on a brief she had filed with the state supreme court last week. In her brief, Sumi argued an act of the legislature can be voided through a violation of the state’s open-meetings law — an issue which was before her court in the collective-bargaining lawsuit. DOJ attorneys charge that judges should recuse themselves from a proceeding in which they have made a public statement that “commits, or appears to commit” the judge to any issue or controversy in the case. By issuing her ruling today, the issue of her recusal is moot.
What is really silly is the reason the law is being struck down is procedural, it's not even something related to the content of the law!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find it laughable that the judge and the Dems talk about this being a victory for democracy. Leave aside the fact that it was passed by the legislature and signed by the gov...
The reason there's a lawsuit is because the Dems sought to subvert democracy by fleeing the state to avoid a VOTE!
THAT is apparently democracy...
I honestly don't know how the libs can say these things with a straight face. Well, ok, that probably applies to most politicians... hahaha. But more so for the Dems where process doesn't matter, just outcome...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe interesting question is why are Progressives like this judge permitted to have the power to influence the law?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are two separate laws/rules involved here: the Wisconsin Open Meeting law, which set forth the requirements for notice to the public at large; and the rules of the Wisconsin Senate, which set forth the requirements for notice to members of the Senate. It is as clear as clear can be that the Senate complied with the notice requirements of the rules of the Wisconsin senate. With all respect to Mr. Schneider, I think it is equally clear that the Senate Rules do not conflict with the Open Meetings Law, since they apply to notice to a different group of people - the former only to the members of the Senate and the latter to the public at large.
The question is whether the Senate complied with the Open Meeting law. Normally, the law requires at least 24 hours notice, and that much notice was not given in this case. However, the law provides for less notice - as long as at least two hours notice is given - if "for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical." Two hours notice was given here. So the first question that has to be answered here is whether 24 hours notice was "impossible or impractical." It seems to me that plainly it was impossible or impractical, since a group of senators were intentionally trying to frustrate the Wisconsin senate's entire raison d'etre, and the only practical way around that was the shortened notice.
However, even if you don't buy that argument - even if you think the 24-hour notice provision should apply, and the Republicans violated it - that still does not mean that the law should be struck down. The normal penalty for a violation of the Open Laws statute is a fine of between $25 and $300 against each person who violated it. You can only strike the law down if you find that "the public interest in enforcing" the open meetings law outweights "the public interest which there may be in sustaining the validity" of the law. This is an extremely high standard, and one that could only be found to have been violate in this case by a knee-jerk political hack who is in the pocket of the other side.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMadison liberal activist judge thinks she can overrule all other branches of govt for the whole state, and in Madison liberals call this "democracy." Of course they do -- democracy defined as "when Democrats win (by whatever means necessary)."
No surprise really -- but it seems screwy that Dane county liberals get to veto the will of the rest of the state, don't you think?
I assume this one was always going to be appealed all the way up to the State Supreme court, no matter what.
But is there anything preventing the Senate from just calling a new vote on the exact same bill today to neutralize the "procedural" complaint? (I mean everyone agrees there were enough votes to pass it, and it would otherwise be constitutional, right? The "open meetings violation" seems like a technicality that should be easily fixable. I doubt the Dem Senators would run away a second time.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDemocrat judges are ripping their masks off. They rule according to what they want for society. I.e., they legislate Democrat policies from the bench.
It's a naked power grab, and now crooked Dem judges aren't even trying to hid it anymore, with their usual fig-leaf sophistries and interpretations and "shadows of penumbras."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fact that the judge failed to address the issue of the Conference Committee exemption, contained in Senate Rule 93, provides a clear avenue for appeal. At best, this "victory" (for the unions, not WI Citizens as a whole) will likely be short-lived.
As others have pointed out, the members of the Democrat (NOT Democratic) Party, who abandoned their post "under fire," displayed a level of cowardice and dereliction of duty bordering on "treason." Not to mention:
"Judge Sumi's family has a history of strong ties to unions and a pattern of financially
supporting only democratic candidates. This is not the impartiality Wisconsin deserves
on the bench." Media Trackers - External Link
It doesn't matter what your party or platform is, this type of Partisan Judicial Malpractice is destructive to the fabric of our Democratic Republic! If the Supreme Court fails to reverse this decision, it will be one more sign that it's time for the people to completely "reinvent" their government!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for reporting this! I saw this on a liberal news outlet and was hoping for a conservative viewpoint and you guys are on the ball.
I am very disappointed to see this, even though I live in MN. :(
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hope this does go to the state supreme court or gets repassed.
"That's not your mother, it's a man, baby!"
Actually it is your mother if your name is Jake Sinderbrand and you worked for the unions your mom is supporting from the bench.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Madison liberal activist judge..."
You'll need to find new knee-jerk cliches: She was appointed to the bench by then-Gov. Tommy Thompson.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@donz Anthony Kennedy was appointed by Reagan. Your point?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLooking for some legal eagles to respond here. Since this ruling was expected, does this mean an automatic appeal to the WI Supreme Court.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, Texan. It should go to the WI Supreme Court, which--thanks to Prosser's reelection--remains 4-3 conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's where Sumi's charade ends.
It just goes to show that control of everything resides solely in the judicial branch of government. All the stuff we were taught in school about checks and balances and co-equal branches is inoperative in the real world. All you need is FIVE Supreme Court justices to fabricate whatever "rights" they want out of thin air and determine that what is plainly written in the Constitution is archaic and inapplicable and that's the end of the discussion.
The will of the People, as expressed through their elected representatives or ballot initiatives is routinely struck down by a single activist judge (sometimes with their own personal dog in the fight) and then appeals are turned away on the basis of the appellants "not having standing." Short of nearly impossible to attain impeachment, there is nothing to stop these robed junta members from inverting reality and imposing their irrevocable will.
A President with five Supremes is an Emperor. We should just shut down the legislatures and save the money since everything they do is subject to judicial approval. We should just cut to the chase and ask Anthony Kennedy what he wants, since, as the Court is currently comprised, that's who has the fifth vote.
============
IS THERE ANY WAY TO GET A CAPTCHA SYSTEM THAT WORKS ON THE FIRST TRY?!?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt just goes to show that control of everything resides solely in the judicial branch of government.
I disagree.
This is the same view that a lot of self-congratulatory swing voters have. "Hey, everyone does all this arguing, but I just come in at the last minute and all the pols are begging for my vote!"
But the reality is that by then the parameters of the debate are already set. You started with dozens of ideas, and now the field has been cut down to two or three.
Similarly, judges can kill a law off at the last minute, or allow something through that shouldn't get through. But that's no different from the committees in the legislature, campaigns run by pressure groups or any part of the process of making law. By the time it gets to them, it has already run a gauntlet, the courts are just one more lap.
The vast majority of the political influence on a bill is through public debate. Skeptical? You'll note that certain bills seem to rush through quite quickly when the party in power doesn't want a lot of argument.
All this isn't to say that judicial activism isn't wrong. It's just to put it in perspective: judges get to put in their 2 cents, but only after ten bucks are on the table.
Incidentally, judges only seem to be the last group to put their stamp on it. The bureaucrats, police and prosecutors can effectively veto legislation by refusing to enforce it; just look at the immigration laws the Feds routinely refuse to enforce.
Is there any way to get a captcha system that works on the first try?
If it's answerable by a majority of humans on the first try, it's useless as a CAPTCHA. But I'll bet they could allow donors and subscribers to avoid the ad / captcha system altogether.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAstounding. And yet, most of the lawyers I know continue to insist that there is no such thing as judicial activism.
The left insists on having its own way, regardless of the will of the people. And the fact that they dare to call this "democracy" is unconscionable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWasn't this activist judge appointed by a Republican governor?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe least they can do is take it to the WI Supreme Court.As far as I'm concerned,Judge Sumi ruled in error.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've only have about one hour of sleep in the last 36 hours, so I'm missing something here. Why can she still make this ruling if she has already been notified that a panel in considering ordering her to recuse herself from the case? I would think once she gets that notice her hands would be tied until a decision is reached. Thanks for any help... I've read those last paragraphs three times and still can't understand how she can act after being given notice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne person negating the will of millions based on (at best) a technicality. How else would you define democracy?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse