JB Van Hollen Insists Act 10 is in effect

Wisconsin Attorney General JB Van Hollen says the recently passed Budget Repair Bill, now referred to as Act 10 by State officials, is in full effect after publication Friday on the Legislative Fiscal Bureau's Web site. The publication of the new law via the LFB was deemed permissable by the Department of Justice because the Legislative Fiscal Bureau was not named in the suit that was filed in Dane County Circuit Court by District Attorney Ismael Ozanne last week. The DOJ believes that the LRB has full power to implement the collective bargaining restrictions in the new law due to State Statute35.095(3(a) that says the Legislative Fiscal Bureau has a ministerial duty to publish laws signed by the Governor within 10 days of passage. As a result, the Department of Justice, and particularly Van Hollen, has issued an appeal with the District 4 Appellate Court in Madison to vacate the temporary injunction issued by Judge Mary Sumi last week that kept the Secretary of State from putting the Act into law.

"These motions argue that the requested relief is appropriate because Act 10 is now in force due to its publication by the Legislative Reference Bureau on March 25, 2011. The Legislative Reference Bureau was not named as a party in the Ozanne case and was not bound by any order issued by the Dane County Circuit Court. Because the law is in force, the appeal, which was based on the harm caused by enjoining the legislative process, is moot. The briefs explain that the Secretary of State made a good faith attempt to comply with the temporary restraining order and did not cause the publication of Act 10," said Bill Cosh in a press release from the Department of Justice.

The appeal was issued yesterday and was not directed to the State Supreme Court as the Supreme Court has not officially accepted the case involving the original injunction and therefore has not yet become a conduit for settling the conflict. The DOJ's insistence on the LRB measure adds even more intrigue to a debate that runs on both sides of the aisle, with the Democrats, including LaFollette himself maintaining that the Secretary of State's Office has the sole authority to publish the law and Republicans maintaining that the Department of Justice is correct in its assessment of Statute 35.095. Legal scholars are divided in their opinions as well.

“It’s now my legal responsibility to begin enactment of the law," said Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch during a Monday afternoon conference call. “It’s clear that for as many attorneys as you wish to ask you are going to get an opinion on this particular law and the status of it,” “We have looked at the statutes and are defining them as clearly as we can as it states in the statute as to the requirements that must be met.”

Meanwhile, Madison Judge Mary Sumi has convened the first hearing this morning on the injunction and has gone ahead with testimony regarding the lawsuit. Ozanne filed papers yesterday to motion Sumi to declare the LRB publication of Act 10 as not being an act of public law and include LRB in the injunction.

Legislative Reference Bureau Chief Stephen Miller today said he believes his agency has a distinct duty to publish new laws within 10 working days of their signature by the governor. But he also does not believe that LRB action alone implements the law.

"I did not think that this act of the LRB made the law effective," Miller said today during testimony in the injunction case.

The Department of Justice argued against Sumi proceeding with the injunction hearing. Assistant Attorney General Maria Lazar argued the court may not assert itself in the legislative process and that since Republican lawmakers in the suit have not been served and are not in the courtroom, their due process rights are being violated.

Huebsch says that all of the changes made the State Payroll program to implement the 5.8% contribution to pensions and 12.6% contribution toward health care insurance premiums and that the first set of checks to be printed with the changes will be on April 21st. However, if a State Court orders otherwise, the changes can be quickly undone.

Budget Repair Battle shifts to the State Supreme Court

As was expected by many, the ruling over the constitutional legality of the CBA restrictions in Scott Walker's Budget Repair Bill has been sent on to the State Supreme Court. A panel of appellate justices made the ruling yesterday, stating prior cases have both ruled equally in favor of the Dane County District Attorney's case against it and the State of Wisconsin Department of Justice's position favoring it. At issue is the complaint filed by Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne that the Special Conference Committee called to convene to pass the bill on the evening of March 9 violated the State's Open Meetings Law by now allowing sufficient public notice and by restricting public's access to the Capitol to attend the meeting. Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued an injunction on March 18, barring the Budget Repair Bill that had been signed by the Governor on March 11, from being allowed to take effect, citing that Ozanne's complaint had merit and the law needed to be reviewed before being put in place. Wisconsin Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen, had filed the appeal with the 4th District Appellate court in Madison on Monday to lift injunction saying that Judge Sumi had ruled on the conduct of a separate branch of government.

The appeal was conducted before the judges Paul Lundsten, Paul Higginbothum, and Brian Blanchard. In the ruling, the 3-judge panel cited four cases, two that ruled in favor of the judicial branch voiding or interfering with an application of the legislature's violation of it's own procedures and two that ruled that the legislature was not subject to oversight or rulings by the judicial branch. Because the Appellate Justices didn't lift the injunction, it is in effect until it is lifted by another court and, therefore; Secretary of State Doug LaFollette did not publish it today, when it had been originally scheduled to be put into effect. At the heart of the matter is essentially State Constitution Article IV, Section 10 that makes up the backbone of the legislature's Open Meetings Law:

The doors of each house shall remain open, except when the public welfare requires secrecy, it is declared to be the intent of the legislature to comply to the fullest extent with [the open meetings provisions set forth in] this subchapter.

The four cases revolve around the premise as to whether or not certain operations of the Legislature, including procedural rules like the State Open Meetings Law, are subject to the constitutional provision before legislation is published into law. They are:

Goodland v. Zimmerman (1943), Lynch v. Conta (1976); State ex rel. La Follette v. Stitt (1983) and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. Wisconsin Dept. of Admin., 2009.

In summation the appellate panel said, "Goodland and Stitt appear to favor the Secretary of State’s (La Follette's1983) position that courts lack authority to invalidate legislation enacted in violation of the Open Meetings Law or, at the least, to do so before publication. In contrast, Lynch and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel support the District Attorney’s (Ozanne in 2011) view."

"It is appropriate to certify to the Supreme Court appeals raising issues which that court might otherwise ultimately consider on a petition for review, in order to reduce the burden and expense of the appellate process on both the parties and the judicial system," said the panel in final summation."

Judge Sumi has scheduled hearings on the injunction on Tuesday March 29 and Friday April 1 but until any ruling is made to the contrary of the original injunction, the Budget Repair Law is on hold and as of this time it is not very clear when the Supreme Court will take up the case.

"I don't know how the court's going to react to that" case, Justice David Prosser told Journal Sentinel editors and writers Thursday. Prosser, for his part, has to weigh the consequences of involving himself in a fight that may make him look to some on both sides as if he has a conflict of interest.

"I know it would not be proper for me to react to that," he said. "To delay the case (past the election) because it might be embarrassing to me politically."

He could also be criticized for taking the case and looking like a Walker backer but he isn't backing down.

"This is my business," he told the Sentinel. "I'm a judge. I hear cases."

Janine Geske, a Marquette law professor and former state Supreme Court justice, told the Sentinel that the high court may not want to address the case at this stage because it is ongoing and another legal challenge to the collective bargaining law has been filed.

"The likelihood that anything is going to be decided before the election is not very great," she said.

JB VAN HOLLEN CHIEF LAW ENFORCER FOR WISCONSIN

Since 2006, Attorney General JB Van Hollen has been a one-man crime-fighting force in the State of Wisconsin and after 2010, he's hoping he will no longer have to fight alone. The long time District and US Attorney is not only running for reelection himself but is also looking forward to the distinct possibility of having a Republican Governor, a Republican Legislature, and a Republican Senate. After all, after having to fight the Doyle administration and the Wisconsin legislature for 4 years, the job can only get easier.

Born John Byron Van Hollen on February 19, 1966 (WIKIPEDIA) in the town of Chetek John C and Rosella Van Hollen. John C., a realtor and Korean War Veteran, also served in the Wisconsin State Assembly from 1966 to 1970. J.B. grew up in Chetek and later in the Town of Delta in Bayfield County. A graduate of St Olaf's University (Northfield, Minnesota) in 1988 with an undergraduate degree in political science, he went on to obtain his law degree at the University of Wisconsin Law School 2 years later. According to his Website (biography) although he was courted by several law firms, J.B. actually began his career as an Assistant State Public Defender in Spooner, Wisconsin. In 1991 Van Hollen became a federal prosecutor as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin. In 1993 Governor Tommy Thompson appointed Van Hollen to the position of District Attorney in Ashland County. He stepped down 6 years later to pursue other life interests, but a short time later Governor Thompson appointed him to serve as Bayfield County District Attorney. He was reelected with bipartisan support. He became well-known when President George W Bush appointed him US Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin in 2002 and his reputation as a star law enforcement official climbed to new heights. As the US Attorney for 44 counties in Wisconsin, JB coordinated a massive sting operation in Hayward, using 100 members of law enforcement to crack down on gangs, drugs, and guns. Through multiple levels of agencies, dozens of search warrants were executed simultaneously and dozens were arrested with the average federal prosecution resulting in a several-year federal prison sentence. In turn, the evidence collected helped to solve a homicide case. He under-spent his budget during all three of his years as U.S. Attorney. The number of criminal cases filed by his office increased by 15% in 2002, 7% in 2003, and 23% in 2004 totaling a 53% increase during his tenure. He initiated Project Safe Neighborhoods, a federal effort to reduce violent gun crime by enforcing the numerous laws already on the books. In its first year, Van Hollen worked in Rock County to prosecute individuals for gun crimes ranging from being a felon in possession of firearms or ammo to use of firearms during violent felonies, resulting in an average prison sentence of more than five years. Van Hollen later expanded the effort to Dane County and several multi-jurisdictional drug enforcement groups in rural Wisconsin. Firearms prosecutions nearly tripled during his tenure.

In 2006, he decided to run for State Attorney General. He overtook Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher and won the nomination. In the worst of circumstances for Republicans, he won the Attorney General election by beating Democrat Kathleen Falk was the only Republican in the nation that year to win a statewide seat held by a Democrat.

When not involved with the rigors of running the Attorney General's office, JB enjoys running, biking, hunting swimming, skiing, basketball and golf. He has run two marathons and completed the 2003 Ironman Wisconsin Triathlon. He is a member of Ducks Unlimited, Grouse Unlimited, National Rifle Association, Wisconsin Sporting Heritage, Inc., and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. He also has been involved with the Freemasons for a large part of his life, becoming Master Mason in 1985 and Grand Master of Masons in 2007, serving in this capacity into 2008. JB and his wife, Lynn, live in Waunakee and have two children, Byron and Madelyn.

JB has been campaigning hard around Wisconsin. His Democratic challenger, Democrat Scott Hassett, has yet to be heard from. Determined to be a vital cog in the resurgence of conservative governing in 2011, JB talked to me about his campaign, the state of ObamaCare, and his experiences as Wisconsin Attorney General over the past 4 years.

1. YOU HAVE SERVED AS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF WISCONSIN UNDER DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP FOR 4 YEARS. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT HAS FRUSTRATED YOU THE MOST OVER THOSE 4 YEARS?

I think basically 2 things: It is very frustrating to me when a liberal Governor like the one we have doesn't prioritize something as fundamental as public safety. Protecting our freedoms and liberties in this country is the most important thing that our government can do and yet overall spending during tough times went up and yet overall spending for public safety, law enforcement, and my Department of Justice budget went down and when we're trying to do so much good to help protect our citizens, having our spending priorities being so off-kilter is frustrating. And the other thing is the lack of respect for the Rule of Law. Politics, has, unfortunately played a role in our ability to do the best we could for the State of Wisconsin, whether it be our ability to join with Arizona to defend against the Federal Government in a lawsuit or to file briefs on the 2nd Amendment with the Supreme Court or a lawsuit on ObamaCare, the reality is that the Governor has let politics stand in the way of our doing our job to defend the state. Those two things are very frustrating.



JB is the chief law enforcement officer for the State of Wisconsin!

2. THERE IS ANTICIPATION FOR WISCONSIN TO HAVE THE FIRST REPUBLICAN-LED GOVERNMENT IN MANY YEARS. WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH IN THAT SITUATION?

I'm hoping that we can accomplish what Republicans as a whole set out to do and that is to limit the size of Government but when we do limit the size of government, we have to make sure that we maintain our priorities as well. I have a great concern that Republicans may think that reducing the size of government may mean we make across-the-board cuts and reduce the size of every aspect of government. Well, that's not what we as conservatives, believe. We believe that we need to cut spending completely in some areas, considerably in other areas, and sometimes even increase spending in priority areas; areas where the government does need to be involved in our lives and I am hoping that when we get Republican control of the Governor's office, over the legislature, that we are going to be able to focus on government as a whole and make wholesale changes versus across-the-board cuts.

3. IN YOUR TIME AS STATE AG, WHAT IS THE MOST REWARDING THING YOU'VE EXPERIENCED?

You know, there have been so many things that have been incredibly rewarding but I think that the most satisfying has been getting rid of the backlog of DNA evidence in our crime labs. Not only had every Attorney General candidate for decades run on the promise of getting rid of the backlog, every Attorney General had promised to get rid of the backlog and when I had inherited it, it was escalating horribly out of control and we needed to address it and we needed to address it promptly. We not only got rid of the backlog of DNA in the crime labs but we did it only partially by putting resources after the problem. A big part of what we did was by putting more efficiencies and technologies in the way we did business in the Department of Justice so that we got more bang for the taxpayer buck and so in the in process of helping law enforcement with perhaps the most significant law enforcement tool that has come along in our lifetimes, we were able to do it very efficiently economically, as well, and it is hard to not consider that to be the greatest success.



JB is out campaigning hard for this fall\'s election turnaround!

4. CAN YOU GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THE STATE OF YOUR LEGAL CHALLENGE TO OBAMACARE? WHAT ELSE IS BEING DONE AROUND THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW TO COMBAT THIS LEGISLATION?

Well, we're in a holding pattern in Wisconsin right now, as most people I think, are now aware. As Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin, I have considerable power and authority but it is still limited. And as a conservative, I hold myself to those limits and I don't believe that government should grow beyond what the law entitles us to do. And, suing over ObamaCare is simply something that I have limits placed on me to do and it was necessary for me to get approval from either the governor or one of the bodies of the legislature to bring this lawsuit. We submitted an 8-page detailed memorandum of law indicating why we should bring this suit to all three of them. All three of them declined it and so now, as along as the Legislature and the Governor's office is controlled by their current leadership, we are out of luck when it comes to Wisconsin joining a lawsuit or initiating a lawsuit over the Federal Health Care law. However, when we get a new governor and at a time when we are going to have a new make-up in the Senate and a new make-up in the Assembly we are going to renew our requests, as long as I am Attorney General, and I would suspect that we would be able to get that request granted, in which we will be able to join an ongoing lawsuit or file a lawsuit ourselves. Otherwise there is a consortium of states whose Attorney's General have gotten together and brought a single lawsuit on the behalf of a multitude of states in the State of Florida and we actually could actually join that as well. Thus far, neither of these suits have progressed very far and there is certainly more than enough time to get involved.

5. YOU ARE A HUGE 2ND AMENDMENT PROPONENT. CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE CONCEPT OF CONCEALED CARRY AND CLEAR UP ANY MISCONCEPTIONS PEOPLE MAY HAVE ABOUT IT?

First with regard to the 2nd Amendment, I'm a huge proponent of it for a number of reasons. First of all I believe in the Rule of Law and it's a significant part of our Constitution. Second of all, of course, when people lose the ability to defend themselves, we become subject to the whims of others who want to violate our freedoms and liberties and we become subject to the whims of government if they are going to abuse their power and authority and so the 2nd Amendment is vitally important to me and we've done a lot in my Administration to advance the cause of gun rights and 2nd Amendment rights in Wisconsin. And I am for concealed carry as well. And I think there's a bit of mis-perception out there that people are in greater danger but in the 48 States that permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, there is absolutely no anecdotal evidence to suggest whatsoever that, that is the case. The opponents of concealed carry will be the first one's to tout examples of problems if there were any. The reality is that Government's role is to protect its citizens and if we have a law in the State of Wisconsin prohibiting law-abiding citizens from carrying concealed weapons, if that is not doing anything to protect citizens, if it's not necessary to protect citizens, then by all means Government should get out of our lives. So I'm a big fan of the 2nd Amendment but I'm also a big fan of making sure the Government doesn't interfere in our lives when they can find or show no legitimate reason to do so. With regards to the Concealed Carry law in Wisconsin right now, there is no justification for it existing.