Supreme Court clears way for collective bargaining law to take effect

Published on
by
Wisconsin State Journal

Supreme Court clears way for collective bargaining law to take effect

by
Ed Treleven

Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon), third from left, comments on the Supreme Court ruling on the collective bargaining law on Tuesday. With Fitzgerald are, from left, representatives Dan Knodl (R-Germantown), Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford) and Robin Vos (R-Rochester). (Photo: CRAIG SCHREINER – State Journal)

A Dane County judge overstepped her authority when she voided Gov. Scott Walker's measure limiting public sector collective bargaining, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a fractious 4-3 decision.

In a nine-page decision -- followed by about 60 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions -- the court's conservative majority said Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi "usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin constitution grants exclusively to the Legislature" when she voided the law.

Sumi ruled that a legislative conference committee violated the state's open meetings law when it hastily met in March to amend the bill, allowing the Republican-controlled Senate to get around a boycott by Senate Democrats.

But in a stinging dissent, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote that the authors of the court's order -- Justices Patience Roggensack, Annette Ziegler and Michael Gableman, along with concurring Justice David Prosser -- lacked "a reasoned, transparent analysis" and incorporate "numerous errors of law and fact."

The court's order was met with delight by the Republican majority in the state Legislature.

"We've been saying since day one that Republicans passed the budget repair bill correctly, so frankly this isn't much of a surprise," state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said. "We followed the law when the bill was passed, simple as that."

State Sen. Alberta Darling, R- River Hills, said she was "thrilled."

"We knew we hadn't done anything wrong," she said. "Today was a day of justice. Today is a day of victory."

The court, however, declined to step into the dispute over whether the March 9 conference committee meeting violated the state's open meetings law, leaving it to the Legislature to set its own rules.

"In the posting of notice that was done, the Legislature relied on its interpretation of its own rules of proceeding," the court wrote. "The court declines to review the validity of the procedure used to give notice of the joint committee on conference."

State Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch said DOA "is reviewing the Supreme Court's order and will begin implementing (the law) when appropriate."

Gov. Scott Walker said the court's ruling "provides our state the opportunity to move forward together and focus on getting Wisconsin working again."

Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, said the court's decision validates secrecy by the Legislature.

A free and independent press is essential to the health of a functioning democracy

"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," Barca said. "By this interpretation, the constitutional right of the people to know what its Legislature is doing has been significantly minimized."

The court also said that Sumi erred by barring publication of the law by Secretary of State Douglas La Follette, and it ruled that the constitutional requirement that the doors to the houses of the Legislature be open during business were met.

When the conference committee met, the court said, the doors to the Senate and Assembly and the room where the conference committee was meeting were open to the press and to the public.

"There is no constitutional requirement that the legislature provide access to as many members of the public as wish to attend meetings of the legislature or meetings of legislative committees," the court wrote.

In his concurrence, Prosser wrote that he was "troubled" by Sumi's "apparent indifference" to established law on the open meetings question.

"The circuit court second-guessed not only four legislative leaders but also the Senate chief clerk - an attorney - when it determined that no senate or assembly rule...governed the notice requirement of the special session conference committee," Prosser wrote. "The circuit court, in effect, told the Senate chief clerk that he did not know what the Senate rule meant."

Prosser wrote that only a clear constitutional violation would justify voiding the collective bargaining law, but only after the law was properly published.

In her dissent, Abrahamson said the high court erred in taking the case through "original jurisdiction" instead of waiting for one party or the other to appeal a lower court's ruling. She singled out Prosser, whose concurrence, she wrote, "is long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant" and, like the court's order, "reaches unsupported conclusions."

Instead, Abrahamson said she agreed with Justice Patrick Crooks' dissent, that the case should come to the Supreme Court as part of an "orderly appellate review of the circuit court's order with a full opinion."

"Only with a reasoned, accurate analysis can a court assure the litigants and the public that a decision is made on the basis of facts and law," Abrahamson wrote, "free from a judge's personal ideology and free from external pressure by the executive or legislative branches, by partisan political parties, by public opinion or by special interest groups."

Crooks wrote that the majority reached "a hasty decision" that doesn't address important questions about the Legislature's constitutional requirements to provide public access to its hearings and the courts' role in holding it to those requirements.

"Those who would rush to judgment on these matters are essentially taking the position that getting this opinion out is more important than doing it right and getting it right," he wrote. "It is rather astonishing that the court would choose to decide such an unusual and complex case without benefit of a complete record."

State Journal reporters Dan Simmons, Clay Barbour and Mary Spicuzza contributed to this report.

Share This Article

More in: