No Runny Eggs

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that despite the injunction placed on Democrat Secretary of State Doug La Follette prohibiting him from publishing Wisconsin Act 10, the non-partisan Legislative Reference Bureau has published it. Perhaps a review of Wisconsin Statute Chapter 35.095(3) is in order:

(3) PUBLICATION. (a) The legislative reference bureau shall publish every act and every portion of an act which is enacted by the legislature over the governor’s partial veto within 10 working days after its date of enactment.
(b) The secretary of state shall designate a date of publication for each act and every portion of an act which is enacted by the legislature over the governor’s partial veto. The date of publication may not be more than 10 working days after the date of enactment.
(c) Copies of each act or portion of an act enacted by the legislature over the governor’s partial veto shall be available on or before its date of publication to subscribers under s. 35.87 who pick up their documents. At appropriate intervals, the officer designated under s. 35.87 shall certify to the secretary of state that each act or portion of an act was available to subscribers on or before its date of publication.

Prior to the injunction, La Follette designated today as the date of publication of Act 10. At that point, his role over the publication of Act 10 ended. Therefore, as of tomorrow, Act 10 is the law of Wisconsin.

I will note that there is now another act of notification La Follette must do according to statute. According to Wisconsin Statute Chapter 14.38(10)(c), he must “(p)ublish in the official state newspaper within 10 days after
the date of publication of an act a notice certifying the number of each act, the number of the bill from which it originated, the date of publication and the relating clause. Each certificate shall also contain a notice of where the full text of each act can be obtained.” That notification, however, does not affect whether the law can be enforced.

Revisions/extensions (10:53 pm 3/25/2011) – I’ve been gone a few hours, and some further things have fallen into place. First, I’d like to thank Allahpundit for linking here. Much appreciated, AP.

While I was out, the gang at WisPolitics (and specifically, the Budget Blog) have been busy throwing cold water on the matter. First, they dug up a letter sent by La Follette to the LRB telling them to not publish Act 10 today or on any date until he sets a new date.

That throws into doubt whether the bill, even though it is published, can take effect. In a letter to Assembly minority leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha), Wisconsin Legislative Council staff attorney Scott Grosz noted that State Statute Section 991.11 “states that every act that does not expressly prescribe the time when it takes effect shall take effect on the day after its date of publication as designated under s. 35.095 (3) (b), Stats.” Indeed, Grosz cited LRB chief Steve Miller as saying that Act 10 will not take effect tomorrow because of a lack of date from either La Follette or a specific written date in the Act.

R&E part 2 (7:35 am 3/26/2011) – Rick Esenberg weighed in on the matter late last night (or at least later than my feed reader’s last update from Shark and Shepherd – Google #FAIL). For those of you hopping in here from Hot Air, Esenberg is a faculty member at Marquette University Law School and a lawyer. The money quote from Esenberg, who is of the opinion that it is law as of today:

One’s initial reaction is that it has been satisfied. The Secretary is required to designate a publication date and he did so. The “publication activity” then becomes the responsibility of the LRB. But Secretary LaFollette did attempt to rescind his designation of the publication date. The issue now becomes whether that means anything.

The statute does not say that he has the power to rescind the publication date. Indeed the statutory framework does not seem to contemplate that there can be a publication date that is distinct from the date that the LRB publishes. There is a single date that is to be specified by the Secretary but that, in any event, must be accomplished by the LRB within ten days of enactment. The best reading of 35.095(3)(a)and (b) is that there is a single date of publication because there is no act of publication that is required of the Secretary to make the law become effective. The LRB seems to think that the Secretary has some further publication obligation that is related to the Act’s effectiveness. But there does not seem to be anything that can fairly be called that. All he can do is pick another day for something that the LRB had to do by today.

The Secretary is supposed to inform the LRB of its obligation. The LRB is supposed to carry it out. If you want to stop publication (which, under Goodland, a court may not do), you had better sue the LRB.

In any event, Secretary LaFollette was not ordered to rescind his designation of a publication date by Judge Sumi. Her order only enjoins him from doing something – publishing – that he had no power to do. Perhaps recission of the date is to be implied from her order but one would have expected both the DA and the judge to be more precise about that.

At the end of the day, it’s possible to argue that the law will not go into effect tomorrow but the greater likelihood is that it will.

R&E part 2 (12:37 am 3/29/2011) – I posted some non-lawyer analysis of the Department of Justice motion to vacate the TRO, specifically dealing with the alternative world where the Secretary of State is an Übergovernor and the judiciary is the Überlegislature.

I’m actually doing a bit of a homer nod here because I am the e-mailer in question. Tom Blumer wrote about how the duelling recall efforts are playing nationwide, and the fact that, to the LeftStreamMedia, the only recalls that are happening are being organized by the Democrats. With a modification for events that happened since I sent the e-mail Monday night (specifically, a DailyKos/PPP poll) as relayed by WisPolitics’ JR Ross on Jay Weber’s show yesterday, here’s my take on who is actually vulnerable, in order of decreasing vulnerability (updates in italics, some of the original text was edited by Tom):

– Dan Kapanke (R-32nd) – Given the two college towns (La Crosse, Eau Claire) and the Mississippi River shoreline in his district, I don’t know how he ever won election. Indeed, he was beaten in the Congressional race in November. Ignore the fact that there were, until Mike Huebsch was chosen as Administration secretary, 2 Republican Assemblymen out of the 3 Assembly districts that make up the Senate district – both of them were liberal “Republicans”, and the one that is still in the Assembly voted against the budget repair bill. Further, Kapanke has been the target of multiple incidents of personal property damage.

– Jim Holperin (D-12th) – His district is the mirror opposite of Kapanke’s. All three Assemblymen in the district are Republicans. It also is one of 4 districts where there is a local effort, and it’s the one that has had the most threats directed against it (to the point where one business ordered the recall organizers to not set up there after receiving threats, and not the boycott variety).

– Dave Hansen (D-30th) – The district is slightly less Republican than Holperin’s, but once again, all three Assemblymen are Republicans. Again, there is an active local recall committee.

– Randy Hopper (R-18th) – On paper, he “shouldn’t” be vulnerable. In generic terms, the district is middle-of-the-R spectrum. However, the district is home to several prisons (think corrections officers), and Hopper is not particularly well-liked, especially by his soon-to-be-ex.

– Robert Wirch (D-22nd) – Despite the fact that 2 of the 3 Assemblymen are Democrats, this district is a toss-up. The top-line races were virtually identical to the statewide races. Once again, there is a local group at work.

Luther Olsen (R-14th) – I didn’t have this on my radar initially, but a DailyKos/PPP poll seems to suggest he’s vulnerable to the generic Dem. Much like the neighboring Hopper’s district, on paper, Olsen really “shouldn’t” be vulnerable. The fact that Olsen is “not exactly” a conservative, however, points to one of two things, both potentially troubling for Olsen – either the district is more liberal than the “top-line” races suggest, or Olsen could be vulnerable to a challenge from his right.

– Alberta Darling (R-8th) – I probably shouldn’t include this as a “vulnerable” district, but the North Shore suburbs are a bit “funny”, especially since it is right next to the UW-Milwaukee campus. The main reason the 2008 election was close was Darling had a health issue at a time that was aggressively used against her. Of note, the same DailyKos/PPP poll that suggests Olsen is vulnerable gives Darling a comfortable advantage over the generic Dem.

H/T – Kevin Binversie)

WisPolitics is reporting that Secretary of State Doug La Follette will be taking the full “10 working days” (which excludes Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays per state statute section 35.095 (1) (c)) he has under state statute section 35.095 (3) (b) to publish what is now Wisconsin Act 10. Since the state Constitution states no act is in force until it’s published, that gives the unionistas and their bought-and-paid-for local units of government two more weeks to ram through sweetheart deals.

I wish David King had been able to make it a clean sweep.

Since I’m borrowing Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story as the initial source, I’ll also borrow their headline. With a few strokes of Gov. Scott Walker’s pen this morning, the clock has now run out on unions and local units of government attempting to get one more round of one-upsmanship upside the taxpayers’ wallets. The budget repair bill, which limits public-employee collective bargaining to base pay (except for public-safety employees) is now law.

Shortly before Walker signed the bill into law, he also rescinded the planned layoffs of 1,500 state workers slated to begin on April 1. WLUK-TV has posted (H/T – Kevin Binversie) the letters delivered to the heads of the unions informing them that the layoffs will no longer be happening.

As Jim Geraghty tweeted for an alternate headline – “Walker, Wisc. GOP save or create 1500 jobs”.

After two hours of contentious debate, punctuated by lame attempts by the Democrats to stall the inevitable, the Assembly passed the budget repair bill on a 53-47 vote. It now goes to Governor Walker for his signature, and he said he will sign it as soon as he he is legally able to. That time frame is a question of how quickly the Assembly Clerk and the Legislative Reference Bureau can enroll the bill and present it to Walker for his signature.

(H/T – Kevin Binversie)

The Wisconsin State Journal reported just this morning that WEAC is urging school boards to rush through contracts effective through 2013 before Scott Walker is able to sign the soon-to-be-passed budget repair bill that severely restricts collective bargaining priviliges for public unions. Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Association of School Boards is urging caution for its members, pointing out that even though the generalities of how the significant reduction in shared revenue are known, the specifics are still up in the air, and that it is unwise to lock themselves into two-year contracts.

Of note, the Madison story has a number the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did not have last week – 50-100 school districts rammed through contract extensions the last 2 weeks. While the WSJ notes that WEAC is now asking its locals to accept concessions, the early contract extensions, including the one in Racine, did not contain any.

After weeks of being held hostage and lied to by the Fleebag Fourteen Senate Democrats, and ultimately told that the only way the Dems would be coming back was if they were allowed to unconditionally win, the Brothers Fitzgerald had enough and figured out a way to do the budget repair bill without the 20-Senator requirement for a bill that is fiscal in nature. After passing the substitute amendment through a conference committee (which, for those of you out of state, means that it cannot be altered in any way), the Senate Republicans passed it through their chamber, which is still lacking the 14 Democrats, on a party-line 18-1 vote, with Dale Schultz (WEAC-No Talk Radio Here) being the lone dissenter. The bill will now reportedly go to the Assembly tomorrow, with the Assembly starting up at 11 am.

JR Ross at WisPolitics did a quick comparison between the version that previously came out of the Joint Finance Committee, which was stalled by the Fleebag Fourteen, and the version that came out of the conference committee:

These items were removed from the JFC version:
-changes to the earned income tax credit
-a $79 million reduction in the lapses required from the DOA secretary
-$165 million in debt restructuring
-increasing funding for MA programs to close funding gap through end of fiscal year
-the sale of state power plants (emphasis added)
-increasing funding for Corrections to close gap through end of fiscal year
-reallocation of group health and pharmacy benefit reserves
-audit of dependent eligibility under benefit programs

For those wondering about the potential 1,500-state-worker layoffs slated for April if nothing were done, do not quote me, but judging by the differing gross closing balances ($65,115,300 in the JFC version, $158,853,200 in the conference version, both including a $65,000,000 required statutory balance), it looks like they won’t be necessary.

The Democrats appear to be pinning their last hopes on the short notice provided for the conference committee. However, the provision in state law that generally requires a 24-hour notice also allows for that notice to be as short as 2 hours if there is “good cause such notice is impossible or impractical”. That has never been adjudicated, but in Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald’s statement, he said that the Legislative Reference Bureau, which includes non-partisan lawyers hired for the speicific purpose of helping legislators draft bills, effectively signed off on the bill.

Revisions/extensions (10:40 pm 3/9/2011) – Via WisPolitics’ Budget Blog, here is what Senate Chief Clerk Rob Marchant had to say about the short notice provided for the conference committee meeting:

There was some discussion today about the notice provided for the legislature’s conference committee. In special session, under Senate Rule 93, no advance notice is required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board. Despite this rule, it was decided to provide a 2 hour notice by posting on the bulletin board. My staff, as a courtesy, emailed a copy of the notice to all legisaltive (sic) offices at 4:10, which gave the impression that the notice may have been slightly less than 2 hours. Either way, the notice appears to have satisfied the requirements of the rules and statutes.

I thought you might find this information to be useful.

Thanks.

Rob

Revisions/extensions (7:08 am 3/11/2011) – I probably should have caught this when WisPolitics did and before Kevin Binversie started sending people here, but the LFB changed their summary on Thursday morning to note that the potential sale of the state power plants and a change in the Earned Income Tax Credit, not discussed in the Wednesday summary, were part of the bill, and that a “Study of Potential Modifications of the Wisconsin Retirement System and State Employee Health Insurance Options”, which was discussed by the LFB, was not part of the bill. Importantly, LFB director Bob Lang noted that the bill language itself remained the same throughout the process, which means that what the conference committee, the Senate, and the Assembly voted on was, to the letter and punctuation, the same.

Jim Hoft received some information on a Wausau branch of WEAC-led boycott of businesses that refuse to kowtow to them, and indeed in some cases, actively supported Scott Walker. Included are both the list of businesses displayed in the teachers’ lounge at a Wausau high school and copies of two different form letters to be delivered to non-complying businesses. This is after the local TV station (WSAW-TV, Channel 7) refused to run with the story after being fed it first.

Bonus item – The Wausau Tea Party got their hands on the “Wisconsin-as-a-fist” signs being doled out by the thugs from both the Wisconsin AFL-CIO and the Rock Netroots.

Now I’m off to gas up at Kwik-Trip, grab lunch at Culver’s, and get a dinner of Johnsonville brats and Sargento cheese from Walmart.

(H/T – Kevin Binversie)

The lone independent in the Assembly and Manitowoc County Executive Bob Ziegelbauer penned a column for the Manitowoc Herald Times-Reporter yesterday:

Total compensation — wages plus fringe benefits — for public sector employees has been out of whack for long a time. It’s a systematic problem, one we can’t ignore.

When the economy went down, state and local government kept spending as if everything was normal. But, the truth is that when things went bad, nearly everyone in the private sector took a big, permanent, financial hit almost immediately and are only now working their way back.

Public sector employees were protected from the pain by continuing tax increases, mediation arbitration and the political power of their unions. As unemployment got worse, the gap between their total compensation and the rest grew farther apart. Now, we need to adjust, to realign that as soon as possible. The longer we wait, the harder it will be.

Reality is going to hit home tomorrow, as the FY2012-FY2013 budget is expected to have over $1 billion in cuts to shared revenue.

Christian Schneider grabbed a spot at NRO’s Corner and explained what the fights in Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio are all about for Da Unions and Da Rats:

But to say these protests are merely about collective-bargaining rights is to say The Godfather is a movie about Italian food.

Since the early 1970s, public-sector unions have been a powerful political force in Wisconsin, as they are in many states. The unions collect dues from their members (up to $1,100 per member per year), which they then use to elect members sympathetic to their causes. In the last two elections, the state’s largest teachers’ union spent $3.6 million supporting their candidates.

Walker has attempted to change that framework, allowing government workers to opt out of paying union dues — which, he has said, he thinks may offset the increased health and pension contributions he’s asking of employees.

And it is this provision that has the unions most up in arms. They know that, given the option, many of their members would choose not to write out a check for union dues. This, in turn, would strangle their election spending, leaving them scrambling for funds and, consequently, influence.

Christian went on to explain how MPS’s decision to acquiesce to MTEA demands in the mid-1970s to pay retiree health care benefits (ultimately a major contributor to the demise of General Motors and Chrysler as private entities) led to an unfunded actuarial liability of over four times the district’s entire annual $1 billion-plus budget, which, if fully-funded on an annual basis, would represent a full 20% of said budget.

WisOpinion has a copy of an op-ed penned by former Senate “Republican” “leader” Dale “No Talk Radio Here” Schultz saying he will introduce an amendment restoring full collective bargaining rights after June 30, 2013. Not-so-coincidentally, June 30, 2013 just happens to be the end date of the series of the next-to-be-negotiated WEAC contracts, and the changes in bargaining rights (including yearly contracts) don’t apply to contracts already entered into. I guess that $500 WEAC PAC gave Schultz last year, along with the $1,000 they gave him in 2006 and $1,000 in 2002, the only significant money to go to an individual Republican lately from WEAC, just might have had something to do with that knife in the back. I don’t think Schultz, whose last major action was to torpedo the Taxpayer Protection Amendment, is bright enough to use that as bait to lure a couple of Dems back to Wisconsin.