Article Summary –
Dane County Judge Jacob Frost ruled provisions of Wisconsin’s Act 10 law, which curbed public-sector unions’ influence, unconstitutional, arguing it violated equal protection guarantees by creating unequal classes of public employees. The lawsuit filed by several unions in November 2023 cites low pay, staffing shortages, and poor working conditions in workplaces, and Judge Frost’s ruling is expected to be appealed, potentially reaching the state Supreme Court, where the ideological balance has recently shifted. Republicans criticized the ruling as judicial overreach, while Democrats and unions argue that the law, which has withstood previous challenges, was divisive and detrimental to employee morale and working conditions.
MADISON – A Dane County judge ruled Wisconsin’s Act 10 law unconstitutional and denied a dismissal motion for a case challenging this Scott Walker-era law that reduced union influence, sparked protests, and reshaped state politics.
Unions representing public employees filed the lawsuit in November 2023, citing issues like low pay and staffing shortages. Judge Jacob Frost, appointed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, promised a ruling “in the near future”.
Frost, who signed a recall petition against Walker, may have a biased stance. The implications of his order are unclear.
The lawsuit claims Act 10 violates Wisconsin’s equal protection guarantees by creating unequal public employee classes. Frost wrote, “Nobody could provide 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.”
“Thus, Capitol Police, UW Police, and conservation wardens are treated unequally with no rational basis for that difference. Act 10 therefore violates their rights to equal protection under the law.”
Plaintiffs include unions like AFSCME, SEIU Wisconsin, Teamsters Local 695, and individual workers from various sectors.
Attorneys for the state Department of Justice and the Legislature did not immediately respond. The case is expected to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Jacob Karabell, representing the unions, said Act 10’s collective bargaining provisions are unconstitutional and “look forward to next steps.”
Republicans criticized the ruling and its timing. Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu called it “yet another example of courts legislating from the bench.”
Act 10 limited public-sector unions to negotiating only raises capped at inflation rates. Unions had to hold annual elections requiring a majority of all eligible members to maintain their negotiation rights.
Public workers saw pay cuts due to higher benefit costs. A 2022 analysis by the Wisconsin Policy Forum found Wisconsin experienced the largest decline in unionized workforce proportion since 2000.
Act 10 led to significant recall elections, with Walker becoming the first governor in U.S. history to survive a recall challenge. The law made Walker a national Republican figure, enabling a brief presidential bid before Donald Trump’s rise.
Former U.S. Rep. Peter Barca, challenging U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, led the Assembly’s opposition to Act 10 in 2011, arguing it was divisive and unconstitutional.
Previous challenges to Act 10 failed, but this lawsuit came after liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz joined the Supreme Court, shifting its majority. Unions supported her campaign significantly.
Protasiewicz expressed uncertainty about recusing herself from Act 10 cases due to her past opposition, including protests and signing a recall petition.
Walker tweeted, “Why elect a Governor and lawmakers if activist judges can impose their own will?!?”, reacting to the ideological shift in the Supreme Court.
Republicans argued for the lawsuit’s dismissal, citing Act 10’s past legal defenses. They claimed the law provided savings and control, while Democrats argued it hurt schools and employee morale.
Frost concluded, “As my decision appears to resolve all issues, I order the parties to file a letter or memorandum to the Court as to whether the Court should issue judgment on the pleadings in light of this Decision or take some other action to bring this action to a final judgment.
—
Read More Kitchen Table News
