With some of their major legislative achievements thwarted by the courts in the past two years, Wisconsin Republicans are advancing a bill that would limit the ability of circuit judges to block state laws for the long term.
A former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice said she thought such a change would violate the state constitution - a notion a chief sponsor of the bill rejected.
Since 2011, circuit judges have blocked all or parts of laws backed by Republicans that required voters to show photo ID at the polls, limited collective bargaining for public employees and expanded the governor's power over administrative rules. Under a measure announced Wednesday, such injunctions would be automatically stayed as soon as they were appealed - meaning laws that were blocked would be put back in effect until a higher court issued a ruling.
Rep. David Craig (R-Big Bend), a chief sponsor of the measure, said the bill would provide stability. He noted that challenges to state laws are ultimately decided by higher courts in many instances.
"We're trying to speed up the process," Craig said. "One judge elected by one extremely small fraction of the state . . . isn't going to have ultimate say-so over law."
But former state Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske called the bill an outrageous violation of the judiciary's power.
"To statutorily undo a court order before another court has acted on it is clearly to me an infringement on a court's independence, and I don't think it will withstand constitutional scrutiny," said Geske, who is now a Marquette University Law School professor.
Geske was appointed to the high court by Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson in 1993 and served until 1998. She said Republicans would discover over the long haul they would not like the changes they are advocating in how court cases are handled.
"What's ironic is right now Republicans think it's a great idea," she said. "If the Democrats come into power, they won't think it's such a great idea."
Craig disputed that his bill would violate the Wisconsin Constitution, saying the Legislature has the power to set procedures for the courts. He noted an appeals court could quickly overturn any automatic stay and block a state law.
"Do I believe this tramples on the courts? Absolutely not," he said.
Craig acknowledged the change could cut both ways because it would also make it take longer for conservatives to halt state laws they do not like.
In recent years, there have been lawsuits - unsuccessful so far - to overturn policies established when Democrats were in power that allow same-sex couples to receive some of the benefits of married couples and that give the state the power to order school districts to abandon their Indian mascots.
Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) called Craig's bill a power grab that would further polarize the public.
"It alters the balance of power, and it's unneeded," he said.
Scot Ross, executive director of the liberal group One Wisconsin Now, said in a statement the bill was abhorrent because it would allow a law to remain in effect after a judge determined it was unconstitutional.
"Under their scheme, our justice system would be turned on its head to satisfy their seemingly insatiable quest for political power," his statement said. "While they flout the constitution, people's rights would be denied."
The proposal comes at a time when Republicans have been frustrated by a string of court rulings.
In 2011, Republicans approved a law that all but eliminated collective bargaining for most public workers. But the law was immediately suspended by a Dane County judge who found a committee violated the open meetings law in sending the legislation to the Senate. The Supreme Court ultimately overruled the circuit court, but the collective bargaining law was blocked during the three months it took to get the case to the high court.
Last year, a different Dane County judge struck down parts of the law as unconstitutional. That ruling, which applies to local workers but not state employees, remains in effect while the Court of Appeals reviews it.
And a GOP-backed law requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls has been sidelined by two Dane County judges' rulings that the measure violates the state constitution. Those decisions are also under appeal.
The proposed changes to the court system would apply to cases in which circuit judges suspend state laws or restrain the enforcement of them.
It would not apply to the routine orders judges issue in other types of cases, which make up the vast majority of their work.
Currently, circuit court orders in general may not be stayed while an appeal is pending. Under the bill, circuit court orders blocking state laws could immediately be appealed. If appeals were filed within 10 days, the circuit court order would immediately be stayed. The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court would have the power to reinstate the circuit court's decision while the appeal was pending.
The measure is being offered by Craig, Rep. Al Ott (R-Forest Junction), Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) and Sen. Leah Vukmir (R-Wauwatosa). In a sign the bill could move quickly, it gained support Wednesday from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Senate President Mike Ellis (R-Neenah).
Gov. Scott Walker said he had not reviewed the bill.
Republicans in recent years have made other changes to the court system. In 2011, they approved a bill allowing citizens to sue the state in any county. Previously, such cases generally had to be filed in Dane County, the seat of state government.
They also changed the law in 2011 to say that challenges in state court to the maps of legislative districts had to be heard by a special three-judge panel appointed by the state Supreme Court. That process was never invoked because a challenge to the maps was made in federal court, rather than state court.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...imit-impact-of-rulings-439ghsq-202338051.html
