State High Court Rules Legislature Can Represent State
Dallet dissent calls it “shocking” to allow Legislature to take over attorney general’s role.
In a 4-3 decision the conservative majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday in a case involving an extension on counting absentee ballots that “the Wisconsin Legislature has the authority to represent the State of Wisconsin’s interest in the validity of state laws.”
The case arose after Judge William Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ordered a pandemic-related extension on absentee vote counting, among other rule changes, in the November election. The Legislature appealed that extension to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. The appeals court initially held that the Legislature — as opposed to the attorney general — did not have standing to represent the state’s interests in court. Republicans asked that the question, as a matter of state law, be sent to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Now that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Legislature, the case will returns to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
“We are pleased that the Court agreed that the Wisconsin Legislature can defend laws where the Attorney General refuses to do so,” Luke Berg, a lawyer for the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, which filed an amicus brief siding with the Legislature, said in a statement. “If this were not so, the state would have no lawyer and a single judge’s decision to change election procedures on the eve of an election would evade review by higher courts.”
In a dissent joined by the other liberal justices on the court, Justice Rebecca Dallet called the majority decision granting the Legislature the right to take over the attorney general’s role in representing the interests of the state “shocking.” “[T]he legislature can represent its institution’s interest, but it cannot, by the plain terms of our statutes, appropriate the state’s interests so as to veto the executive’s decision not to appeal,” she wrote.
While the case is a victory for Republicans in their ongoing battle over executive powers with Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ administration, it is not clear that they will succeed in preventing the extension on absentee voting.
Reprinted with permission of Wisconsin Examiner.
More about the 2020 General Election
- Senator Agard Statement on Senator Knodl’s Continued Relitigation of the 2020 Presidential Election - State Sen. Melissa Agard, Senate Democratic Leader - Aug 29th, 2023
- Report Calls For Criminally Charging State’s Fake Electors - Henry Redman - Dec 19th, 2022
- Vos Withdraws Subpoenas, Ends Gableman Probe - Henry Redman - Aug 30th, 2022
- Judge Blasts Gableman Probe, Deleted Records - Henry Redman - Aug 17th, 2022
- Vos Fires Gableman, Ends Election Probe - Shawn Johnson - Aug 14th, 2022
- Judge Orders Gableman To Pay $163,000 In Legal Fees - Rich Kremer - Aug 2nd, 2022
- Prosecute 2020 Fake Electors, Advocates Demand - Erik Gunn - Aug 1st, 2022
- Trump Calls For Nullification of Wisconsin’s 2020 Election - Henry Redman - Jul 12th, 2022
- Legal Fight Over Gableman Probe Keeps Growing - Shawn Johnson - Jun 30th, 2022
- Back In the News: Fake Elector Scheme Dogs Ron Johnson - Bruce Murphy - Jun 28th, 2022
Read more about 2020 General Election here
The majority on the Supreme Court is again rewriting Wisconsin statutes and undermining representative government in this state. Their cavalier and bizarre ruling last May has resulted in out-of-control covid-19 pandemic and 1,415 Wisconsinites dying, hospitals in the Fox Valley and Northeastern Wisconsin are overwhelmed. Now they are stepping in to determine who has a right to speak for the people of Wisconsin, the attorney general who was duly elected to BE our representative or the Republicans in the legislature (the opinions of Democratic senators and legislators have not been ignored) who represent only 40 percent of Wisconsin voters. This state supreme court is precariously close to rewriting the Wisconsin constitution by fiat.
The idea that alleged “conservative” judges stick with the original intent of the constitution in their decisions is a joke. These “conservative’ judges create new laws to conform to what Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Voss want done. These judges also reinterpret campaign finance laws for Scott Walker so what use to be illegal was made legal.