What's Next for Wisconsin's Collective Bargaining Law?
In his decision last Friday striking down portions of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's collective bargaining reform law, Dane County Judge Juan Colas held that the law infringes on public workers' rights to free speech and freedom of association and also violates their right to equal protection under the law. Not surprisingly, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is fighting this ruling. So what's likely to happen next? Here's The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporting on the case:
Van Hollen said Monday he believed the decision would be overturned on appeal and that it should be stayed until an appellate court rules on it.
"His ruling very clearly states that collective bargaining is not a constitutional right," Van Hollen said. "And yet he struck down this law based up on a circuitous argument that reducing collective bargaining was a violation of the constitution - very inconsistent arguments based up on what we believe is a misapplication of the law and a misapplication of what powers the state has to limit collective bargaining and what powers they don't have under the constitution."…
Van Hollen has the ability to try to get the case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which ruled 4-3 last year in his favor on the open meetings challenge to Act 10. Van Hollen said any rulings on a stay would play a large role in deciding whether to quickly get the case to the Supreme Court.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Dane County Judge"
The problem in a nutshell. Kind of like "Illinois legislator" or "Pentagon official".
Pretty much everything named "Dane" sucks.
wasn't Denmark's olympic field hockey team super hot?
Those Danes "suck" in a different way
I can't see how the Wisconsin Supreme Court can rule ny other way.
Not only did they uphold the law the last go-around, but since that time, the voted of Wisconsin explicitly endorsed the legislation by voting Walker back into office in a hotly contested recall election, AND continuing to give Republicans control of both state houses.
To overturn the law at this point would be to explicitly reject a clear democratic consensus in favor of the law.
you make perfect sense. However, we know how these things go.
Not quite. Per the attribution above "...Supreme Court, which ruled 4-3 last year in his favor on the open meetings challenge to Act 10."
In other words, the SC ruled previously on the process used to pass the law, not on the law itself.
I don't understand your last sentence. Do you mean to imply the courts should ignore constitutions and simply rely on "democratic consensus"?