2 Fleebaggers Wrote Law That WI GOP Will Use to Defeat Activist Judge’s Ruling

[BenNatuf]

From the article.

Senate Rule 93 says that when the Legislature is in special session, "A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board."

That's the rule Republican leaders are citing in their contention that one of the votes leading up to passage of Gov. Scott Walker's controversial anti-union bill was legal.

So, if the Republicans are correct and they followed the rules that the fleebaggers wrote yet the judge still finds their "misconduct" as a reason for "staying" then the GOP are in fact being punished and the FLeeBaggers did in fact FLEE.. Is the person who filed the suit a demonRat? You betcha!

Please review Posts #31, #43, and #55 for content and links...

• http://www.usmessageboard.com/3442342-post31.html
• http://www.usmessageboard.com/3443291-post43.html
• http://www.usmessageboard.com/3444209-post55.html

1. The schedule session for the Senate was schedule from March 8 - March 10, the bill in question was passed on March 9th during Regular Session.

False, the regular session was suspended and they entered special session.

2. Special Sessions according to the Wisconsin Constitution must be called by the Governor (who would have no reason to call a session on March 9th since the Legislature was already in Regular Session).

The special session was called on Jan 4th and continued into the regular session.

3. Senate Rule 93 only applies to Special Sessions, since the Legislature was in Regular Session Rule 93 would probably be found to not apply in the courts which may mean the Open Meeting law is applicable.

It doesn't matter, they complied with the rule in any event

4. Republican leaders in the Senate can site any rule they want to justify their actions, that doesn't mean the rule actually applies in the way they hope to convince people it does.

In this case however... it does.

The meeting was posted to the bulletin board more than 2 hours before the meeting was held. That is the only "requirement" under the law. Only 2 hours notice is required if its impossible or impractacle to give 24 hrs notice under the regular rules. And it is the Senate thats empowered to decide what is impractacle for itself. The judge issued the stay in keeping with the rules by which a stay is issued, which does not under these circumstances even require a liklihood of winning on the merits. It only requ9ires that on ballance the agrieved party will be more damaged than the defendent in the event the stay is not issued and that enough doubt exists to warrant further investigation.

 

[WorldWatcher]

From the article.

Senate Rule 93 says that when the Legislature is in special session, "A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board."

That's the rule Republican leaders are citing in their contention that one of the votes leading up to passage of Gov. Scott Walker's controversial anti-union bill was legal.

So, if the Republicans are correct and they followed the rules that the fleebaggers wrote yet the judge still finds their "misconduct" as a reason for "staying" then the GOP are in fact being punished and the FLeeBaggers did in fact FLEE.. Is the person who filed the suit a demonRat? You betcha!

Please review Posts #31, #43, and #55 for content and links...

• http://www.usmessageboard.com/3442342-post31.html
• http://www.usmessageboard.com/3443291-post43.html
• http://www.usmessageboard.com/3444209-post55.html

1. The schedule session for the Senate was schedule from March 8 - March 10, the bill in question was passed on March 9th during Regular Session.

False, the regular session was suspended and they entered special session.

Please show us were the legislature adjourned on or about March 8th and then the Governor called them back into Special Session on March 9th.

The special session was called on Jan 4th and continued into the regular session.

3. Senate Rule 93 only applies to Special Sessions, since the Legislature was in Regular Session Rule 93 would probably be found to not apply in the courts which may mean the Open Meeting law is applicable.

It doesn't matter, they complied with the rule in any event

Actually it does matter, if the Legislature was in Regular Session then the exemption to the Law for Senate Rule 93 was not applicable.

4. Republican leaders in the Senate can site any rule they want to justify their actions, that doesn't mean the rule actually applies in the way they hope to convince people it does.

In this case however... it does.

Maybe, maybe not. That's what the challenge is about.

See under the Wisconsin Constitution, if Senate considered itself in Special Session, then the Constitution says they could take no other actions except those under which the Governor called the Special Session for.

The meeting was posted to the bulletin board more than 2 hours before the meeting was held. That is the only "requirement" under the law.

Incorrect, if in Regular Session then Wisconsin Open Meeting Law requires 24-hours notice.

Only 2 hours notice is required if its impossible or impractacle to give 24 hrs notice under the regular rules. And it is the Senate thats empowered to decide what is impractacle for itself.

Please post the Regular Session rules that provides for this.

The judge issued the stay in keeping with the rules by which a stay is issued, which does not under these circumstances even require a liklihood of winning on the merits. It only requ9ires that on ballance the agrieved party will be more damaged than the defendent in the event the stay is not issued and that enough doubt exists to warrant further investigation.

I agree, some have referred to the stay as "punishment" for the GOP, no it's not. It's simply the Judge exercising authority to delay implementation for a short time to allow both side to prepare their cases.

Now, as I've previously said, if the GOP was smart they would repeal the previous bill (rendering the court case moot) and then resubmit the bill with proper notiifcations and time frames and then simply re-pass the bill. Someone even mentioned that the Judge said that could be done (I can't confirm that though, it was a poster here).


***********************************************

The Wisconsin Legislative Schedule list Regular Session Floor periods. If, as you propose, the Special Session extended into the Regular Session and the Senate remained in Special Session then under the Constitution of Wisconsin no action other what the Governor called them into Special Session could be addressed.

The Wisconsin Legislature says (Wisconsin Legislative Spotlight)

January 2011 Special Session

Governor Walker called the legislature into special session on January 4 to consider legislation on a variety of topics, including tax credits, tort law, medical savings accounts, other legislation relating to taxation, and the budget repair bill.​

The Wisconsin Legislature Lists the following bills as being part of the Special Session (Ill just list the Senate's, Wisconsin Legislature Data

SB1JR1
SB2JR1
SB3JR1
SB4JR1
SB5JR1
SB6JR1
SB7JR1
SB8JR1
SB9JR1
SB10JR1
SB11JR1
SR1JR1​

However, the following Bills show action on or prior to March 9th:

• SB12 (Retailer Discounts & Taxes, Not part of Special Session)
• SB15 (Traffic stop data collection)
• SB16 (Act relating to telephone calls)
• SB17 (Concerning Non-resident campaign finance)
• SB18 (Law enforcement health insurance for surviving spouses for those killed)
• SB19 (Disinfection of Municipal Water Supplies)
• SB20 (City of Milwaukee Sale of School Property)
• SB21 (City of Waukesha Retail Project)
• SB22 (Charter Schools)
• SB23 (Local ordinances regarding medical leave)
• SB28 (Composition of the Board of Regents for U of WI)
• SB30 (Residency requirements for Police and Firefighters)
• SB32 (standards for places of employment and public buildings)
• SB33 (Removal of Abandoned Dams)
• SB34 (Prohibition against residency requirements for Teachers)

Logically, the Majority Leader of the Senate can't have it both ways. Either the Senate was in Special Session, if so then then they could not have addressed the items in the second list as the Constitution clearly says that no other items except those for which the Special Session was called can be addressed. Or the Special Session ended when the Regular Session started which means they were free to take the additional actions that they did.



>>>>

 

[BenNatuf]

Please review Posts #31, #43, and #55 for content and links...

• http://www.usmessageboard.com/3442342-post31.html
• http://www.usmessageboard.com/3443291-post43.html
• http://www.usmessageboard.com/3444209-post55.html

1. The schedule session for the Senate was schedule from March 8 - March 10, the bill in question was passed on March 9th during Regular Session.

False, the regular session was suspended and they entered special session.

Please show us were the legislature adjourned on or about March 8th and then the Governor called them back into Special Session on March 9th.

Did I say they adjourned? I said the regular session was suspended and they entered into special session

The Week of March 14, 2011
2011-2012 Legislative Session
The 2011-2012 legislative session began when the new legislature was sworn in on January 3, 2011. The schedule of floorperiods for the new session was established by Senate Joint Resolution 1. The January special session is ongoing. The regular session has adjourned pursuant to SJR-1; the next scheduled floorperiod begins on April 5.

January 2011 Special Session
Governor Walker called the legislature into special session on January 4 to consider legislation on a variety of topics, including tax credits, tort law, medical savings accounts, other legislation relating to taxation, and the budget repair bill.

The special session is not adjourned until its business is concluded. The special session was ongoing when the regular session met. The rules do not preclude the Senate conducting its regular session business, suspend activity and enter BACK into special session to conclude the business of the special session.

Might help you if you knew a session was not just dates on a calander

Wisconsin Legislative Spotlight

The special session was called on Jan 4th and continued into the regular session.

Actually it does matter, if the Legislature was in Regular Session then the exemption to the Law for Senate Rule 93 was not applicable.

The legislature was not in regular session.

See under the Wisconsin Constitution, if Senate considered itself in Special Session, then the Constitution says they could take no other actions except those under which the Governor called the Special Session for.

And thats exactly what they did while they were in special session, which was reconvened when the regular session business was concluded and the regular session was suspended. like this

3.09.11 | Senate Floor Session (Part 1)
On March 9, 2011 the Senate met in special session at the state Capitol to approve Senate Resolutions 4-17, relating to imposing penalties and costs on the Democratic senators en masse. They then adjourned the special session until the call of the chair and took up SB 12 in the regular session, allowing retailers the ability to offer discounts equal to the state and local sales taxes.

Incorrect, if in Regular Session then Wisconsin Open Meeting Law requires 24-hours notice.

False on two counts.

1. They weren't in regular session
2. The rule allows exception and only 2 hours is required if it is impossible or impracticle for the 24 hr notice. Since the Senate makes its own rules, they would be the authority over what is impossible or impracticle for themselves. The judge does not have the constitutional authority to determine for the senate how they will interpret their own rules. There's this thing called "seperation of powers".

Only 2 hours notice is required if its impossible or impractacle to give 24 hrs notice under the regular rules. And it is the Senate thats empowered to decide what is impractacle for itself.

Please post the Regular Session rules that provides for this.

was there a problem with you looking it up for yourself?

3) Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting.

The judge issued the stay in keeping with the rules by which a stay is issued, which does not under these circumstances even require a liklihood of winning on the merits. It only requ9ires that on ballance the agrieved party will be more damaged than the defendent in the event the stay is not issued and that enough doubt exists to warrant further investigation.

I agree, some have referred to the stay as "punishment" for the GOP, no it's not. It's simply the Judge exercising authority to delay implementation for a short time to allow both side to prepare their cases.

Now, as I've previously said, if the GOP was smart they would repeal the previous bill (rendering the court case moot) and then resubmit the bill with proper notiifcations and time frames and then simply re-pass the bill. Someone even mentioned that the Judge said that could be done (I can't confirm that though, it was a poster here).

That would be the easy way to do it.


***********************************************

The Wisconsin Legislative Schedule list Regular Session Floor periods. If, as you propose, the Special Session extended into the Regular Session and the Senate remained in Special Session then under the Constitution of Wisconsin no action other what the Governor called them into Special Session could be addressed.

in the special session. No other business was addressed in the special session. Sessions are not just dates on a calandar.

January 2011 Special Session

Governor Walker called the legislature into special session on January 4 to consider legislation on a variety of topics, including tax credits, tort law, medical savings accounts, other legislation relating to taxation, and the budget repair bill.​

The Wisconsin Legislature Lists the following bills as being part of the Special Session (Ill just list the Senate's, Wisconsin Legislature Data

SB1JR1
SB2JR1
SB3JR1
SB4JR1
SB5JR1
SB6JR1
SB7JR1
SB8JR1
SB9JR1
SB10JR1
SB11JR1
SR1JR1​

However, the following Bills show action on or prior to March 9th:

• SB12 (Retailer Discounts & Taxes, Not part of Special Session)
• SB15 (Traffic stop data collection)
• SB16 (Act relating to telephone calls)
• SB17 (Concerning Non-resident campaign finance)
• SB18 (Law enforcement health insurance for surviving spouses for those killed)
• SB19 (Disinfection of Municipal Water Supplies)
• SB20 (City of Milwaukee Sale of School Property)
• SB21 (City of Waukesha Retail Project)
• SB22 (Charter Schools)
• SB23 (Local ordinances regarding medical leave)
• SB28 (Composition of the Board of Regents for U of WI)
• SB30 (Residency requirements for Police and Firefighters)
• SB32 (standards for places of employment and public buildings)
• SB33 (Removal of Abandoned Dams)
• SB34 (Prohibition against residency requirements for Teachers)

yes thats right, they entered into reguular session, took care of business, suspended the regular session and then reconvened the special session. Thats the way it works.

Logically, the Majority Leader of the Senate can't have it both ways. Either the Senate was in Special Session, if so then then they could not have addressed the items in the second list as the Constitution clearly says that no other items except those for which the Special Session was called can be addressed. Or the Special Session ended when the Regular Session started which means they were free to take the additional actions that they did.

Your ignorance of process does not equate to the process being faulty

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


I'd like to publicly state that I may have interpreted Special Rule 93 as applying only to Governor Called Special Session incorrectly.


After reviewing the Special Rule again, I realize that I'd been focusing on only the first part of the rule and had mentally skipped over the second part of the rule which states "and to each extraordinary session called by the senate and assembly organization committees". Under my mistaken impression that the action in question had taken place during a Special Session which, according to the State Constitution would have required a call by the Governor (the January call having expired when the Regular Session started) and limiting all action to only a single item (or listed items in the call). In fact there is a valid case that can be made that the legislative leadership may have called an "extraordinary session" which would meet the Special Rule 93 language but yet not require a Governor convened "Special Session" (with its Constitutional limitations).


I extend my humble apologize and regret any confusion I may have caused.


WW


(Damn that was hard. )


>>>>

 

[Claudette]

i'm really bored of rightwingnut imbeciles tossing around terms that they have no clue about.

activist, my butt...

I gotta side with Jill on this one.

The judge granted a stay and also told the GOP to just do it over.

Not much of an activist judge there IMO.

 

[BenNatuf]

It figures.

Two Wisconsin fleebaggers wrote the law Republicans will use to defeat the political ruling yesterday by activist Judge Maryann Sumi that blocked the publication of a controversial new union law.....

I'll bet you don't consider the Florida judge an "activist judge" that struck down Obamacare. I wonder why that is?


.

because he's a moron????

There was nothnjg activist in the judges decission in FL. In fact, there was nothing activist in any of the district courts decissions on HCR on either side. Though on the left side declaring such an expansion of federal authority under the commerce clause that it can regulate inactivity as activity is a stretch, and a rather liberal interpretation of prior rulings. So they do border on activism, but ain't quite there.

In this case given the lesser standard of proof for issuing a TRO, the judges issuance was not activist.

there is however this problem

Figures. Son of Wisconsin Activist Judge Is SEIU & AFL-CIO Activist | The Gateway Pundit

What exactly are the standards for when a district court Judge MUST recuse themselves?

 

[BenNatuf]

oh shut up "activist Judge". Its her Job dipshit.

I guess that's true in a way since she did appoint herself dictator. But it's not what the people of Wisconsin pay her to do. She needs to be impeached.

for doing her job?
Th AG requested she put a stay on the law that just passed. She gave the dems and AG a week.

I assume within that week if nobody has said anything the stay will be dropped.

Judges rule on laws. If you dont like it, i suggest you start your own nation with your own constitution.

Here in america we have a balance of power.

When did the AG ask for a stay?

I'll be waiting for your link to this information!!!

 

[BenNatuf]

for doing her job?
Th AG requested she put a stay on the law that just passed. She gave the dems and AG a week.

I assume within that week if nobody has said anything the stay will be dropped.

Judges rule on laws. If you dont like it, i suggest you start your own nation with your own constitution.

Here in america we have a balance of power.

You fundamentally don't understand "balance of power." It is not the right of three branches of government to do whatever they want as you think and that somehow keeps each other in check. They have to act within their defined roles. That she has the power to issue a stay isn't a judicial basis to issue it on and she has no authority to block legislation because she doesn't like it.

she blocked it because the AG provided evidence of it breaking a LAW. It doesn't matter if the dems wrote it or not. The Ag felt it broke the open meetings law, The judge agreed and gave him a week. After a week anything can happen. The law can continue on, or new evidence can be brought forth and the law struck down.

Yes this is how our government works.
I am sorry you and the others are too stupid to understand this.
You disliking a judgment does not make an activist.

The AG did no such thing, the AG is supporting the law. Also the standards under a TRO in this unstance do not require any evedence of any law being broken, they require only that sufficient doubt exist to warrant further investigation.

 

[BenNatuf]

I don't understand this the suit wasn't filed by a Senate Democrat.

It was filed by a house democrat.

I know if no District Attorney (the one that filed the suit) that left Wisconsin. There may have been one, but I've seen no news reports.

No DA filed any suit

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't understand this the suit wasn't filed by a Senate Democrat.

It was filed by a house democrat.

I know if no District Attorney (the one that filed the suit) that left Wisconsin. There may have been one, but I've seen no news reports

No DA filed any suit

Wisconsin Judge Blocks Union Law - WSJ.com

"Judge Maryann Sumi said a lawsuit filed by the Dane County district attorney had enough merit for her to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the bill while she reviews the case.

In his complaint, District Attorney Ismael Ozanne argued that the state's open-meeting laws were violated when Republican leaders whisked the bill through committee last week without giving a 24-hour public notice. In emergencies, meetings may be called with just two hours' notice. Mr. Ozanne argued that even that minimal standard hadn't been upheld."​

Judge Halts Gov. Walker's New Budget Law | FOX 21 Online

"The judge's decision came after a request from Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne.

Ozanne's lawsuit claims a legislative committee broke a stalemate without giving 24-hour notice, which is required by the state's open meetings law."​

Dane County DA says budget panel violated open meetings law - JSOnline

"Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne filed a civil complaint Wednesday alleging legislative leaders violated the state's open meetings law last week when a special committee adopted a bill curbing collective bargaining for most public workers."​

 

[BenNatuf]

I don't understand this the suit wasn't filed by a Senate Democrat.

It was filed by a house democrat.

I know if no District Attorney (the one that filed the suit) that left Wisconsin. There may have been one, but I've seen no news reports

No DA filed any suit

Wisconsin Judge Blocks Union Law - WSJ.com

"Judge Maryann Sumi said a lawsuit filed by the Dane County district attorney had enough merit for her to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the bill while she reviews the case.



In his complaint, District Attorney Ismael Ozanne argued that the state's open-meeting laws were violated when Republican leaders whisked the bill through committee last week without giving a 24-hour public notice. In emergencies, meetings may be called with just two hours' notice. Mr. Ozanne argued that even that minimal standard hadn't been upheld."​

Judge Halts Gov. Walker's New Budget Law | FOX 21 Online

"The judge's decision came after a request from Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne.

Ozanne's lawsuit claims a legislative committee broke a stalemate without giving 24-hour notice, which is required by the state's open meetings law."​

Dane County DA says budget panel violated open meetings law - JSOnline

"Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne filed a civil complaint Wednesday alleging legislative leaders violated the state's open meetings law last week when a special committee adopted a bill curbing collective bargaining for most public workers."​

thats odd, because that not what the official court papers say


http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0310/0310barcacompaint.pdf

Critics of the legislation have contended that the conference committee met in violation of open meetings law. An open meetings complaint was filed by Representative Barca on March 10.

Wisconsin Legislative Spotlight

I would say it's possible that the complaint was filed with the DA, but the complaint was clearly filed with the Clerk of Courts

 

[WorldWatcher]

It was filed by a house democrat.



No DA filed any suit

Wisconsin Judge Blocks Union Law - WSJ.com

"Judge Maryann Sumi said a lawsuit filed by the Dane County district attorney had enough merit for her to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the bill while she reviews the case.



In his complaint, District Attorney Ismael Ozanne argued that the state's open-meeting laws were violated when Republican leaders whisked the bill through committee last week without giving a 24-hour public notice. In emergencies, meetings may be called with just two hours' notice. Mr. Ozanne argued that even that minimal standard hadn't been upheld."​

Judge Halts Gov. Walker's New Budget Law | FOX 21 Online

"The judge's decision came after a request from Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne.

Ozanne's lawsuit claims a legislative committee broke a stalemate without giving 24-hour notice, which is required by the state's open meetings law."​

Dane County DA says budget panel violated open meetings law - JSOnline

"Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne filed a civil complaint Wednesday alleging legislative leaders violated the state's open meetings law last week when a special committee adopted a bill curbing collective bargaining for most public workers."​

thats odd, because that not what the official court papers say


http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0310/0310barcacompaint.pdf

Critics of the legislation have contended that the conference committee met in violation of open meetings law. An open meetings complaint was filed by Representative Barca on March 10.

Wisconsin Legislative Spotlight

I would say it's possible that the complaint was filed with the DA, but the complaint was clearly filed with the Clerk of Courts

From the main page of the site you just linked to, complaint -->> http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0316/0316danecounty.pdf


Judge Sumi's Stay Decision siting who filed -->> http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0318/0318sumi.pdf

...
Both clearly show Ismael R. Ozanne as the Plantif. He is the District Attorney for Dane County.


>>>>

 

[BenNatuf]

Wisconsin Judge Blocks Union Law - WSJ.com

"Judge Maryann Sumi said a lawsuit filed by the Dane County district attorney had enough merit for her to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the bill while she reviews the case.



In his complaint, District Attorney Ismael Ozanne argued that the state's open-meeting laws were violated when Republican leaders whisked the bill through committee last week without giving a 24-hour public notice. In emergencies, meetings may be called with just two hours' notice. Mr. Ozanne argued that even that minimal standard hadn't been upheld."​

Judge Halts Gov. Walker's New Budget Law | FOX 21 Online

"The judge's decision came after a request from Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne.

Ozanne's lawsuit claims a legislative committee broke a stalemate without giving 24-hour notice, which is required by the state's open meetings law."​

Dane County DA says budget panel violated open meetings law - JSOnline

"Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne filed a civil complaint Wednesday alleging legislative leaders violated the state's open meetings law last week when a special committee adopted a bill curbing collective bargaining for most public workers."​

thats odd, because that not what the official court papers say


http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0310/0310barcacompaint.pdf

Critics of the legislation have contended that the conference committee met in violation of open meetings law. An open meetings complaint was filed by Representative Barca on March 10.

Wisconsin Legislative Spotlight

I would say it's possible that the complaint was filed with the DA, but the complaint was clearly filed with the Clerk of Courts

From the main page of the site you just linked to, complaint -->> http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0316/0316danecounty.pdf


Judge Sumi's Stay Decision siting who filed -->> http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0318/0318sumi.pdf

...
Both clearly show Ismael R. Ozanne as the Plantif. He is the District Attorney for Dane County.


>>>>

I stand corrected, the information I had was apparently incomplete. Thank you!

I am corrected on another matter regarding the standard the Judge used in issuing the TRO. She's out to lunch, but within her authority to be at lunch.

 

[American Horse]

By all means ruin the unions and transfer the wealth to the top, but what you forget to understand is all you dummy's who aren't in a Union are getting screwed right along with them. The union workers haven't gained anything of great advantage over the years except to stay where they were. But now all of you, the left and the right and the poor can help the rich obtain even more as you learn to do with less and less, got to love it don't you.

Here’s what WALKER'S Bill, legitimately passed into law provides for:
The conventional wisdom is that he "overreached" by proposing limits on the ability of government unions to bargain collectively for benefits. But before he offered those proposals, Democrats and unions had refused to support his plan that public workers pay any more for their pensions and health care. Only later did they concede that these changes were reasonable and will spare thousands of public workers from layoffs.

And meanwhile, even as the protests are still taking place at the Wisconsin Statehouse, the unions in negotiations with County government units have not wavered from their earlier position on those issues, which tells us all we need to know.

The collective bargaining reforms also mean that this won't merely be a one-time budget victory. Government unions know that financial concessions (and layoffs) that they agree to during recessions are typically won back when tax revenues increase and the public stops paying attention. They merely need to elect a friendly governor. Mr. Walker's reforms change the balance of negotiating power in ways that give taxpayers more protection.

Unions can still bargain for wages, but annual increases can't exceed the rate of inflation. Unions will also have to be certified each year, which will give their dues-paying members a chance to revisit their decision to unionize. No longer will it be one worker, one vote, once. Perhaps most important, the state will no longer collect those dues automatically and give them to the union to spend almost entirely on politics. The unions will have to collect those dues themselves.

IMO he should’ve been a lot clearer about the collective bargaining changes he had asked for. Instead the protesters had open season in filling in the blanks. He stressed the short term benefits, but his changes will pay off in future years in Wisconsin. A future Wisconsin legislature can change these laws again, but not without a big political reversal.

That’s what the unions understand. This will be hard to undue; In the future teachers will not be laid off or let go by seniority, but based on their performance, and as I understand it tenure for school teachers is gone.