Category: Politics

After Court Rulings, In-Person Voting Proceeds in Supreme Court Election

Posted on by Hamilton

After rulings from the Supreme Court of the United States and the Wisconsin Supreme Court the night before election day upheld the April 7 date and absentee voting requirements, Wisconsin’s election for state Supreme Court proceeded with few changes. In-person voting was held, and absentee voter requirements were largely the same (though at record high numbers). Wisconsin’s spring elections included the race between incumbent state Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly and Judge Jill Karofsky, as well as the Democratic primary for president and many local offices. Results will not be released until April 13, the deadline for clerks to receive absentee ballots.

 

Background

As COVID-19 began spreading throughout the state, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers had initially maintained – and legislative leadership agreed – that the April 7 election in Wisconsin should not be moved. Instead, the Governor and other state and local officials encouraged voters to request absentee ballots. The Governor’s Office was also working with the Wisconsin Elections Commission and local election officials on obtaining sanitizing supplies to keep polling sites clean, obtaining more absentee ballots, recruiting poll workers, and addressing other issues related to the unusual circumstances of these elections.

As the election date came closer, local governments began putting pressure on the Evers administration to make changes to keep poll workers and voters safe. On March 22, a large group of local officials sent Gov. Evers and legislative leadership a letter asking for options to make holding elections easier on municipalities and voters in the midst of COVID-19.

On March 27, Gov. Evers called on the Legislature via Twitter to send absentee ballots to all Wisconsin voters. Legislative leadership said this would not be logistically feasible in time for the April 7 election. (Senate Majority Leader Fitzgerald statement. Assembly GOP statement.)

On April 3, Gov. Evers called for a special session of the legislature to make changes for the April 7 election, including: making the election mail-in only, sending ballots to all registered voters who have not yet requested one, and extending the time for ballots to be received to May 26. The Legislature gaveled in and out of the session without taking up any legislation.

 

State Lawsuit on Changing the Election Date

Despite stating multiple times that he could not and did not want to move the election date, on April 6, the night before the election, Gov. Evers issued Executive Order #74, moving the spring election date to June 9, 2020 and calling the Legislature into special session to address the election date. Under the order, voters could continue to request absentee ballots until then and ballots already submitted would be counted. Local elected office terms would be extended until the results of the June date were finalized.

Legislative leaders immediately filed an emergency petition for original action and motion for temporary injunction with the Wisconsin Supreme Court to block the Governor from moving the election (memo in support of the filings). Later the same day, the Supreme Court approved the Legislature’s motion, reinstating in person voting for April 7.

The 4-2 decision (split between the conservative and liberal justices) said the Governor does not have the constitutional or statutory authority to suspend the elections statutes. According to the court, the Governor’s emergency powers in Wis. Stat. § 323.12(4)(b) give him the power to suspend administrative rules, not statutes, in the name of public safety. The Legislature would have to give the Governor explicit authority to change statutes in the event of an emergency.

A dissent from Justices Walsh Bradley and Dallet argued that Wisconsin statutes do provide the Governor and the Department of Health Services the authority to implement emergency measures, including moving elections, during a public health emergency (see Wis. Stat. § § 252.02 and 323.12(4)(b). The dissent said the court should have upheld the executive order for the safety of Wisconsin voters.

Justice Daniel Kelly, who is on the April 7 ballot, did not participate.

 

Federal Lawsuit on Election Date & Absentee Voting Requirements

Also the night before the election, a major case in federal court regarding Wisconsin’s April election was resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Three cases seeking changes to absentee voting for the April 7 election had been consolidated by a federal judge. 

  1. The Democratic National Committee sought to move the mail-in registration deadline and waive voter ID requirements during the pandemic. (A federal judge had already extended the deadline to request a mail-in ballot to April 2.)
  2. The League of Women Voters sought to waive the witness signature requirement on absentee ballots during the pandemic.
  3. Another lawsuitfiled by Souls to the Polls, Voces de la Frontera and Black Leaders Organizing for Communities argued that minority voters will be disenfranchised if the Wisconsin Elections Commission does not move the April 7 election date.

The state Department of Justice, representing Gov. Evers, had submitted a brief asking that the court again extend the deadline for requesting an absentee ballot and relax witness signature requirements, among other recommendations, while still keeping in person voting on April 7.

On April 2 the judge ruled there would be no change to the election date, but absentee ballots could be received until April 13. Ballots postmarked after April 7 could still be counted, contrary to current law. The judge’s amended order noted that election results could not be made public until April 13. The judge declined to waive voter ID requirements.

The district court judge also waived the requirement for absentee voters to have their ballot signed by a witness, but this provision was overturned by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Republicans ultimately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The night before the election, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the district judge’s ruling. The decision says absentee ballots must be postmarked by April 7 and received by April 13. Ballots delivered in person must be delivered on April 7.

 

Other Lawsuits

The City of Green Bay filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Elections Commission, Gov. Evers, and Department of Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm, seeking to move the election date and switch to mail-in voting only. A federal judge dismissed the case on March 27.

The Republican Party of Wisconsin asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to intervene in Milwaukee and Dane counties, where clerks have said voters may note their status as “indefinitely confined” to avoid voter ID requirements. A Supreme Court order barred election officials from giving such advice.

 

Election Day

With the lawsuits resolved, Wisconsin’s election day proceeded largely as planned. Gov. Evers deployed the National Guard to help where there are shortages of poll workers, and many local clerks took creative safety precautions to protect poll workers and voters.

On the ballot for Supreme Court was incumbent conservative Justice Daniel Kelly and liberal Dane County Circuit Court Judge Jill Karofsky. Read more about the candidates. Results will be available April 13.

 

 

 

JFC Removes Qui Tam Provision from Gov. Evers Budget

Posted on by Hamilton

In its first executive session on the 2019-21 state budget on May 9, the Wisconsin Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee voted to remove a provision of Gov. Tony Evers’s budget that would have restored a private individual’s ability to bring a qui tam claim against a person who makes a false claim against the state.

Gov. Evers’ budget bill would have reinstated the qui tam law, not just for alleged Medicaid fraud, but for all state agencies. This policy provides an incentive for plaintiff attorneys to sue medical providers, pharmaceutical companies, and any other business contracting with the state, for alleged fraud. The proposal would allow the whistleblower and his or her plaintiff attorney to seek up to 30 percent of all of the damages, along with attorney’s fees and costs.

WCJC actively lobbied against the qui tam provision and were successful in convincing the Joint Finance Committee to remove the provision. WCJC met with key committee members and submitted a memo explaining why the law is unnecessary and would only benefit plaintiff attorneys.

At the May 9 executive session, the Joint Finance Committee also removed Gov. Evers’s proposal to repeal of provisions of extraordinary session legislation 2017 Act 369 including:

  • The requirement that the legislature approve certain settlements and legal actions by the attorney general.
  • The ability of the legislature to intervene in lawsuits involving the state.
  • The ability of the legislature to obtain outside legal counsel.
  • The definition and public transparency requirements for agency guidance documents.
  • The requirement that agencies cite statutes supporting any interpretation of law they publicly provide.
  • The ability of the Joint Committee for Review on Administrative Rules to suspend rules multiple times.

Altogether, the Joint Finance Committee removed a total of 131 policy items that had been proposed by the governor.

The Joint Finance Committee will continue voting on various agency budgets throughout May before sending their amended budget to the full legislature for approval.

 

Legislature to Intervene in Act 21 Cases

Posted on by Hamilton

The Legislature’s Joint Committee on Legislative Organization has voted to intervene in two cases addressing the application of 2011 Act 21. The 2011 legislation clarified that agencies may not enforce requirements unless explicitly permitted by statute or properly promulgated rule. The two cases, both titled Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, would clarify the general scope of Act 21 in environmental cases.

One case (appeal no. 2018AP59) will decide whether Act 21 precludes the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from considering cumulative environmental impacts in issuing high capacity well permits under Wis. Stat. § 281.34. DNR argues that Act 21 prevents the agency from considering environmental impacts not specifically noted in the statutes. DNR’s argument relies on a May 2016 formal opinion from former Attorney General Brad Schimel.

Clean Wisconsin argues that the 2011 Supreme Court decision Lake Beulah Management District v. DNR still holds. Lake Beulah broadly held that DNR has the authority to preserve waters of the state under the constitutional and statutory public trust doctrines. Since the Supreme Court decided Lake Beulah after the enactment of Act 21 but declined to address the Act’s bearing on the case, a decision in the Clean Wisconsin case would clarify DNR’s authority on high capacity well permits.

The second case (consolidated appeal nos. 2016AP1688 and 2016AP2502) will decide whether DNR has the authority to impose off-site groundwater monitoring requirements and an animal maximum for CAFO wastewater permits. In this case, Clean Wisconsin argues that a Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit allowing the expansion of Kinnard Farms CAFO in Kewaunee County should have included these restrictions. DNR argues Act 21 prohibits DNR from imposing the permit conditions because the statutes do not grant the agency explicit authority.

The Supreme Court accepted both Clean Wisconsin appeals on April 9 and stated it will hear oral arguments on the cases on the same date (not yet scheduled). Several business groups are participating as amici curiae and intervenors in the cases.

Previously, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sided with DNR in both cases. However, this week Attorney General Josh Kaul filed two motions seeking to change DOJ’s position on the cases.

Legislature to Intervene in Act 21 Cases

Posted on by Hamilton

The Legislature’s Joint Committee on Legislative Organization has voted to intervene in two cases addressing the application of 2011 Act 21. The 2011 legislation clarified that agencies may not enforce requirements unless explicitly permitted by statute or properly promulgated rule. The two cases, both titled Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, would clarify the general scope of Act 21 in environmental cases.

One case (appeal no. 2018AP59) will decide whether Act 21 precludes the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from considering cumulative environmental impacts in issuing high capacity well permits under Wis. Stat. § 281.34. DNR argues that Act 21 prevents the agency from considering environmental impacts not specifically noted in the statutes. DNR’s argument relies on a May 2016 formal opinion from former Attorney General Brad Schimel.

Clean Wisconsin argues that the 2011 Supreme Court decision Lake Beulah Management District v. DNR still holds. Lake Beulah broadly held that DNR has the authority to preserve waters of the state under the constitutional and statutory public trust doctrines. Since the Supreme Court decided Lake Beulah after the enactment of Act 21 but declined to address the Act’s bearing on the case, a decision in the Clean Wisconsin case would clarify DNR’s authority on high capacity well permits.

The second case (consolidated appeal nos. 2016AP1688 and 2016AP2502) will decide whether DNR has the authority to impose off-site groundwater monitoring requirements and an animal maximum for CAFO wastewater permits. In this case, Clean Wisconsin argues that a Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit allowing the expansion of Kinnard Farms CAFO in Kewaunee County should have included these restrictions. DNR argues Act 21 prohibits DNR from imposing the permit conditions because the statutes do not grant the agency explicit authority.

The Supreme Court accepted both Clean Wisconsin appeals on April 9 and stated it will hear oral arguments on the cases on the same date (not yet scheduled). Several business groups are participating as amici curiae and intervenors in the cases.

Previously, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sided with DNR in both cases. However, Attorney General Josh Kaul has filed two motions seeking to change DOJ’s position on the cases.

Extraordinary Session Litigation Update

Posted on by Hamilton

Several ongoing cases seeking to void the 2018 extraordinary session legislation are moving through Wisconsin and federal courts. This article provides background on each of the cases and updates on where each of the cases are in the legal process.

League of Women Voters v. Evers

Status

6/21/19: In a 4-3 decision the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the Legislature’s 2018 extraordinary session was constitutional, upholding 2017 Acts 368, 369, and 370 and the confirmation of 82 appointments.  

5/15/19: The Wisconsin Supreme Court held oral arguments in League of Women Voters v. Evers. 

4/30/19: In a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court restored the 82 appointments that Gov. Tony Evers had rescinded under the initial circuit court injunction.

4/15/19: The Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the League of Women Voters’s petition to bypass the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court will hold oral arguments on May 15.

4/15/19: Gov. Tony Evers filed a brief in opposition to the Legislature’s motion for emergency temporary relief.

4/10/19: The Legislature has filed a motion asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take original jurisdiction over the case or, alternatively, to immediately reinstate the rescinded appointments.

4/9/19: The appeals court denied the Legislature’s motion to enforce the stay, arguing Gov. Tony Evers’s withdrawal of the appointments was valid because the governor had the authority to rescind the appointments while the temporary injunction was in place.

4/3/19: The plaintiff League of Women Voters petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to bypass the Court of Appeals, arguing the case presents novel questions of state constitutional law, and only the Supreme Court can provide a definitive resolution.

4/1/19: Due to the disagreement between Gov. Tony Evers’s administration and the defendant legislature as to whether the appointees who had been rescinded are now reinstated, the legislature filed an expedited motion to enforce the court of appeals stay after the administration prevented appointees from returning to work the day after the court issued the stay.

3/27/19: The Court of Appeals District III has issued a stay of the temporary injunction issued by a Dane County circuit court. The Dane County judge had ordered the injunction of 82 appointments confirmed in the extraordinary session and the extraordinary session laws in their entirety. The appeals court order reasons that the Dane County circuit court failed to evaluate the irreparable harm that could result from enjoining the legislation if it is later found valid. The order stays the temporary injunction and establishes an expedited appeal process with all briefs due by the end of April.

Background

The plaintiffs argue that the extraordinary session was not convened in accordance with the Wisconsin Constitution, which authorizes the legislature to meet only as provided by law or when convened by the governor (Wis. Const. Art. IV, § 11).

The Legislature intervened as a defendant and argues that convening an extraordinary session does not violate the Wisconsin Constitution because the rules for the 2017-18 session prescribed in 2017 Senate Joint Resolution 1 specifically state that any days not reserved for scheduled floorperiods are available for the legislature to convene an extraordinary session. Therefore, the Legislature met as provided by law under the Constitution and Wis. Stat. § 13.02(3).

SEIU v. Vos

Status

10/21/19: The Wisconsin Supreme Court held oral arguments in SIEU v. Vos.

6/11/19: The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the defendant Legislature’s motion for temporary relief pending appeal by staying the temporary injunction issued by the Dane County Circuit Court. However, the Supreme Court left in place the injunction on Act 369 provisions that would have rescinded improperly promulgated guidance documents on July 1, 2019. Additionally, the Supreme Court stayed proceedings on the case in the lower court, cancelling the trial on guidance document provisions of Act 369 set to begin in Dane County on June 12. Read more. 

4/19/19: The Wisconsin Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction of this case, several weeks after a second Dane County judge issued a temporary injunction preventing enforcement of some extraordinary session legislation provisions requiring legislative approval for the attorney general to discontinue or settle cases, requiring transparency for agency guidance documents, and allowing for more legislative oversight of agency rulemaking, while leaving in place other portions of the laws. The defendant legislature had also appealed this injunction, but the court of appeals had not provided a ruling before the Supreme Court assumed the case.

Whereas the League of Women Voters order enjoined the extraordinary session laws in their entirety, the SEIU circuit court order found the plaintiffs did not establish sufficiently that a court would find other provisions unconstitutional. Specifically, the SEIU circuit court judge left in place provisions

  • Allowing the legislature to intervene and use outside counsel in certain cases.
  • Allowing the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation to designate an unlimited number of enterprise zones, but requiring approval of the Joint Finance Committee on any new zone.
  • Requiring legislative oversight of agencies applying for federal waivers and seeking to reallocate funds.

Background

The plaintiffs, Service Employees International Union, Wisconsin Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals, American Federation of Teachers-Wisconsin, and Milwaukee Area Service and Hospitality Workers, allege that the extraordinary session laws are an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

According to the plaintiffs, Article V of the Wisconsin Constitution gives the governor the exclusive power to execute laws. Furthermore, Article V guarantees that one branch may not interfere with another branch’s powers. The plaintiffs allege that extraordinary session provisions, including increased legislative oversight of rulemaking, attorney general lawsuits, and agency appropriations, interfere with the governor’s and attorney general’s constitutional powers. Furthermore, committee oversight without opportunity for a governor veto violates constitutional separation of powers.

The defendant legislature argues that the Wisconsin Constitution explicitly allows the legislature to prescribe the powers of the attorney general. Furthermore, Wisconsin case law has interpreted the Constitution as a fluid rather than rigid political design of separate branches of government.

Democratic Party of Wisconsin v. Vos

Status

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin (DPW) has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court Western District of Wisconsin seeking to declare the extraordinary session legislation in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Parties are continuing to brief the case, and oral arguments will be held on April 26.

Background

The complaint alleges that the legislation violates the plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth amendment rights, as well as the Guarantee Clause.

The U.S. Constitution Art. 4 § 4 guarantees states a republican form of government. DPW’s complaint alleges that the Republican legislature violated the Guarantee Clause by removing powers from the incoming Democratic administration to the legislature.

DPW also claims that the extraordinary session violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to free association and free speech because the state legislature retaliated against Democratic candidates based on their political viewpoints by limiting their ability to enact their policy preferences via the newly elected Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul.

Finally, DPW argues the legislation violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it dilutes the power of Democratic votes.

Judge Brian Hagedorn Wins Wisconsin Supreme Court Race

Posted on by Hamilton

In the only statewide race in the Wisconsin 2019 spring elections on April 2, Court of Appeals Judge Brian Hagedorn beat Court of Appeals Chief Judge Lisa Neubauer for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Hagedorn won by close to 6,000 votes, and Judge Neubauer has officially conceded, declining to call for a recount.

Conservative Hagedorn will replace liberal Justice Shirley Abrahamson, who has been on the court since 1976. Hagedorn’s win puts the court at a 5-2 conservative-liberal balance. The next Supreme Court race will be in 2020 for conservative Justice Daniel Kelly’s seat.

Appeals Court Issues Stay of Injunction on Extraordinary Session Laws

Posted on by Hamilton

The Court of Appeals District III has issued a stay of the temporary injunction in League of Women Voters v. Evers, one of the cases challenging the constitutionality of the 2018 extraordinary session laws. The stay comes after a Dane County circuit court judge ordered the injunction of 82 appointments confirmed in the extraordinary session and the extraordinary session laws in their entirety.

The appeals court order reasons that the Dane County circuit court failed to evaluate the irreparable harm that could result from enjoining the legislation if it is later found valid. The order stays the temporary injunction and establishes an expedited appeal process with all briefs due by the end of April.

Read more about the League of Women Voters case.

Despite the appeals court order reinstating the extraordinary session laws in League of Women Voters, some parts of the extraordinary session laws are still unenforceable after a second Dane County judge issued a temporary injunction in a separate case, SEIU v. Vos. The SEIU injunction prevents enforcement of provisions requiring legislative approval for the attorney general to discontinue or settle cases, requiring transparency for agency guidance documents, and allowing for more legislative oversight of agency rulemaking, while leaving in place other portions of the laws. The defendant Legislature also plans to appeal this injunction, but there has yet to be an appeals court ruling on a stay.

Read more about the SEIU case.

2019-20 Judiciary & Courts Committees

Posted on by Hamilton

Senate and Assembly leadership have finalized committee assignments for the 2019-20 session, including those committees that will likely be tasked with legal reform bills. Lists of committee members are below.

 

Senate Committee on Judiciary & Public Safety

  • Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), Chair
  • Andre Jacque (R-DePere), Vice-Chair
  • Alberta Darling (R-River Hills)
  • Fred Risser (D-Madison)
  • Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee)

 

Senate Committee on Insurance, Financial Services, Government Oversight & Courts

  • Dave Craig (R-Big Bend), Chair
  • Duey Stroebel (R-Saukville), Vice-Chair
  • Dan Feyen (R-Fond du Lac)
  • Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee)
  • Fred Risser (D-Madison)

 

Assembly Committee on Judiciary

  • Jim Ott (R-Mequon), Chair
  • Cody Horlacher (R-Mukwonago), Vice-Chair
  • Jeremy Thiesfeldt (R-Fond du Lac)
  • Rob Brooks (R-Saukville)
  • Ron Tusler (R-Harrison)
  • Samantha Kerkman (R-Salem)
  • Jimmy Anderson (D-Fitchburg)
  • Gary Hebl (D-Sun Prairie)
  • Marisabel Cabrera (D-Milwaukee)

Complaint Filed Seeking to Declare Extraordinary Session Legislation Unconstitutional

Posted on by Hamilton

A coalition has filed a complaint seeking to deem the legislature’s 2018 extraordinary session legislation unconstitutional and unenforceable. The complaint argues that the extraordinary session was not convened in accordance with the Wisconsin Constitution, which authorizes the legislature to meet only as provided by law or when convened by the governor (Wis. Const. Art. IV, § 11).

The plaintiffs’ coalition includes the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Disability Rights Wisconsin, Black Leaders Organizing for Communities, a heavy equipment operator and union member, a former Department of Natural Resources attorney, and a former Department of Justice attorney. Plaintiffs claim they are harmed provisions of the legislation including: new voting requirements, the elimination of illegal guidance documents, the elimination of judicial deference, the requirement that the attorney general deposit settlement funds into the general fund, and the legislature’s authority to intervene in attorney general actions.

However, a recent memo from Wisconsin Legislative Council to Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) plainly states that convening an extraordinary session does not violate the Wisconsin Constitution. The constitution states that each house of the legislature can determine its own rules for proceedings (Wis. Const. Art. IV § 8). The rules for the 2017-18 session proscribed in 2017 Senate Joint Resolution 1 specifically state that any days not reserved for scheduled floorperiods are available for the legislature to convene an extraordinary session. Furthermore, the Wisconsin Supreme Court generally defers to the legislature on issues of legislative procedure (see State ex rel. La Follette v. Stitt, 114 Wis. 2d 358 (1983)). The complaint argues that since the rules were enacted by joint resolution, not a bill, they do not have the force of law allowing the legislature to meet according to Art. IV, § 11.

The Joint Committee on Legislative Organization has approved hiring outside counsel to defend the legislation.

Final MU Poll Before Election Shows Close AG Race

Posted on by Hamilton

On Oct. 31, Marquette University Law School (MU) released its final poll before the 2018 midterm elections. Overall, numbers remained largely the same as in the previous poll. Incumbent Attorney General Brad Schimel is still up, but his lead has narrowed to a two point race. Schimel led Democrat opponent Josh Kaul by four points earlier in October and seven points in September.

In this poll, Kaul’s favorable/unfavorable numbers improved slightly to 16 percent favorable and 12 percent unfavorable, up from 10 percent favorable and 8 percent unfavorable in the previous poll. On the other hand, Schimel’s favorable ratings decreased to 29 percent favorable and 25 percent unfavorable from 32 percent favorable and 22 percent unfavorable in the previous poll.

Kaul’s name recognition has also begun to improve slightly from the previous two polls, in which around 67 percent of voters hadn’t heard enough about him to form an opinion. However, this poll showed 56 percent still haven’t heard enough about Kaul, compared to 33 percent who haven’t heard enough about Schimel.

This poll is the last snapshot of voter opinions before they head to the polls on Tuesday, but still anything can happen to shift the outcome of the election in the next few days.

Read more MU poll results.