Wisconsin union law published despite court order

[PeaceNikki]

MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin law taking away collective bargaining rights that a court had ordered not to be published by the secretary of state has been published instead by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

The action was noted on the Legislature's home page Friday. It's not immediately clear whether the publication has the force of law. But if legally published, the law takes effect Saturday.

A judge last week issued a temporary restraining order blocking Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law.
But the Reference Bureau says it's required to publish every new law within 10 working days after it's signed by the governor.
Gov. Scott Walker signed the collective bargaining measure March 11.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7491624.html

Interesting...

[itsrobert]

1. Breaking the 'intent' of a court order

I would think that would be serious offense. But not in upside down republican world.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

2. "WHO" makes up the Legislative Reference Bureau?

MOST interesting.

[onethatcares]

3. weren't these guys complaining about the rule of law

when the Democratic Senators left to avoid a quorum?

[midnight]

4. If the Secretary of States job is overridden by this LRB it sounds

like Walker is playing fast and loose with the rules again..... Republican Attorney General is already under watch for his declaration that the Secretary of State was not supporting the courts decision... Something the secretary of State said was news to him.... These guys are thugs.... Tell me these thugs will be held accountable.....

[Tx4obama]

5. I hope the court finds his ass in contempt of court and throws his ass in jail! n/t

[L. Coyote]

6. Wisconsin Statutes: Violation of state statute 946.12 is a Class I felony.

Wisconsin Statutes: Violation of state statute 946.12 is a Class I felony.

Violation of state statute 946.12 is a Class I felony.

http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2010/946/946.12.html

946.12
Misconduct in public office. Any public officer or public employee who does any of the following is guilty of a Class I felony:

946.12(1)
(1) Intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the officer's or employee's office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law; or

946.12(2)
(2) In the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee, does an act which the officer or employee knows is in excess of the officer's or employee's lawful authority or which the officer or employee knows the officer or employee is forbidden by law to do in the officer's or employee's official capacity; or

946.12(3)
(3) Whether by act of commission or omission, in the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee exercises a discretionary power in a manner inconsistent with the duties of the officer's or employee's office or employment or the rights of others and with intent to obtain a dishonest advantage for the officer or employee or another; or

946.12(4)
(4) In the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee, makes an entry in an account or record book or return, certificate, report or statement which in a material respect the officer or employee intentionally falsifies; or

946.12(5)
(5) Under color of the officer's or employee's office or employment, intentionally solicits or accepts for the performance of any service or duty anything of value which the officer or employee knows is greater or less than is fixed by law.

http://www.gjs.net/946-12ss.htm

[highplainsdem]

7. I just checked Google and found this article from the 14th saying the Secretary of State

had a deadline earlier this month to tell the Reference Bureau to publish the bill in ten days.

http://www.fox6now.com/news/politics/witi-20110314-budget,0,2877739.story

La Follette says the administrative duties of his office are not guided by his personal beliefs, but he has watched the budget battle with concern. He said, "These are tough times. I've never seen the state so divided, and so hateful of each other. And I just hope people can calm down, and do what's best for the state in the long run."

March 14th is the deadline the Secretary of State had to tell the legislature reference bureau when the bill will be published. He says the bill will be published on March 25th, and will take effect the next day.

I'd think the court order would trump what the SOS told the Reference Bureau, but I can't be sure. The WI GOP has ignored other court orders.

[PeaceNikki]

8. There was this letter from La Follette rescinding the date.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51567181/secretary-of-state-letter

Can't they read?!

[highplainsdem]

9. Thanks for that link. I'm guessing they're planning to argue that the SoS had no right to

rescind the date. This is just a guess, though.

[PeaceNikki]

10. That's what my attorney friend just said.

She said, "From what I'm seeing, though, La Follette doesn't have the authority to tell them not to publish (in other words, that letter is not within his authority)--he can tell them when in the 10-day window to do so, but so long as the law has been enacted, LRB *HAS* to publish it (absent a court order directed to the LRB)."

Also getting the impression that the Dane County DA screwed up by not including LRB in the suit.

[highplainsdem]

12. See the reply I just posted, reply 11, letter from the DOJ.

[PeaceNikki]

13. Yeah, well the DoJ is Republican so they can fuck themselves.

[highplainsdem]

14. I feel the same way about them.

[L. Coyote]

17. The Court Order is valid. The Court Ruling will be determinative

and this probably just pissed off the judge

[highplainsdem]

11. Update -- WI Department of Justice letter about the publication

http://www.nbc15.com/news/headlines/Union_Law_Published_Despite_Court_Order_118680919.html

UPDATED Friday, March 25, 2011 --- 5:30 p.m.

From the WI Department of Justice:

The Wisconsin Department of Justice has received a number of inquiries relating to the publication of Act 10.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice learned this afternoon that the Legislative Reference Bureau published Act 10. As noted in the published act, section 35.095 imposes a mandatory, ministerial duty on the legislative reference bureau to "publish every act ... Within 10 working days of enactment." In the same statute, the date of enactment is defined as the approval of a bill by the governor. No action by the Secretary of State is required by this section for the legislative reference bureau to publish an Act. The Secretary of State did not direct the publication of Act 10 by the legislative reference bureau and he is not in violation of the TRO issued by the Dane County Circuit Court.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice will evaluate how the lawful publication of Act 10 affects pending litigation. We have no further comment at this time. We will keep you apprised of any further developments in the pending litigation.

Bill Cosh
Communications Officer

[L. Coyote]

18. WI DoJ is a Walker Co-conspirator in other felonious activites

[highplainsdem]

15. Dem. Senator Jon Erpenbach's statement:

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=14324715

Statement from Senator Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton):

Senator Fitzgerald has used his position and ordered a non-partisan agency to get involved in a very partisan issue in publishing Wisconsin Act 10 (SS SB 11 - the Collective Bargaining bill). It is unclear if this publishing by the Legislative Reference Bureau enacts the law without publication by the Secretary of State.

What is clear is that Senator Fitzgerald's action ignored a temporary restraining order by a circuit court judge. Regardless of how Senator Fitzgerald feels, or what he thinks, there is no excuse for ignoring a court order and the judicial process.

[L. Coyote]

16. KICKING

[L. Coyote]

19. X-POST on LBN for more discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4787546