No 3/5ths Quorum Needed To Pass Wisconsin Union Bill?

But... I guess I'm confused because I thought we already knew this. I mean, yes, 3/5ths for fiscal measures; I don't see a law about collective bargaining being fiscal in nature. I'd be surprised if anyone argued it were.

I thought they were just avoiding doing this because they're either not serious or they're waiting for the unions and Democrats to take a bad step that embarrasses them, giving them temporary cover to do this.

But maybe I was wrong about this being widely accepted.

the Wisconsin Constitution requires a three-fifths quorum only for statutes that are fiscal, that is, statutes that actually appropriate money, impose taxes, create a debt, or release a claim owed to the state. Even then, these categories have consistently been interpreted in the most limited form conceivable.

For example, in State v. Stitt (1983), the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that the issuance of short-term debt was not debt under Article VIII of the constitution and thus was not “fiscal” so as to trigger the three-fifths quorum and roll call requirements.

The Wisconsin attorney general in 1971 gave a formal opinion to the legislature that a bill that changed collective bargaining rights substantially was not fiscal in nature and was not subject to the three-fifths super quorum provision. Because collective bargaining rights and that very statutory chapter (ch. 111) are at the heart of the proposed Senate Bill 11, the most controversial portions of the bill could be passed constitutionally with just a simple majority of elected members present, without a three-fifths quorum.

The whole bill can't be passed without the quorum, because much of it is plainly fiscal. But those parts can be separated out and the non-fiscal parts passed ASAP.

posted by Ace at 06:21 PM

| Access Comments