« Ind. Gov't. - Still more on: Charlie White seeks to ban cameras from recount commission hearing | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 0 today (and 1 NFP) »

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Courts - "Wisconsin Supreme Court reinstates collective bargaining law"

The battle over the new Wisconsin collective bargaining ban seems finally at an end -- ILB readers may recall that the law had been challenged on a procedural technicality, that the Wisconsin legislature had not complied with the state's open meetings law notice requirement. Yesterday the Wisconsin Supreme Court wrote in part in a 68-page opinion (the main opinion is 9 pp.):

It has been argued to the court that the legislature amended Article IV, Section 10 of the Wisconsin Constitution by its enactment of the Open Meetings Law. That argument is without merit. Article XII, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution establishes the requirements that must be met in order to amend the Wisconsin Constitution through action initiated in the legislature. Article XII, Section 1 requires that both houses of the legislature pass the proposed amendment in two successive sessions of the legislature, and then the proposed amendment must be submitted to the people. It is only when the people have approved and ratified a proposed amendment initiated in the legislature that a constitutional amendment occurs. * * *

It also is argued that the Act is invalid because the legislature did not follow certain notice provisions of the Open Meetings Law for the March 9, 2011 meeting of the joint committee on conference. It is argued that Wis. Stat. § 19.84(3) required 24 hours notice of that meeting and such notice was not given. It is undisputed that the legislature posted notices of the March 9, 2011 meeting of the joint committee on conference on three bulletin boards, approximately 1 hour and 50 minutes before the start of the meeting. In the posting of notice that was done, the legislature relied on its interpretation of its own rules of proceeding. The court declines to review the validity of the procedure used to give notice of the joint committee on conference. See Stitt, 114 Wis. 2d at 361. As the court has explained when legislation was challenged based on allegations that the legislature did not follow the relevant procedural statutes, “this court will not determine whether internal operating rules or procedural statutes have been complied with by the legislature in the course of its enactments.” Id. at 364. “[W]e will not intermeddle in what we view, in the absence of constitutional directives to the contrary, to be purely legislative concerns.” Id. The court’s holding in Stitt was grounded in separation of powers principles, comity concepts and “the need for finality and certainty regarding the status of a statute.”[Emphasis added by ILB]

[ILB: I feel safe in opining that our Supreme Court likely would have come to the same decision, based on our Indiana precedents.]

Here is the story from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reported by Patrick Marley and Don Walker. Interesting item from the very long story:

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.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 15, 2011 10:05 AM
Posted to Courts in general