Judge voids controversial Wisconsin union law

MADISON, Wisconsin Thu May 26, 2011 3:01pm EDT

Protestors fill the rotunda outside of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's office while he holds a fireside chat at the state Capitol in Madison Wisconsin February 22, 2011. REUTERS/Darren Hauck

Protestors fill the rotunda outside of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's office while he holds a fireside chat at the state Capitol in Madison Wisconsin February 22, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Darren Hauck

Related Topics

MADISON, Wisconsin (Reuters) - A Wisconsin judge on Thursday voided a controversial Republican-backed law restricting the collective bargaining rights of public sector unions in the state.

Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi, who was appointed by a Republican governor, said Republican state lawmakers who passed the law in March had violated the state's open meetings law in rushing the legislation through amid massive public protests at the state Capitol.

But the ruling will not end the bitter battle over the measure, which also sent 14 state Senators into hiding in neighboring Illinois to prevent a caucus and later sparked the largest wave of legislator recall votes in state history.

Sumi's ruling shifts the battleground to the state Supreme Court, where the case is now scheduled to be heard on June 6.

Meanwhile, the state's Republican-controlled legislature may simply approve the bill again. They have had that option for months as the court considered the case but declined to act because they insist the bill was passed legally.

The Wisconsin proposal, championed by newly elected Republican governor Scott Walker, eliminates most collective bargaining rights for public sector unions and requires them to pay more for pensions and health coverage.

Walker's office declined to comment on the ruling on Thursday, saying "it didn't involve us" because the ruling was concerning an action by the legislature. Walker's Republican allies in the legislature, who were named defendants in the case, expressed hope the high court would reverse Sumi.

Mike Tate, chairman of the state's Democratic Party which opposed the measure, hailed the ruling and said: "It should be looked at as an opportunity to work together to find common sense solutions to grow our economy and get our fiscal house in order, not to tear our state apart."

The anti-union measure at the center of the controversy has been the hallmark of Walker's first five months in office -- and was one of the first items on his agenda when he called the legislature into special session after his swearing in.

It propelled Wisconsin to the forefront of a wider national fight as Republicans who took control of many statehouses in last fall's midterm elections moved aggressively to shrink government and made reining in public unions a top priority.

A flurry of measures targeting collective bargaining by public employees were introduced in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa and Michigan -- though none were enacted in quite the same fashion as in Wisconsin and some fell short of passage.

Walker defended the new rules for unions as a vital fiscal reform to help the state close a projected budget deficit.

Critics saw the bill, which also eliminates automatic deduction of union dues, as a veiled Republican attack on long-held rights to collective bargaining and on a main source of political funding for the Democratic Party.

As the state legislature debated the measure in late February and early March it triggered huge protests outside the state Capitol that on one occasion attracted nearly 100,000 demonstrators, with most opposed to the measure.

Fourteen Democratic state senators fled to Illinois to deny Republicans the quorum needed for a vote on the measure.

The lawsuit on which Sumi ruled essentially challenged the legislative maneuver Republican leaders used to pass the anti-union measure without the 14 Democrats in the chamber.

The dispute over the measure has sharply divided Wisconsin, a state fairly evenly between Democrats and Republicans.

On April 5, in a state supreme court election seen as a proxy for voter sentiment on the anti-union measure, an incumbent judge seen as conservative defeated a challenger backed by liberals by about 7,000 votes out of almost 1.5 million votes cast - after a recount was demanded.

Following the legislative battle, recall petitions were filed against six Republicans and three Democrats. Special elections are expected to be held on July 12.

(Reporting by Jeff Mayers, James B. Kelleher and David Bailey; Writing by James B. Kelleher; Editing by Greg McCune and Peter Bohan)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (64)
seattlesh wrote:
Republican Medicare termination plan rejected by the Senate and now Republican legislature rebuffed in Wisconsin. Now we need to overturn Citizens United.

May 26, 2011 11:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
johne37179 wrote:
Having lived in Dane County for over 20 years, this is the sort of biased ruling I would expect from this judge. It was clear from the forum shopping done by the plaintiffs in this case coupled with their drive to change the composition of the state Supreme Court, that this battle would be fought in the state Supreme Court where it is very likely the Governor and the taxpayers of Wisconsin will prevail.

May 26, 2011 11:29am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RDavid2010 wrote:
Isn’t this just another example of some judge thinking they are more important than they are? The content of the law wasn’t found to be the problem, it’s the perception of the judge thinking someone didn’t play by the rules SHE thinks they should have. A sad situation and a pathetic judge.

May 26, 2011 11:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.