Posts
State Supreme Court Chief Justice Patience Roggensack and former Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, whose suit to regain her post was thrown out Friday by a federal judge.
A federal judge on Friday dismissed Shirley Abrahamson's lawsuit aimed at regaining her position as chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Abrahamson and five people who voted for her at her last election as chief justice sued shortly after voters this spring approved a constitutional amendment that allows the court to elect its chief. Previously, the job went to the justice with the most seniority. Abrahamson had held the post since 1996.
In his order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge James Peterson said it was not the federal court's place to decide Abrahamson's claim of interpreting the amendment to take effect only at the end of her current term in 2019.
"Constitutional provisions are drawn with broad strokes," Peterson wrote. "There is no requirement that a state, in restructuring its government or the powers and duties of its officials by means of a constitutional amendment, do so with super-clarity to protect the interests of the officials or voters whose interests might be impaired.
"Unless its actions are plainly unconstitutional, Wisconsin has the authority and autonomy to restructure its government without interference from the federal government."
Shortly after voters approved the amendment in April, the court voted to make Patience Roggensack the new chief justice.
The amendment passed April 7 with the support of more than 53% of voters. Abrahamson sued almost immediately, claiming the change, if implemented immediately, would violate due process.
Peterson denied requests for an injunction, and on April 29, the Government Accountability Board certified the results of the amendment vote. The court held its own vote for a new chief justice the same day. Roggensack, Annette Ziegler, David Prosser and Michael Gableman voted for Roggensack. Abrahamson and justices Ann Bradley and Patrick Crooks, who had objected to the vote, did not cast ballots.
Peterson, in granting summary judgment for the defendants — other justices and state officials — conceded that the new amendment came up for interpretation in a rapid and unusual way but said it ultimately was the Supreme Court's interpretation to make, and it did so by voting to elect a new chief.
"It would make little sense for this court to interpret the amendment, when it is already clear how Wisconsin will do so," Peterson wrote.
He also found that the position of chief justice amounts to a property interest protected by due process, but that Abrahamson got plenty, given the long process that culminated with voters ratifying the amendment.
Peterson said federal court review of state action "does not require perfection of expression or purity of motive. The amendment passes constitutional muster, even if implemented immediately to remove Abrahamson from the position of chief justice."
Full Story
Abrahamson and five people who voted for her at her last election as chief justice sued shortly after voters this spring approved a constitutional amendment that allows the court to elect its chief. Previously, the job went to the justice with the most seniority. Abrahamson had held the post since 1996.
In his order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge James Peterson said it was not the federal court's place to decide Abrahamson's claim of interpreting the amendment to take effect only at the end of her current term in 2019.
"Constitutional provisions are drawn with broad strokes," Peterson wrote. "There is no requirement that a state, in restructuring its government or the powers and duties of its officials by means of a constitutional amendment, do so with super-clarity to protect the interests of the officials or voters whose interests might be impaired.
"Unless its actions are plainly unconstitutional, Wisconsin has the authority and autonomy to restructure its government without interference from the federal government."
Shortly after voters approved the amendment in April, the court voted to make Patience Roggensack the new chief justice.
The amendment passed April 7 with the support of more than 53% of voters. Abrahamson sued almost immediately, claiming the change, if implemented immediately, would violate due process.
Peterson denied requests for an injunction, and on April 29, the Government Accountability Board certified the results of the amendment vote. The court held its own vote for a new chief justice the same day. Roggensack, Annette Ziegler, David Prosser and Michael Gableman voted for Roggensack. Abrahamson and justices Ann Bradley and Patrick Crooks, who had objected to the vote, did not cast ballots.
Peterson, in granting summary judgment for the defendants — other justices and state officials — conceded that the new amendment came up for interpretation in a rapid and unusual way but said it ultimately was the Supreme Court's interpretation to make, and it did so by voting to elect a new chief.
"It would make little sense for this court to interpret the amendment, when it is already clear how Wisconsin will do so," Peterson wrote.
He also found that the position of chief justice amounts to a property interest protected by due process, but that Abrahamson got plenty, given the long process that culminated with voters ratifying the amendment.
Peterson said federal court review of state action "does not require perfection of expression or purity of motive. The amendment passes constitutional muster, even if implemented immediately to remove Abrahamson from the position of chief justice."
Full Story
No comments:
Post a Comment