State ex rel. Ozanne v. Fitzgerald
798 N.W.2d 436
Wis.2011Background
- The court reviews petitions arising from Dane County circuit court actions challenging Wisconsin Open Meetings Law violations linked to the 2011 Budget Repair Bill (Act 10).
- Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi voided Act 10 and issued orders restraining publication/implementation; the circuit court proceedings included factual findings about March 9, 2011 conference committee actions.
- The Supreme Court granted original jurisdiction in part and denied certification on the non-final order in Case 2011AP613-LV, while granting original jurisdiction in Case 2011AP765-W and denying motions for dismissal or supplemental briefing.
- The majority holds that the circuit court exceeded its authority by enjoining publication of an act and that publication duties rest with the Secretary of State; Act 10 itself is not invalidated on constitutional grounds as enacted.
- The opinion emphasizes separation of powers, citing Goodland v. Zimmerman to reject judicial interference with the legislative process and to uphold publication as a constitutional requirement.
- The court vacates the circuit court’s orders declaring Act 10 void and remands with guidance, noting that the Open Meetings Law is not a constitutionally mandated mechanism to void enacted legislation post-publication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may enjoin publication of an act to prevent it from becoming law | Ozanne argued Open Meetings violations justify voiding or enjoining publication. | State claimed separation of powers prohibits courts from halting the legislative process or enjoining publication. | No; courts cannot enjoin publication. |
| Whether the Open Meetings Law can void an act after passage | Ozanne/DA argued enforcement remedies extend to voiding acts violating the law. | Legislative actions may be enforced or voided only where constitutionally mandated and after publication. | Not upheld; the circuit court erred in voiding Act 10. |
| Whether the court should review these issues via original action or direct appeal | The state sought original action to resolve important constitutional questions urgently. | Traditional appellate pathways suffice; original action premature without a complete record. | Direct appeal preferred; original action used inappropriately. |
| Whether the legislature violated constitutional directives in enacting the Open Meetings Law or Act 10 | Open Meetings provisions codified constitutional openness obligations. | Open Meetings Law does not amend constitutional directives; statute cannot override constitutional mandates. | No constitutional violation found in the enacted process; Act not voided on these grounds. |
| What is the proper role of the courts in enforcing separation of powers and publication requirements | Courts must enforce constitutional open-government rights against legislative actions. | Courts should refrain from intruding into purely legislative procedural matters unless constitutionally required. | Courts must respect constitutionally dictated limits; the majority errs in overreaching. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodland v. Zimmerman, 243 Wis. 459 (Wis. 1943) (courts cannot enjoin publication or interfere with the legislative process)
- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. Wisconsin Dep't of Admin., 319 Wis. 2d 439 (Wis. 2009) (court may evaluate legislative compliance with procedural/constitutional directives)
- State ex rel. La Follette v. Stitt, 114 Wis. 2d 358 (Wis. 1983) (court will not review legislative conduct for non-constitutional procedural rules)
- Lynch v. Conta, 71 Wis. 2d 662 (Wis. 1976) (opens gate to consider constitutional directives in governing proceedings)
- Stitt, 114 Wis. 2d 358 (Wis. 1983) (limits judicial review of legislative procedure unless constitutional)