Here is the amended part of yesterday's TRO that covers the issue of this declaration only.
In "Amended Order Granting Motion For Temporary Restraining Order" the Judge writes:
Further, based on the briefs of counsel, the uncontroverted testimony, and the evidence received at the March 29, 2011 evidentiary hearing, it is hereby DECLARED that 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 has not been published within the meaning of Wis. Stats. §§ 991.11, 35.095(3)(b), and is therefore not in effect.
So ordered this 31st day of March 2011, at 8:15 am
[Note: This was typed from the email i received from DA's office this morning before i had chance to wake up. A link to online copy is provided below.]
These are the key statutes cited in my diary that reached the same conclusion. The statutes are clear that the Secretary of State is the person with authority. My diary also quoted Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions.
Here is link to Amended Order.
Update 9 am:
Walker Admin says will comply with Sumi's ruling:
A Wisconsin judge ruled Thursday the state's divisive new collective bargaining law had not taken effect, and officials in Republican Gov. Scott Walker's administration say he plans to comply with the ruling and to halt preparations to begin deducting money from public workers' paychecks.
...Two Walker administration officials who spoke to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because the governor hadn't publicly announced his plans said he would announce later Thursday that he would comply with Sumi's ruling.
Judge Maryann Sumi issued a declaration that the anti-union law is not a law because the Secretary of State never reached the point of publication of the law in the official newspaper of record. This is the relief requested by District Attorney (DA) Ismael Ozanne after the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) posted a link to the Legislature's website with the anti-union law that the GOP then claimed constituted publishing of the law sufficient for the law to take effect.
Secretary of State (SOS) Douglas La Follette initially designated March 25 as the publication date. The DA filed an action for injunctive relief on March 16th, and due to the court's scheduled vacation, obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) on March 18th to prevent implementation of the law in order to maintain the status quo. The SOS then advised the LRB that the designated date was withdrawn and directed LRB to take no further action until they heard from him.
This is why Judge Sumi reached this conclusion. The statutes are clear that LRB's posting of a link to the anti-union law has no legal significance.
The Wisconsin Constitution mandates that "no law shall be in force until published" and that the "legislature shall provide by law for the speedy publication of all laws." [Wis. Constitution, Article IV, Sections 17(2) and 17(3)] The statutes provide that the LRB shall provide "drafting services," such as publishing each act on its date of publication. Specifically, after receiving notice from the SOS, the LRB "shall enter the act number, date of enactment and date of publication of each act on the camera-ready copy and deliver it to the contract printer for reproduction." [Wisconsin Statutes, Section 13.92(1)(b)(4)] So, the LRB performs publishing in the sense of getting the bill ready for publication with the required information and delivering the prepared act to the printer for reproduction.
The role of the SOS is to designate a date for publication, provide written notice to the LRB of the information that it needs (act number, date of enactment and designated date of publication) and publish in the official state newspaper a notice certifying the act number, date of publication and other information. [Wisconsin Statutes, Sections 35.095 and 14.38(1), 985.04]
Finally, Section 991.11 provides that an act enacted by the legislature "shall take effect on the day after its date of publication as designated" by the SOS, who has the duty to designate the date of publication. So, the effective date of acts is tied to the SOS role in the publication process, not to any actions taken by the LRB.
Moreover, the LRB and the GOP Senator knew this was the law. The LRB has published Wisconsin Blue Books since at least 1994 that set out this procedure, stating it was the Secretary of State with the duty to publish so that a law can take effect.
Here are the issues for tomorrow's hearing of the relief requested by the DA. We can check off a couple from his wish list:
The DA is asking that the Court tomorrow issue the following orders:
1. A temporary injunction to enjoin Secretary of State Douglas La Follette from "taking any steps toward publishing" the anti-union law.
2. A declaration that inserting the date "March 25, 2011, as the date of publication" and the website link or electronic posting of the anti-union law on Friday by the LRB do not constitute publication within the meaning of the Wisconsin Constitution and Sections 35.095(3)(b) and 991.11.
3. A declaration that the existing TRO is not moot and has not been abrogated by the LRB posting a link to the anti-union law.
4. A declaration that the LRB "was and is subject to the terms" of the existing TRO, that its actions of inserting the date and electronically posting the ant-union law on its website were "contrary to the terms of the Court's" TRO and that these acts are not sufficient as a matter of law to constitution publication as required by the Wisconsin Constitution.
5. A declaration that the anti-union law is not the law in the state of Wisconsin.
6. A declaration that the existing TRO remains in "full force and effect until this Court determines otherwise."
7. An order that voids the acts taken by the LRB on March 25 and requires the LRB to remove the anti-union law from its website.
REQUEST FOR LIVE BLOGGING TEAM FOR TOMORROW
There are still key issues to be decided at tomorrow's hearing.
I am part of a group called DK Poli, and we do political projects, like the GOTV blogathon last midterm.
Is anyone interested in doing a live blog of the hearing tomorrow? Let me know in comments and I will send you invite for DK Poli, and then set your role as editor.
We can live blog the hearing with one diary that has updates posted during day, and if need be, add more diaries during the day.
update: live blogging team members: I have sent group invites to the following people who have volunteered. If you are interested, let me know and will add your name.
wolverinethad
RhodaA
Naranjadia