Connect with us

Wisconsin

Wisconsin’s Act 10 has been overturned. Here’s what to know about the controversial law.

Published

on

Wisconsin’s Act 10 has been overturned. Here’s what to know about the controversial law.


play

Collective bargaining rights of public employees in Wisconsin were restored Monday in a ruling by Dane County Judge Jacob Frost.

Advertisement

Public employee unions largely lost their ability to collectively bargain in 2011 with the passage of Act 10.

Here’s a look back at the origins of Act 10 — and the possibility of Frost’s ruling being challenged and ending up before the Wisconsin Supreme Court:

What is Act 10?

Shortly after being elected governor in November 2010, Scott Walker introduced what would become his signature piece of legislation, essentially ending collective bargaining rights for public employee unions in Wisconsin.

Act 10 ended the ability of most public-sector unions to negotiate over any issues other than raises, and those raises were capped at the rate of inflation. In addition, unions were required to hold annual elections to maintain their ability to negotiate for those raises. For those elections, they must win a majority of all eligible members, not just those who cast votes.

The measure cut public workers’ paychecks and siphoned off most of the strength of their unions. 

Advertisement

Public workers earning $50,000 a year saw their take-home pay shrink by about 8.5% because they had to pay more for their benefits, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau at the time. 

How much money did Act 10 save taxpayers?

PolitiFact Wisconsin previously checked Walker’s claim that Act 10 has “saved the taxpayers some $3 billion.” We rated that quote, from summer 2014, Mostly True.

At that point, there had been about $2.35 billion in savings associated with retirement and about $682 million associated with health insurance — though that incomplete number leaves out municipalities. 

Advertisement

When public employee unions launched the lawsuit last November, Republican lawmakers cited an estimate that Act 10 has saved Wisconsin taxpayers over $16.8 billion.

PolitiFact Wisconsin investigated that claim and found that number came from the MacIver Institute, a conservative think tank. That number fell in line with previous reports and studies from other groups, though little research has been conducted on the subject in the past two years.

And as previously noted, the costs didn’t simply disappear. Rather, they were transferred from other taxpayers to public employees, who also pay taxes and now pay a higher share of their retirement funding and health-care costs.

How did Frost justify overturning Act 10?

Act 10 immediately affected public school teachers’ unions. It also ended unions at UW Health. It didn’t, however, unilaterally apply to public safety employees, a point noted by Frost.

Advertisement

“Rational basis review provides a simple premise,” Frost wrote in a July ruling that denied a motion filed by the Republican-controlled Legislature to dismiss the case. “Can you explain a law’s differing treatment of different groups in a way that makes sense and supports a public policy? If not, the different treatment is irrational and violates the right to equal protection of the laws.

“Because nobody could provide this Court an explanation that reasonably showed why municipal police and fire and State Troopers are considered public safety employees, but Capitol Police, UW Police and conservation wardens, who have the same authority and do the same work, are not.”

That unequal treatment of public safety employees remained at the heart of Frost’s ruling Monday.

How did lawmakers and the public respond to Act 10?

Walker announced his plan to curb union rights in February 2011. He believed he would be able to push the legislation through the GOP-controlled Legislature in a week. Democratic lawmakers foiled his plan by heading to Illinois to delay a vote.

Advertisement

In their absence, tens of thousands of people protested at the Capitol daily.

In March, Democrats returned to Madison and a vote approving the legislation that would become known as Act 10 would pass the Legislature and was signed into law. Act 10 took effect in June 2011.

Consequently, Walker, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch and 13 state senators faced recalls over Act 10 — 10 Republicans and three Democrats. Most incumbents won, but Democrats managed to unseat three Republicans. That was enough to give them control of the Senate in summer 2012, but the victory came when the Legislature was out of session and was short-lived. Republicans took back the majority that fall. 

Walker became the first governor in U.S. history to survive a recall challenge. Kleefisch became the first lieutenant governor to face one, as well as the first to survive one.

Act 10 saved taxpayers money. How was it also political?

Reining in the political power of unions was part of the plan behind Act 10, as Scott Fitzgerald, who was the majority leader of the state Senate, made clear at the time.

Advertisement

“If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President (Barack) Obama is going to have a much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin,” Fitzgerald, who was elected to Congress last year, told Fox News in 2011.

What does Walker think about Frost’s ruling?

While no longer in office, Walker responded to Frost’s decision on X, calling it “brazen political activism.”

“This makes the April 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race that much more important. We want a state where legislators and the governor make the laws, not the courts?” Walker said.

“Collective bargaining is not a right. It is an expensive entitlement,” Walker said in a second tweet.

What happens to Act 10 next?

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) agreed with Walker and promised an appeal.

Advertisement

“This lawsuit came more than a decade after Act 10 became law and after many courts rejected the same meritless legal challenges,” Vos said. “Act 10 has saved Wisconsin taxpayers more than $16 billion. We look forward to presenting our arguments on appeal.”

(This story was updated to add new information.)

Jessica Van Egeren is a reporter and assistant breaking news editor with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. She can be reached at jvanegeren@gannett.com.



Source link

Advertisement

Wisconsin

President of Wisconsin’s largest mosque released from ICE custody

Published

on

President of Wisconsin’s largest mosque released from ICE custody


A federal judge has ordered the release of the president of Wisconsin’s largest mosque, after finding that immigration officials probably detained him in retaliation against his public advocacy for Palestinian rights, suppressing his first amendment rights in the process.

The US district judge James Patrick Hanlon’s order on Thursday marked a sharp rebuke against Trump officials, including the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who had tried to paint Salah Sarsour as a national security threat.

“Salah Sarsour, who has lived in this country for more than three decades and served as a core pillar in his community without any issues, should never have been detained in the first place,” his legal team wrote in a statement. “While we continue to fight these baseless claims in court, today is about celebrating a family being reunited. It is also a sober reminder that, if the government can target Mr Sarsour, everyone’s free speech rights are at risk.”

Sarsour describes himself as a stateless Palestinian, according to the order. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says that he is a Jordanian citizen. He has lived in the United States for more than three decades, becoming a legal permanent resident in 1998. Immigration officials approved Sarsour’s citizenship application decades ago, though he did not naturalize.

Advertisement

Sarsour has garnered public attention as a champion for Palestinian rights, and serves as a board member of an advocacy group called American Muslims for Palestine.

But Rubio personally signed off on a memo to the DHS last year describing Sarsour as deportable despite his green card, because “his actions undermine US foreign policy to combat antisemitism around the world”. The memo, cited in Hanlon’s order, accuses Sarsour’s group of being “found to have been involved in activities providing funds to Hamas”.

A group of plainclothes ICE officers from at least 10 unmarked vehicles swarmed Sarsour on 30 March of this year, arresting him and putting him in deportation proceedings. ICE ultimately detained him in Clay county jail in Indiana.

Sarsour lost 30lb while detained, the order says. His lawyers told the court that he was “at constant risk of developing serious complications from diabetes given that the medical staff only checks his blood-sugar levels once a month”. Tightly controlling diabetes typically requires multiple glucose checks daily.

Hanlon’s order says that homeland security officials and Rubio probably trampled on Sarsour’s first amendment right to free speech and appeared to have arrested him in retaliation for his Palestinian rights advocacy.

Advertisement

The order cited a New York Times story and the website for the Heritage Foundation, the conservative thinktank that dreamed up Project 2025,

The Heritage Foundation presented the White House with the idea to present prominent foreign-born Muslims and Palestinian rights leaders as terrorists in order to sue them, deport them or pressure employers to fire them, the order says, citing reporting from the Times and Heritage’s own website. Sarsour was probably among the targets of that campaign, the order says.

The federal government, through its lawyers, contended that Sarsour should be deported based on two convictions from more than three decades ago in Israel – one for throwing a molotov cocktail and the other for attempting to store weapons and ammunition.

Sarsour denies having committed those crimes.

But Hanlon viewed those crimes as a non-issue for justifying his incarceration, noting that the federal government knew about them since the 1990s and approved his legal permanent residency and his citizenship application anyway.

Advertisement

Sarsour’s speech on Palestinian rights “is core political speech and squarely within the scope of the First Amendment”, the order says. “Mr Sarsour has submitted evidence allowing a reasonable inference that his protected speech was ‘at least a motivating factor’ in Respondents’ decision to detain him.”

A spokesperson for homeland security described Sarsour as a “terrorist”, citing the convictions from his youth in Israel.

Government lawyers had argued that Sarsour did not have the same first amendment rights as US citizens. If he were released, they said, he should have to pay a $25,000 bond, wear an ankle monitor, check in routinely with ICE and remain confined to his house.

Instead, Hanlon ordered his release on personal recognizance, meaning that Sarsour does not have to pay a cash bond to compel him to show up in court again. The order, however, requires him to remain in the state of Wisconsin.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Wisconsin

Couple asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear Brewers 50-50 raffle prize dispute

Published

on

Couple asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear Brewers 50-50 raffle prize dispute


(WLUK) – A couple challenging the decision not to award them a 50-50 raffle prize at a Milwaukee Brewers game asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case, calling it one of “statewide importance.”

Matthew and Annette Flynn purchased ten raffle tickets at the July 7, 2023, game, and held the winning number which was originally selected for $13,000. According to court records, the raffle rules in effect at the time required the winning ticket holder to claim the prize at a designated 50-50 table by the end of the top of the seventh inning. Flynn said she did not see the winning number displayed or hear it announced and was directed by stadium personnel to another location before making her way to the claim table. Officials determined she did not arrive before the deadline and selected a new winning ticket.

The Flynns sued, but the circuit and appeals courts ruled the raffle’s rules gave the foundation sole discretion to determine the official winner and that the rules clearly stated a participant who failed to claim the prize within the specified time would be disqualified.

In a petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed Wednesday, the Flynn’s asked the high court to take the case, saying the decision “affects not only the parties to this action but potentially every Wisconsin resident who participates in charitable raffles and similar gaming activities.”

Advertisement

“This case presents significant questions concerning contractual discretion, discovery, judicial review of charitable gaming decisions, and the treatment of digital evidence within Wisconsin’s appellate system. For these reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court grant review of the decision of the Court of Appeals,” the petition states.

The high court does not have to take the case. At some point, it will vote on if to take it. If it does, a months-long process to review the issues will begin. If it does not, the appeals court ruling would stand.

According to the rules posted on the Milwaukee Brewers’ website, the deadline to claim the prize is no longer during the game the tickets were purchased.

Comment with Bubbles

BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT

Advertisement

“The Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number may claim the Prize at the 50/50 Table located on the Loge (2nd) level concourse behind Sections 216/217 until such time as the Ballpark officially closes to fans after the end of the game. If the Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number does not claim the Prize by the time the Ballpark closes to fans after the end of the game, that Participant may still claim the Prize within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period for the respective baseball game by contacting the Raffle hotline (414-902-4334). A Prize that is not claimed within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period will be awarded in compliance with applicable regulations,” the site states.



Source link

Continue Reading

Wisconsin

Wisconsin DOJ probes fatal shooting by Oneida County officer

Published

on

Wisconsin DOJ probes fatal shooting by Oneida County officer


ONEIDA COUNTY, Wis. (WFRV) — The Wisconsin DOJ is investigating an officer-involved death that occurred on the morning of June 17 in the town of Lake Tomahawk.

According to a press release, around 10:30 a.m., two Oneida officers arrived at Lumen Lake Drive to arrest a subject in a felony investigation.

Upon contact with the officers, the subject brandished and shot a firearm. One officer shot the subject in return.

EMS pronounced the subject dead on the scene. No members of law enforcement or the public were injured.

Advertisement

Both officers will be placed on administrative assignment, per the agency’s policy.

WFRV will update this story as needed.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending