Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 08:58 AM Sep 2012

Wisconsin Act 10 unconstitutional, says Judge, citing McCarthy-era case.

As has been widely reported here and elsewhere, Dane County Judge Juan Colas overturned portions of the FitzWalker/ALEC/Koch Industries-sponsored legislation relating to collective bargaining.

This article looks into the decision and the 1955 case that Judge Colas cited. I have not seen such an analysis presented elsewhere.



Coverage thanks to Blue Cheddar.



I focused on the decision itself – that Colas’ decision declared that Walker had removed constitutionally guaranteed rights of public sector union workers: “Verdict: Walker took constitutional rights to speech, association, equality, home rule”.

...


The issue at the heart of the Lawson case was a federal law that restricted members of “subversive organizations” from entering federally subsidized housing (Yes. This was the McCarthy Era). During the 50?s, the U.S. Attorney General had developed a list of organizations that were considered a threat to the United States such as the Communist Party. Americans who wanted to enter into subsidized housing had to sign a loyalty oath following enactment of 1952 legislation nicknamed the Gwinn Amendment. The Milwaukee case declared the Gwinn Amendment unconstitutional. (Well there was a lot more to that story - but I'll leave it there for now.)

...

Since Mid-2011, Judge Colas’ explained, under Walker’s act 10 and 32, Wisconsin public union members have been unable to come together with other members – to associate – “for the purpose of being the exclusive agent in collective bargaining” unless they gave up rights. They were forced to give up the right to bargain over anything outside of wages. Meanwhile other Wisconsinites have had the freedom to bargain singularly or collectively over whatever aspects of worklife they choose to — healthcare, pensions, work safety, scheduling and so on. The state has, under Walker’s Acts and statutes, rewarded the citizen of Wisconsin when he or she abandoned union membership.

The judge says if the defendant, Walker et al, could argue that a “significant evil” was prevented by infringing the rights of union member citizens to their speech and association, then the restriction could persist. Judge Colas said that the defendant made no case for that “significant evil”. Walker’s representation instead denied that they had infringed on rights at all.

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

madrchsod

(58,162 posts)
1. interesting...i think the judge`s ruling may not be overturned.
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 09:19 AM
Sep 2012

big ovation last saturday during afscsme council 31 people committee meeting in springfield ,il for the judges ruling in wisconsin. we have similar problems with our democratic governor.it was a good week for organized labor in illinois and wisconsin.

check out james carter IV`s facebook page...he was digging through the janesville gazette all the way back into the 40`s.

https://www.facebook.com/jecarter4

mojowork_n

(2,354 posts)
2. Similar problems with Pat Quinn?
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 10:21 AM
Sep 2012

Both states have budget issues, for whatever combination of reasons.

But I don't see that the Dem, Quinn, has been playing, "Divide and Conquer," has he?

Are budget decisions made on the basis of who did and who did not contribute
what, to the Quinn campaign? (Accountability to the greater public good be damned.)

http://cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2012/09/another-shocking-development-in.html

hue

(4,949 posts)
3. great analysis! Judge Colas and His team worked on this ruling for > a year.
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 12:42 PM
Sep 2012

Now A G Van Hollen thinks he will get a stay in a few days and appeal in a few months!
Walker has no legal rationale for lifting the block on Act 10--he prob hasn't even read it--just signed his name for the puppet masters! All flunk out Walker can do is name calling!
Scheeech! And some Wisconsinites continue to support him! So unbelievable to me!!

hue

(4,949 posts)
4. So Van Hollen filed the motion to stay...What a douchebag!
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 01:52 PM
Sep 2012
http://www.wisn.com/politics/wisconsin-politics/State-AG-files-motion-to-stay-ruling-to-repeal-part-of-Act-10/-/10057500/16648272/-/cixvqc/-/index.html?absolute=true

MADISON, Wis. —

Wisconsin's attorney general has asked a judge to put on hold his decision to repeal major parts of Gov. Scott Walker's law that effectively ended collective bargaining for most public workers.

J.B. Van Hollen filed the request Tuesday.


"Act 10 addressed real and significant financial problems faced by local governments. It makes no sense to force a return to a broken system before the appellate process is completed," Van Hollen said.

midnight

(26,624 posts)
5. I wonder what the back up plan is? Because the judge already told them that they did not have any
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 07:58 PM
Sep 2012

rational reason...

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Wisconsin»Wisconsin Act 10 unconsti...