Wisconsin union-busting bill - is it law now or not? The plot thickens here in Wisconsin.

[PeaceNikki]

As you may know: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7492149.html"> LRB published the law yesterday despite a TRO. The TRO did not name LRB in the suit, so it appears there was no violation of the TRO and, in fact, they did so due to their legal obligations. The point of contention now is whether LRB publication makes it law. The Legislative Reference Bureau published the law with a footnote mentioning the restraining order but noting the bureau is required under state law "to publish every act within 10 working days of its date of enactment."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7492149.html ">According to Bureau director Steve Miller, it doesn't.

Bureau director Steve Miller said the action doesn't mean the law takes effect Saturday. He says that won't actually happen until Secretary of State Doug La Follette orders the law published in a newspaper, and a judge last week ordered La Follette to not do anything

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=14325853">Here is a statement from Wisconsin Legislative Council staff attorney Scott Grosz to Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca:

Generally, as we discussed, it is my understanding that the LRB did not intend for its action to independently determine the effectiveness of Wisconsin Act 10, and that further action by the Secretary of State is required in order for Act 10 to take effect. The following is a brief summary of our conversation and the statutory analysis on which I believe the LRB relied in reaching its conclusion.

Following your initial inquiry, our office spoke with LRB Chief Steve Miller. Mr. Miller indicated that the effectiveness of Act 10 is based on publication of the Act by the Secretary of State, rather than publication by the LRB. He indicated that the LRB published the Act in order to satisfy a statutory publication requirement that is separate from the publication duty of the Secretary of State, and that such separate and additional publication by the Secretary of State is required in order for Act 10 to take effect.

In reviewing the relevant statutes, it appears that the LRB reached its conclusion in reliance on the following points. Section 35.095, Stats., specifies obligations of both the LRB and the Secretary of State relating to the publication of acts. Section 35.095 (3) (a), Stats., directs the LRB to publish every act within 10 working days after its date of enactment. Section 35.095 (3) (b), Stats., directs the Secretary of State to designate a date of publication for each act, and specifies that the date of publication may not be more than 10 working days after the date of enactment.

While s. 35.095, Stats., refers to publication-related activities of both the LRB and the Secretary of State, s. 991.11, Stats., makes specific reference to the publication activities of the Secretary of State for purposes of determining the effective date of an act. Section 991.11, Stats., states that every act that does not expressly prescribe the time when it takes effect shall take effect on the day after its date of publication as designated under s. 35.095 (3) (b), Stats. As described above, s. 35.095 (3) (b), Stats., refers to the publication activities of the Secretary of State, rather than the publication activities of the LRB. Accordingly, while certain statutory obligations regarding publication of Act 10 have been satisfied by the LRB, the statutory obligation that relates to the effective date of Act 10 has not yet been satisfied by the Secretary of State, and at this time the Secretary's actions remain subject to the temporary restraining order issued in Dane County Circuit Court.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118677754.html">The Wisconsin GOP disagrees - and specifically told LRB to publish

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said it didn't matter that it hasn't appeared in the paper.

"It's published," Fitzgerald said. "It's law. That's what I contend."

Fitzgerald and Miller met Friday. Miller said Fitzgerald asked him to publish the law and, after reading the statutes, Miller agreed that he could do so. He said he had never published a law without being given a date by the secretary of state during his 12 years of running the reference bureau.

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin thanks the power-hungry GOP for yet another recruiting tool, for helping our recall efforts and solidifying the fact that they will not control any branch of government in this state in my lifetime.

We will not forget how you've twisted the rules, broken the law, thumbed your nose at the courts and the people of this state. Ever.

[iwishiwas]

1. Someone -in the rush forgot to clean up the final draft-see this....

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/acts/11Act10.pdf

[glinda]

3. amazing

[iwishiwas]

4. IT would be an automatic F in turned in for a class.

[Tx4obama]

8. It is supposed to look like that.

The text that is crossed out is what they took out in the senate committee (after the House Assembly already passed the bill), all the stuff that is fiscally related.
They had to eliminate any thing fiscally related in order to be able to pass the bill without a quorum.

[Lifelong Protester]

2. Yeah, I plan to desktop publish a whole bunch of 'bills' and

make believe they are laws, too. I'll post 'em on my fridge. Hey, if I SAY THEY ARE LAW, they are. Can't we all suspend reality and do that?

What a crock-o.

but you are right,it continues to amaze me that these goons keep giving us more fodder to fire up the Dems. Fantastically idiotic.

[L. Coyote]

5. Answer here:

Wisconsin’s Walker Sued by Unions as Labor Law ‘Published’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x745145

[PeaceNikki]

6. That's not a determination, but another suit.

I suspect we won't have a legal answer for a while.

[Tx4obama]

7. The text/meaning of the judge's order was very clear....

SNIP

Most of the debate has been over who's right on this issue of who can pull the trigger, as it were, to make a law go into effect. (See our report for the details of the dispute.) But as we note in our story, the actual transcript of the judge's ruling seems much broader than that.

A transcript of the judge's ruling reads: "I do, therefore, restrain and enjoin the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10. The next step in implementation of that law would be the publication of that law by the secretary of state. He is restrained and enjoined from such publication until further order of this court."

I want to be clear that not only am I not an expert on Wisconsin state law but that each of these controversies seems to move the state further into uncharted legal and even constitutional territory. So every judgment must be tentative. But a plain reading of the judge's order suggests a very broad injunction. Not only did she bar the specific modality of implementation. She seemed to enjoin any steps to put the law into effect. "I do, therefore, restrain and enjoin the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10." And if that's the case, all these technical questions on who can 'publish' the law seem moot.

SNIP

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/03/a_bit_more_detail.php#more?ref=fpblg

[bobthedrummer]

9. I don't recognize it as being in effect n/t

:patriot:

[bobthedrummer]

10. Prince Walker has deigned to "comply" with the court's order; i.e. the royal "budget bill" is NOT

IN EFFECT.