MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A Wisconsin judge on Friday struck down nearly all of the state law championed by Gov. Scott Walker that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public workers.
Walker's administration immediately vowed to appeal, while unions, which have vigorously fought the law, declared victory. But what the ruling meant for existing public contracts was murky: Unions claimed the ruling meant they could negotiate again, but Walker could seek to keep the law in effect while the legal drama plays out.
The law, Walker's crowning achievement that made him a national conservative star, took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most workers and has been in effect for more than a year.
Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled that the law violates both the state and U.S. Constitution and is null and void. He said the law violated the constitutional rights of free speech and association.
The ruling applies to all local public workers affected by the law, including teachers and city and county government employees, but not those who work for the state. They were not a party to the lawsuit, which was brought by a Madison teachers union and a Milwaukee public workers union.
Walker issued a statement accusing the judge of being a "liberal activist" who "wants to go backwards and take away the lawmaking responsibilities of the legislature and the governor. We are confident that the state will ultimately prevail in the appeals process."
Wisconsin Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck said DOJ believes the law is constitutional.
Lester Pines, an attorney for Madison Teachers Inc., said the ruling means all local governments, including school districts, are now required to bargain with employees covered by unions, just as they did before the law passed. Pines predicted the case would ultimately be resolved by the state Supreme Court.
"What's going to happen in the interim is unknown," he said.
The proposal was introduced shortly after Walker took office in February last year. It resulted in a firestorm of opposition and led to huge protests at the state Capitol that lasted for weeks. All 14 Democratic state senators fled the state to Illinois for three weeks in an ultimately failed attempt to stop the law's passage from the Republican-controlled Legislature.
The law required public workers to pay more for their health insurance and pension benefits at the same time it took away their ability to collectively bargain over those issues. Walker argued the changes were needed to help state and local governments save money at a time Wisconsin faced a $3 billion budget shortfall.
"This is a huge victory for Wisconsin workers and a huge victory for free speech," said Democratic Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca. "This decision will help re-establish the balance between employees and their employers."
Anger over the law's passage led to an effort to recall Walker from office. More than 930,000 signatures were collected triggering the June recall election. Walker won and became the first governor in U.S. history to survive a recall.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.



Comments (22)
Add commentWell, well, well.
Do tell.
Don't get too happy screech,
That paid off liberal hack will be over ruled and the proper thing s will keep on happening.
How was your Halal lamb last night?
So let me get this straight. An activist judge waited a year
and a recall election that cost the state plenty, before making one of the most ignorant rulings one could think of. How exactly is Freedom of Speech affected by removing collective bargaining? And I looked all through the Constitution and saw no Freedom of Association.
It is interesting, though, that a judge brings up Freedom of Speech, but the White House wants to deny the same to a filmmaker!
O'bummer Law
at its best.
Denton
Can we do away with the over-sized visuals that do nothing but distract from the mindless, inane, vapid, leftist comments here?
And eyolf. Those dirty, political tricks were "living and breathing" tricks. When it's your ox being gored, you come up with all kinds of rationalizations. So, who gets to define what is dirty? And under what circumstances should we agree on what the constitution actually means?
trip.
So, who gets to define what is dirty?
eyolf, of course! He has put himself above all of us as the almost supreme being in charge. He defers to Obama only and will throw fire and brimstone at all that dare challenge his lofty place in life!
Fair...This looks decent...Fire and Brimstone...
Looks like a purchase opportunity...
Trip...
Yes, I'm the 3-(III)-dotted one...
My goal, is to share the internet and internet-enabled technology...and all it's wonders...
William Clinton enhanced it's adoption (No, Al Gore did not invent the internet, he helped evangelize it)...
Cheers...or...Cheerz...Dutch...
dutch
Fair enough. But how did Clinton enhance the adoption of the internet? The egos in Washington never cease to amaze me. In their minds, deciding not to add a law that regulates something means that they "invented" it in some way.
It is that same mindset that allows them to believe that any "success" on our part is only mythical, a fabrication in our own minds. And they alone deserve final credit for its existence, as if they created the revenues that built the infrastructure from their own persoanl "stash." Without their magnanimity, the rest of us could no longer function, even at a subsistence level. I guess this is the new meaning of "public service."
Speaking of internet technology, I wish the BDD could find a text-box that didn't keep hiding my cursor.
Governor Walker is not...
Striking similarity on the photo for the article, but He's no Uncle Sam...
At least
AT least when unions (teachers, miners, autoworkers, public employees, etc) give money to democrats (or whoever), we see it labelled as such ... but the Superpac ads we see on TV ... "American Action Network" and "House Majority" I've seen just in the past day .... have NO identifiying names on them. That should scare the pants off of everyone.
Zach
What are "American Action Network" and "House Majority" if they are not identifiying names? Confused in the heartland.
It's ok, it's not over
and my guess is that the judges ruling will be overturned. And rightly so. The liberals will try any trick in the book to win, including utilizing a worn out hack judge.
Eyolf
New Democratic paradigm:
Chris Christie looks out for the taxpayer....bad.
Scott Walker looks out for the taxpayer....bad.
Mitch Daniels looks out for the taxpayer....bad.
Rahm Emmanuel looks out for the taxpayer.....good.
BTW, have the Chicago teachers given anything up yet? Are they offering to give anything up? What does Emmanuel think they should give up? Is their contract with Chicago or with a school district?
eyolf
I'll attempt an answer at your question. Conservatives are concerned about preemptive strikes precisely because liberals no longer care about legal means of enacting laws. We have found that any law passed will eventually be challenged in the courts. And with a trumped up excuse about a "living" document, liberals can always find a judge who will see it their way.
It reminds us of the situation at the end of Judges. Every man did what was right in his own eyes. But, that's old covenant. Maybe the new covenant says differently(?).
Ey, you talk about dirty political tricks. What exactly do you
it was when the Dems ran away from their duty? Who was it who didn't want to play fair or not at all?
eyolf's statements
always end with a whining complaint of persecution of some kind. He always says someone is after vengeance of some kind or that they are stalking him and his ilk.
Being a perpetual victim seems like a dreary job to me.
Fair...Clicking toward 5 digits on the Points...
It's OK dutch,
I won't charge you union teacher rates to educate you on here.