(Subtitle: WTF, and Other Frequently Asked Questions)
It's hard enough for those of us in Wisconsin to fully grasp all that's happening with the union-busting legislation -- from lawsuits to court hearings to recalls and beyond -- so I completely empathize with those of you who don't identify as Badgers.
For you, for us and for me, I thought it might be useful to dumb this thing down ever so slightly, and resort to the mother of all simpletons, the FAQ. In addition to the vital Qs and As, I've included some recommended reading for those of you who hunger for a bit more depth.
You're welcome to play along at home. If there's a Q or an A that you'd like to see included, add it in the comments and I'll update the diary with the most substantive among them. We'll make this a group effort.
Let's get started, shall we? Direct from beautiful New Glarus, Wisconsin...
Q: What's the latest on the Open Meetings lawsuit?
A: You've undoubtedly heard by now that late yesterday, Judge Maryann Sumi effectively tabled the court proceedings for at least 8 weeks. But there's some bad information out there as to why she did it.
You'll recall that the lawsuit, brought by the Dane County (Madison) District Attorney, names four defendants, each of whom has the unfortunate designation of (R) next to their name. Those accused of violating Wisconsin's Open Meetings law, which requires a minimum of 24 hours public notice for legislative action (or 2 hours in "extraordinary" circumstances), names these dudes:
Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R)
Senate President Mike Ellis (R)
Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R), Scott's brother
Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder (R)
None of these dolts has actually shown up in court. On Tuesday and Friday of this week, DA Ozanne presented and rested his case, which, by all accounts, was extremely effective. The defendants have yet to wage an actual defense, other than cross-examining the DA's witnesses.
All four (R)s above have claimed legislative immunity, which they are entitled to do. Of course, this means that they haven't (cliche alert!) had their day in court. So Judge Sumi issued instructions yesterday to both sides to research and file briefs addressing questions of legislative immunity and whether or not the court can/should proceed without the defendants, and whether the defendants can instruct their attorneys to proceed without them.
Sumi issued the following timetable for these briefs:
April 25th: the DA's deadline for submitting
May 16th: the defendants' deadline for submitting
May 23rd: the DA's deadline for responding to whatever crap the defendants extract from their respective posteriors
After that, presumably, new hearings will be scheduled. In the meantime, the temporary restraining order against lawful publication of the bill remains in effect.
Recommended Reading: This morning's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article on the matter.
Q: Why don't the (R)s just pass the bill again, with some regard for the Open Meetings Law?
A: There are two theories, one infinitely more plausible than the other.
The less-than-compelling argument, put forth by Senator Fitzgerald, is that they did it right the first time and doing it again would be redundant and unnecessary, because didn't I mention that we did it right the first time?. Says he:
"We passed the law correctly, legally the first time. Passing the law correctly and legally a second or third time wouldn't change anything. It certainly wouldn't stop another activist judge and room full of lawyers from trying to start this merry-go-round all over again."
This, of course, is pure and unabashed crap. Fitzgerald could have said this instead:
"Well, you know, we think we did it right the first time, but since it's better to be safe than sorry, we'll post notice and vote on it again."
But therein lies the more likely theory: they don't have the votes to pass the law again.
Fitzgerald suggested that himself in an interview with Fox News's Greta Van Crooked Face, but you wouldn't know it unless you were watching it live (not likely) or you didn't frequent Crooks & Liars (more likely). The interview was butchered, chopped, mangled and otherwise edited to omit this juicy little detail, but you can enjoy the original at...
Recommended Viewing: Scott Fitzgerald, via Crooks & Liars
Q: How is it even possible that they don't still have the votes?
A: Well, you might have heard that this particular piece of shi...uh, legislation...is not all that popular here in Wisconsin. In fact, it's so unpopular that all 16 State Senators eligible for recall (8 R, 8 D) are actively being recalled.
The (D) recall efforts (understatement alert!) haven't caught much momentum, but the (R) recalls are going quite swimmingly, thank you very much. In fact, the first papers were filed yesterday against (R) Dan Kapanke, and organizers offered up 6,000 more signatures than were necessary to initiate a recall election.
The other 7 (R)s are about to be Kapanked as well (Kapanked: verb). While organizers are holding their signature counts close to their chests, it's widely believed that the remaining signature drives are going extremely well. The deadline for collecting signatures is May 2nd.
These efforts may have the (R)s fearing for their political lives, and since they are mostly unqualified to drop a fry basket, much less govern, their Senate jobs pretty much represent a career "all-in." Thus, their continued support of Walker and Fitzgerald is not guaranteed.
Recommended Reading: WisPolitics on the Dan Kapanke recall filing
Q: Wasn't the case referred to the Supreme Court? And isn't there some kind of election forthcoming?
A: Yes and yes.
The State's appeal of the restraining order was hot-potatoed up to the Supreme Court by an Appeals Court, but the Supreme Court has shown no willingness to catch the vegetable.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court presently leans 4-3 to the right. But this coming Tuesday, Justice David Prosser, who leans so far right that you'd swear he should fall over, is up for reelection to another 10-year term. He is being opposed by JoAnne Kloppenburg, whom we can rightfully claim for our team.
The Tuesday election is regarded as a referendum on Walker, Fitzgerald, et al, and turnout is expected to be significantly higher than a typical spring affair. A hot mayoral race in Madison will also drive up turnout. For those of you scoring at home, turnout = good.
Q: If Kloppenburg wins, will she take the bench immediately?
A: No. She would be sworn in on August 1st. So assuming that the current lawsuit is not ruled upon until late May, or more likely, sometime in June, an appeals court would then consider the ruling sometime after that, leaving the high court with a very small window to hear an appeal with Justice Prosser still on the bench. The Supreme Court is generally not in the habit of the expediting cases, and might only do so in this case because A) Prosser will crave one last act of revenge if he loses Tuesday, or B) someone convinces the court that they must have a ruling before the state's new budget can be voted upon prior to the June 30th deadline.
I am not a legal scholar, but it dawns on me that if the four (R)s don't actually waive their immunity and stage a robust defense, will an appellate court agree to hear the case? One can hear Fitzgerald bellowing, "I would like to appeal the ruling from the case I never defended!"
Recommended Reading: Wingnuts lamenting the potential election of a (gasp!) liberal
Q: There are other lawsuits out there, are there not?
A: "Buttload" is a good way to quantify the number of lawsuits that have either already been brought or are ready to be filed if the law ever actually takes effect. Most plaintiff groups are holding their lawsuits for that possibility, so that the law can be overturned instead of stayed. You can't overturn a law that is not actually a law, and this law is, despite assertions from many officials named "Scott" and/or "Fitzgerald," not a law.
These pending lawsuits each offer different grounds -- unconstitutionality, unfair labor practices, unequal application -- you name it. They will be brought by teachers, firefighters, citizens, and even people unaffected by the law. I'll delve deeper into these as they are actually filed. But suffice it to say that the Open Meetings law is only the tip of the litigation iceberg, and the (R)s are navigating the Titanic directly toward it.
Q: Wow, this is a long diary. Don't you think you should make this "Part I" and continue on again later?
A: That's a great idea; thanks for mentioning it. I'll do that.
Q: Wait, before you go, give us the upshot.
A: The Cliff's Notes version is essentially this:
Republicans have only the courts as their singular hope of enacting this law before Wisconsin citizens can affect a regime change at the polls. And so far, the courts have been uncooperative to them in this regard.
Stay tuned for Part II, and remember to add your Qs and As in the comments.