Last Friday, Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colàs made the order:
For the reasons stated above, the court grants summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, denies the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and declares that Wi. Stat. §§ 66.0506, 118.245, 111.70(1)(f), 111.70(3g), 111.70(4)(mb) and 111.70(4)(d)3 violate the Wisconsin and United States Constitution, and Wis. Stat. § 62.623 violates the Wisconsin Constitution and all null and void.
Now I'm no lawyer (I only play one on messageboards), but I have some observations to make about this and what went down in February last year.
Of the sections of Act 10 offensive to the Constitution:
§ 62.623 would have been removed by Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 by Representatives Grigsby, Mason, Shilling and Pocan; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 by Representative Clark; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 3 by Representative Staskunas.
§ 66.0506 would have been removed by Assembly Amendment 6 by Representatives Barca, Sinicki, Toles, Vruwink, Turner, Steinbrink, E. Coggs and Roys; or Assembly Amendment 85 by Representatives Barca, Seidel, Roys and E. Coggs; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 by Representatives Grigsby, Mason, Shilling and Pocan; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 by Representative Clark; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 3 by Representative Staskunas.
§ 111.70(1)(f) would have been removed by Assembly Amendment 85 by Representatives Barca, Seidel, Roys and E. Coggs; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 by Representatives Grigsby, Mason, Shilling and Pocan; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 by Representative Clark; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 3 by Representative Staskunas.
§ 111.70(3g) would have been removed by Assembly Amendment 85 by Representative Barca, Seidel, Roys and E. Coggs; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 by Representatives Grigsby, Mason, Shilling and Pocan; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 by Representative Clark; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 3 by Representative Staskunas.
§ 111.70(4)(d)3 would have been removed by Assembly Amendment 17 by Representatives Kessler, Sinicki, Toles, Zepnick, Bewley, Turner, E. Coggs, Roys, Berceau, Ringhand, Pocan, Seidel, Hebl, Pope-Roberts, Bernard Schaber, Mason, Hulsey, Danou, Molepske Jr, Barca, Steinbrink and Pasch; or by Assembly Amendment 85 by Representatives Barca, Seidel, Roys and E. Coggs; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 by Representatives Grigsby, Mason, Shilling and Pocan; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 by Representative Clark; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 3 by Representative Staskunas.
§ 111.70(4)(mb) would have been removed by Assembly Amendment 85 by Representatives Barca, Seidel, Roys and E. Coggs; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 by Grigsby, Mason, Shilling and Pocan; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 by Representative Clark; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 3 by Representative Staskunas.
§ 118.245 would have been removed by Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 by Representatives Grigsby, Mason, Shilling and Pocan; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 by Representative Clark; or Assembly Substitute Amendment 3 by Representative Staskunas.
There no doubt would have been more chances to align it with the State and Federal Constitutions, but since Assembly Democrats were abruptly cut off by Jeff Fitzgerald, they are not in the record.
Which party was it that claims to hold the Constitution in the highest regard, again?