A judge has struck down a law taking away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most Wisconsin state workers.
Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi ruled Thursday that Republican legislators violated Wisconsin’s open meetings law during the run up to passage. She says that renders the law void.
The law pushed by Gov. Scott Walker takes away all bargaining rights except over base salary for teachers and other public workers.
The decision is not the end of the legal fight. The state Supreme Court has scheduled arguments for June 6 to determine whether it will take the same case.
Lawmakers could also pass the law again in order to nullify open meeting concerns that led to the judge’s ruling Thursday.
(Source: Huffington Post)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
6 Responses
That’s unbelievable!
You run away and hide, and then complain there were no meetings about it…
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, with a Republican majority, will overturn this decision.
Plus, the Wisconsin Legislature, with its Republican majority, will pass this legislation again with next months budget vote.
Additionally, 8 Democrats are being recalled, and it will strengthen the Republican majority.
Pac-Man,
Actually there are six Republicans and three Democrats facing recall elections, probably on July 12. A shift of three seats gives the Democrats control of the Wisconsin Senate and ends the Republican shenanigans. All the Republican districts voted for President Obama in 2008 so the Republicans may be vulnerable.
Charlie,
An additional 5 Democrats have recall petitions being circulated to recall them.
As will Governor Walker once January, 2012 comes around
Actually there are six Republicans and three Democrats facing recall elections, probably on July 12. A shift of three seats gives the Democrats control of the Wisconsin Senate and ends the Republican shenanigans. All the Republican districts voted for President Obama in 2008 so the Republicans may be vulnerable.
Do you people really believe there is nothing but partisanship involved in this? However it is resolved, this is a matter of law, of statutory interpretation and of analysis of precedent court decisions. Does it take a license to practice law to understand such basic civic principles? What’s written here is pathetic.