POLITICS

Gov. Tony Evers and AG Josh Kaul refuse to defend lame-duck laws passed by GOP before they took office

Patrick Marley

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Gov. Tony Evers enters the Assembly to deliver his State of the State address at the Capitol in Madison.

MADISON - Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul are refusing to defend lame-duck laws that limit their powers — and Evers is asking a judge to immediately block the measures.

The moves come as a fourth legal challenge over the laws was brought by the state Democratic Party — this time, in federal court.

The Democratic governor and attorney general have been critical of the lame-duck laws since Republican legislators unveiled them in December but only recently took positions on them in court as part of a lawsuit brought by unions.

"The legislation will make executing the law, rendering services to the citizens and businesses of Wisconsin, and using tax dollars in an efficient manner practically impossible," attorney Christa Westerberg wrote on behalf of Evers in a filing Thursday.

And in a filing last week, an assistant attorney general told Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington that Kaul's Department of Justice would not defend the laws.

"In light of its substantial interest in the case’s outcome, DOJ’s position is that it has no duty to defend the legislation at issue," wrote Assistant Attorney General Thomas Bellavia. "DOJ intends to take the position that certain provisions of (the laws) are unconstitutional."

Republican leaders said the filings showed Evers and Kaul want "to collude with their liberal allies to work around the Legislature to advance their agenda."

“The decision by the governor and the attorney general to side with the plaintiffs in an effort to invalidate state law further solidifies the Legislature's need to represent itself," said a statement from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos of Rochester and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald of Juneau.

In his Thursday filing, Evers asked the judge to issue an injunction to block the laws while he considers the case, as the unions have requested.

Evers argued the laws violate the state constitution because they give the Legislature a role in executing state laws, intruding on the governor's job.

Specifically, the laws "unconstitutionally infringe on the executive branch" by giving lawmakers control of litigation and tightly regulating publications from state agencies that tell the public how laws will be enforced, Evers argued.

The administration contends the requirements for publications would affect more than 200,000 documents and cost millions of dollars because more workers would have to be hired.

Legislators passed the provisions "as a transparent attempt to burden the incoming governor and make it significantly more difficult for him to operate the executive branch, serve the citizens of the state, and 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,' " Westerberg wrote in her brief for Evers.

Evers also sided with the unions' claims that the laws are unconstitutional because they give legislative committees — instead of the full Legislature — the final approval of some matters.

GOP lawmakers passed the laws in December — after Evers beat GOP Gov. Scott Walker and Kaul beat GOP Attorney General Brad Schimel but before they were sworn in.

This month, units of the Service Employees International Union, other labor organizations and Democratic state Sen. Janet Bewley of Mason sued over the laws.

They brought the suit against Republican legislative leaders who devised the laws, as well as Evers and Kaul because they are responsible for enforcing the state's laws.

Although they are defendants, Evers and Kaul made plain with their filings that they are aligned with those challenging the laws.

The lawsuit is one of four legal challenges to the lame-duck laws.

In one legal challenge over the lame-duck laws, One Wisconsin Institute and Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund asked a federal judge to block a provision that limited early voting. U.S. District Judge James Peterson agreed to do that last month, saying the measure violated an injunction he issued in 2016 when he found several Republican voting laws unconstitutional.

In another lawsuit, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Disability Rights Wisconsin and Black Leaders Organizing for Communities argued the legislators convened themselves into session improperly and the lame-duck laws should be declared void. Lawmakers dispute that claim and the case is ongoing.

Democrats sue in federal court

The state Democratic Party filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday alleging the lame-duck laws were unconstitutional because they discriminated against voters' political beliefs and violated Democrats' freedom of speech.

The lawsuit alleges Democratic voters' constitutional rights to be treated the same as Republican voters were violated by the Legislature's action.

The laws were "designed for the purpose of discriminating and retaliating against voters who chose to elect Evers and Kaul because of their political beliefs and the views they expressed," the lawsuit alleges.

Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chairwoman Martha Laning said the measures hurt the party's ability to recruit and work in the state.

"We’re making a strong statement," Laning said. "This is about the Democratic Party. This is about our ability to continue to engage on the issues that are important to us.”

The barrage of lawsuits could prove costly for taxpayers. Evers, lawmakers and the state Elections Commission have hired private attorneys to represent them in some of the cases at taxpayer expense.

Attorneys for Evers and the commission are being paid $275 an hour. Attorneys for lawmakers are being paid $500 an hour.

Molly Beck of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contributed to this report.