Via the Milwaukee Journal:
Three cases are continuing over the new law, leaving the courts as the final arbiter of whether the law is in effect, whether it was adopted properly and whether aspects of it are constitutional. Huebsch said he would abide by court rulings if he is ordered to stop implementation of the law.
Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat, filed a complaint this month to block the law. He contended that a committee of lawmakers violated the open meetings law when it approved the measure, which was a key step to advancing it to the GOP-controlled Assembly and Senate.
Republicans argue they did not violate the meetings law.
Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi on March 18 said Ozanne's case was likely to succeed and blocked Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law.
But on Friday, the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau - which was not under the court order - published the law.
The director of the reference bureau, Stephen Miller, said Friday that statutes required him to take that step, but that he does not believe the law takes effect until the secretary of state acts.
Last week, the Department of Justice appealed Sumi's temporary restraining order. The appeals court panel said the state Supreme Court should take the case, but the high court hasn't ruled on whether it will take it.
On Monday, the Department of Justice asked to withdraw its appeal, saying the law had now been published. It also asked Sumi to vacate the temporary restraining order, withdraw Tuesday's hearing and dismiss La Follette from the case.
Ozanne, meanwhile, asked Sumi to declare that the reference bureau's actions did not constitute publication of the law under the state constitution and that the bureau is subject to and had violated the restraining order. He further asked the judge to order the reference bureau to remove the act from the Legislature's website.
The WI DoJ's attempt to withdraw its appeal (because it belives the law is in effect and the appeal is moot) was denied (pdf) with the court saying, in effect, "we don't have the right to yank a case away from the WI Supreme Court." As in, sorry, fellas. You asked us to give it to them so we did, we're not taking it away from them because you've changed your mind.
Ozanne's request that the LRB be ordered to "unpublish" Act 10 was denied - with Judge Sumi's proxy saying that the LRB's publication did not change the status quo.
Assuming I'm reading this right, this leaves two pending cases:
- Ozanne's public meetings violation case before Judge Sumi; and
- the appeal of Judge Sumi's restraining order sitting on the desk of the WI Supreme Court.
With Judge Sumi's hearing going on right now, it'll be interesting to know if the WI Supreme Court will let this play out before they decide whether or not to step in (it would seem to make sense, but if they believe the restraining order is in error - they might jump in now).
All in all, quite the mess.
(H/t The Wheeler Report)
Late Edit: Today's testimony ended, sounds like there will be an amended restraining order, and testimony will continue on Friday. via @madisoninfo/dcc
No comments:
Post a Comment