Gov. Evers doubts lawsuit challenging GOP Legislature will have broader consequences

 

MADISON, Wis. (CBS 58) -- In April, the state Supreme Court will hear Gov. Tony Evers’ lawsuit that accuses the GOP-controlled Legislature of abusing their powers by rejecting a series of conservation projects.

Evers is asking the court to invalidate state laws that give GOP-led committees broad authority. For example, the lawsuit targets Republicans on the powerful Joint Finance Committee who have blocked conservation projects under the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship land conservation program that were already approved through legislation or the state budget.

It's a case that some legal experts and conservatives have warned could have broader implications by invalidating a host of other committee actions, but Evers doubts that.

"I don't think so," Evers said last month during an interview with CBS 58. "Basically, the Joint Finance Committee is going against the will of the Legislature as a whole. I just don't believe it has far-reaching connections with other things."

On Friday, the court's liberal majority agreed to hear part of Evers' lawsuit that targets committee actions tied to conservation projects. It does not intend on addressing other aspects of the case at this time, such as ethical standards for state licensed social workers and therapists.

Evers' case also previously challenged a committee's vote to withhold pay raises to employees at the Universities of Wisconsin. However, that issue was resolved after the committee released the funds in part of an agreement reached between Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and the UW to cut diversity programs.

GOP leaders have described the lawsuit as a power grab and fear it could drastically reframe how state government has functioned for decades.

It's an argument that was echoed by some conservative justices.

In their dissent, Justice Brian Hagedorn called the case consequential and raised questions why the lawsuit wasn't filed in the lower courts first.

"We must remember that we are designed to be the court of last resort, not the court of first resort," Hagedorn wrote.

Justice Rebecca Bradley accused the majority of "needly engulfing this court in the morass of politics."

“By accepting only one of the issues raised by the Governor and holding the other two issues in abeyance, the majority refashions this court as the Governor’s avenue for imposing policy changes without the consent of the governed,” Bradely wrote. “When the majority’s political allies say jump, the new majority responds: ‘How high?’”

Oral arguments are scheduled for April 17.