Wisconsin Supreme Court Issues Absurd and Corrupt Decision for Republican Party's Political Coalition; Vote Is Four-to-Three

League of Women Voter v. Tony Evers consolidates
Wisconsin Republicans' latest scheme.

Republican Justices' Opinion Defies Law and Logic

Madison, Wisconsin— The four rightwing justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued another ruling to benefit legislative Republicans in Wisconsin's 'lame-duck session' case.

The case is: 2019 WI 75 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSINCASE NO.: 2019AP559.
The League of Women Voters, Disability Rights of Wisconsin, Inc., Black Leaders Organizing for Communities, Guillermo Aceves, Michael J. Cain, John S. Greene and Michael Doyle, in his official capacity as Clerk of Green County v. Tony Evers.

The current four Republican Party rightwing justices are Patience D. Roggensack, Annette Kingsland Ziegler, Rebecca Grassl Bradley, and Daniel Kelly.

All four voted to uphold a series of laws and appointments passed in the Dec 2018 Extraordinary Session called to benefit the Republican Party and weaken two constitutional state offices won by Democrats in the 2018 election.

At issue is whether the lame-duck Dec 2019 extraordinary session was legal and constitutional.

The Republican justices prevailed 4-3 in the case.

Republican justices on the Court currently hold a four-to-three majority. This Republican majority will increase to five-to-two after Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson is replaced by Republican judge, Brian Hagedorn on July 31, 2019.

A dissent is authored by Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet, and is joined by Justices Shirley S. Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley.

The activist rightwingers on the Court appear to be no longer bound by the Wisconsin Constitution, Wisconsin statutes and statutory interpretation.

Now, in light of the Republican justices' ruling, the state Constitution and laws governing the legislature's sessions are contradictory, meaningless and no longer applicable.

Reads Justice Dallet's dissent (pp 5-8 ) in part:

¶47 The majority opinion subverts the constitutional text in two ways to legitimize the December 2018 extraordinary session. First, the majority opinion asserts that the extraordinary session was really part of a regular session because when the Legislature first met on January 3, 2017, to convene its regular session, it stayed in a continuous two-year "biennial session" until January 7, 2019.7 It is elementary to point out that an "extraordinary," or "special," session by its very name, is the opposite of a "regular," or "planned," session. Although the title of Wis. Stat. § 13.02, "Regular sessions," alone is not dispositive, it is "persuasive evidence of a statutory interpretation." Mireles v. LIRC, 2000 WI 96, ¶60 n.13, 237 Wis. 2d 69, 613 N.W.2d 875.

¶48 Under the majority opinion's reading of Article IV, Section 11, the words "at such time" and "unless" become superfluous because the Legislature could meet at any time. Yet, this court has recognized that "[t]o avoid surplusage, our analysis must also take into account and give meaning to the choice of the word[s]" in the constitutional provision. Appling, 358 Wis. 2d 132, ¶25. A continuous two-year session

7 The majority opinion continuously references the term "biennial session"; however, Wisconsin has not had a biennial legislative session for nearly 50 years. Since 1971, the law has mandated that the Legislature "shall meet annually." Wis. Stat. § 13.02. Section 13.02(3) says that the Legislature "shall" hold "at least one meeting in January of each year." If there is a singular meeting coextensive with the entire biennial session period, this phrase is meaningless.

would also render meaningless several other laws which distinguish between days that the Legislature is in session and days when it is not.8 The majority opinion fails to logically explain how a continuous two-year session comports with the constitutional mandate to meet at "such time as shall be provided by law."9

¶49 Second, the majority opinion further subverts the constitutional text by redefining the clause "as shall be provided by law" to include a joint resolution passed by the Legislature.10 The majority accepts the Legislature's assertion

8 For example, Wis. Stat. § 13.625(1m)(b)1 prohibits lobbyists from making financial contributions to legislators until "the legislature has concluded its final floorperiod." Under this statutory section, no lobbyist could ever be certain that the Legislature "has concluded its final floorperiod." Further, Wis. Stat. § 757.13, which limits the courts' jurisdiction over members of the Legislature while they are "in session," would be rendered virtually meaningless if the Legislature was in one perpetual session. Finally, Wis. Stat. § 13.123, which sets forth the extent to which legislators are entitled to a per diem allowance for food and lodging, would be meaningless if the Legislature met perpetually. Under the majority's reasoning, legislators would be entitled to per diem reimbursement every day of every year, which undermines the entire purpose of a per diem reimbursement.

9 Since 1848, Article IV, Section 11 has been amended twice, but it is noteworthy that neither revision has transferred extraordinary convening authority to the Legislature.

10 In a novel argument that the majority raises on behalf of the Legislature, it asserts that like extraordinary sessions, floorperiods are not mentioned in the statutory text. Majority op., ¶22. However, as counsel for the League properly pointed out at oral argument, the work schedule, which governs the regular session, references floorperiods and the legislative journals inform us that floorperiods have long been considered part of the regular session. On the other hand, non- prescheduled floor sessions, like the extraordinary session here, were not part of the regular session.

that the work schedule set forth in JR1 allowed the Legislature to reserve to itself every unscheduled day for the possible convening of an extraordinary session. I agree with the circuit court that the Legislature's purported ability to meet any day, even if it is not scheduled, is the antithesis of a work schedule as set forth in Wis. Stat. § 13.02(3) "by both definition and force of logic." The distinction between a session "provided by law" as set forth in § 13.02 and the Legislature's attempt to reserve to itself through a joint resolution the unlimited power to schedule an extraordinary session is made even clearer by the existence of specific statutory provisions that do explicitly set forth extraordinary sessions.11 See, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 196.497(10)(c) ("[w]ithin 120 days after the bill is introduced the appropriate committees in each house of the legislature shall authorize an extraordinary session of the legislature to commence within the 120 days and to extend until the legislature passes the bill or passes a joint resolution which disapproves of the agreement or modification . . . ) (emphasis added); see also 1987 Wisconsin Act 4 (temporarily creating Wis. Stat. § 13.02(3m) to authorize an extraordinary session between the biennial session period's two regular annual sessions). Ultimately if the Legislature wanted to meet in December 2018 in accordance with the Constitution, it should have passed a bill to authorize extraordinary sessions, as it has done in the past. ...

11 The explicit reference to an extraordinary session in our statutes also shows that regular and extraordinary sessions are treated distinctly and are different in kind. This is more than just a dispute over taxonomy and the proper naming of sessions. 

David Prosser Has Lost It

David Prosser - Can we recall this guy?

Even for David Prosser, GOP justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, it's getting weird now.

And it's those pesky women justices behind it all.

First, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley runs throat-first into Prosser's unsuspecting (Lueders, Golden, Halsted, and Shipley), and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson has the temerity to witness the assault, along with most of the Court.

They can't judge me, says Prosser.

The Journal-Sentinel (Marley) notes yesterday:

The state Judicial Commission filed allegations last month that said Prosser had violated the ethics code for judges when he put his hands on Bradley's neck during a confrontation in June. Prosser contends Bradley came at him with fists raised and that his hands touched her neck when he put them up in a reflex.

Prosser said in his filings that Bradley had to recuse herself because of her involvement in the incident and that Abrahamson had to recuse herself because she witnessed it and is biased against him.

As ludicrous as the Court rules are for judging ethical conduct, maintained by the four GOP justices of course, Prosser is unstable and has a thing against his betters, especially when they are female "total bitch(es)," in the words of Prosser.

"It is unfortunate -- some might even say absurd -- that each individual justice is the final arbiter on the question of whether she or he ought to accuse," Abrahamson wrote. (WisPolitics)

Prosser sure hates women like Abrahamson and Bradley; but it is his position as a voting justice—bought and paid for by the GOP—that ought to concern us as well.

When Prosser was running for reelection last in March 2011, he campaigned openly telling special interests how his past votes advanced their interests, not even bothering to declare himself an impartial jurist ascertaining the law and impartially applying it to cases that come before the state's top appellate court.

As reported in March 2011 (Sandler):

Speaking to the Rotary Club of Milwaukee on Tuesday, Justice David Prosser highlighted several of his decisions that he said had benefited Milwaukee County businesses ... With one week before the election, Prosser said Milwaukee County was crucial in the campaign. Then he listed several Supreme Court rulings in which he had joined in decisions that he said were 'very helpful' to local interests ...

At the time Prosser's opponent, Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg [who just won a judgeship in the Spring election on the District Four Court of Appeals], "called [Prosser's] statements inappropriate for a judicial contest. ... Kloppenburg said a judge shouldn't use his rulings to seek political support. ... Prosser 'has this partisan approach to being a judge.'" (Sandler, MJS)

What a bitch, right David?

David Prosser Chokes Woman Colleague

Multiple sources say Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser (R-Wisconsin) grabbed fellow justice, Ann Walsh Bradley, by the neck and briefly choked her on June 13, the day before the Court corruptly ruled [4-3] against collective bargaining rights of state public employees and the open meeting clause of the Wisconsin Constitution. Justice Bradley also affirmed the attack.

Update: Two Wisconsin Agencies Now Investigating Alleged Judge-on-Judge Assault

Bill Lueders of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism reports:

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument in her chambers last week, according to at least three knowledgeable sources. But other sources have offered a conflicting account, and Prosser on Saturday declared that the claims, once investigated, will be 'proven false.'

Details of the incident, first disclosed Saturday morning in a joint report by Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, remain sketchy. The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, in an article published late Saturday, reported that the incident took place in Justice Bradley’s chambers on June 13, the day before the court issued its decision upholding a bill to curtail the collective bargaining rights of public employees.The sources who spoke to the Center and WPR said an argument about that ruling culminated in a physical altercation in the presence of other justices. They say Bradley purportedly asked Prosser to leave her office, whereupon Prosser grabbed Bradley by the neck with both hands. ...

In March, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reportedthat, in a disagreement over a case last year, Justice Prosser had called [Chief Justice] Justice Abrahamson a 'total bitch' and threatened to 'destroy' her.

Prosser is the former GOP speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly and is known to occasionally becoming unhinged. See video: David Prosser Gets Butchy, Ahh Bitchy.

Prosser won reelection by less than one percent after a 13-year former Assembly Republican caucus computer specialist [and now County Clerk of heavily GOP Waukesha County] who last year insisted—over the objections of I/T experts concerned about integrity of election data—that her election results collection-tallying system must be placed under her personal control for "security" (MJS) reasons claimed to have found 14,315 votes two after election day that tipped the race to her old boss, Prosser, after an incident in which she claims to have personally failed to save some election results. Prosser won the April race with some 7,000 votes out of some 1.4 million cast.

We have said before here that Prosser is a quarrelsome man who lost his 1996 race as a Republican nominee for congress in the right-leaning Wisconsin 8th district because he was a bad cultural fit for the bigoted milieu of traditional gender roles that predominates in Northeast Wisconsin. See also National ReviewTries to Masculate David Prosser.

This guy does not like women, an attribute typical of the self-loathing, closeted Republican.

If Prosser were to resign, a special election next April would be held.