Who decides what is law?

We seem, yet again, to be at an impasse in Wisconsin. I don't know who is in charge of determining when a bill is actually law, but I'm hoping that someone knows. My summary from last night was "The Legislative Reference Bureau has published WI Act 10. Fitzgerald encouraged them. DOJ says that since La Follette didn't tell them to do it, the terms of the restraining order were not broken. There's dispute about who needs to publish it for it to actually be law, vs just published?"

On Friday afternoon (3/25), the Legislative Reference Bureau published Wisconsin Act 10, at http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/acts/11Act10.pdf. They are, apparently, administratively required to publish all bills within 10 business days of approval.

At the same time, however, Secretary of State Doug La Follette is under a restraining order from a Dane County circuit judge (in response to a challenge based on the Open Meetings law by Dane County DA Ismael Ozanne) not to publish the bil. The restraining order targeted La Follette in part because legislators have immunity while they are in session. Several Democrats, have, apparently waived this immunity, but that's a digression.  After the restraining order was issued, La Follette sent this letter to the LRB on March 18, telling them not to take further action on the bill due to the order: http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0325/0324secofstate.pdf

Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca was very active last night:

He has submitted an Open Records Request to the LRB, requesting correspondence between the LRB and the Governor's office, Scott Fitzgerald, Jeff Fitzgerald, and the Senate & Assembly Majority Leaders, regarding Act 10, since it's passage on March 10th: http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0325/0325barcaopenrecords.pdf. This is not a random request: Scott Fitzgerald has said that he did sent a letter to the LRB asking if they could publish Act 10: http://budget.wispolitics.com/2011/03/scott-fitzgerald-sent-lrb-letter.html

Also, Barca has published an email from the Legislative Council, which says that it is the understanding of the LRB that a law does not take effect until it is published by the Secretary of State: http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0325/0325barcaatty.pdf  (A non-PDF summary is at http://budget.wispolitics.com/2011/03/leg-council-e-mail-says-lrb-believes.html)


And, of course, Barca made a statement: http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0325/0325barcalrbaction.pdf

Meanwhile, in an attempt to clarify, the Department of Justice has issued a statement, which I find frustratingly unhelpful: http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0325/0325cosh.pdf. They seem to be saying agreeing that the LRB can publish the Act without direction from La Follette (though they stop short of saying that the LRB is *required* to) and thus La Follette has not violated the restraining order. However, they also seem to be saying that publication by the LRB makes it law.  A non-PDF version is at http://budget.wispolitics.com/2011/03/doj-lawful-publication-didnt-violate.html. 


It seems that many sources are in agreement that La Follette did not violate the restraining order, and that the LRB can publish the Act. However, there is still disagreement over whether publication by the LRB puts it into effect as law, or whether action by the Secretary of State is required. 
The news media is also attempting to figure this out. Most notable to me is that all the stories about this are leading with lines about the twists and turns, the shocking new actions, etc. LRB thinks this doesn't mean the bill is law, Fitzgerald thinks it does: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118677754.html. And this opens up lots of other lawsuits that had to wait until it was law (and apparently, there are other legal experts who believe that publication by the LRB may put the law into effect): http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_f22629e6-572a-11e0-ab2f-001cc4c002e0.html

Dane County DA Ismael Ozanne, the plaintiff in the Open Meetings suit, says the LRB action is not of legal significance: http://budget.wispolitics.com/2011/03/dane-county-da-lrbs-actions-of-no-legal.html. However, he also seems to be implying that the defendant (La Follette) was implicated in the publication, when everyone else seems agreed that this was not the case.


The judge on-call for emergencies has declined to hear the case this morning, saying that there are already hearings set with Judge Sumi, who issued the restraining order: http://budget.wispolitics.com/2011/03/judge-declines-to-hold-hearing-on-lrb.html


And, even the New York Times is covering this, again, with no resolution: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/us/26wisconsin.html

More updates as I have them; in the meantime, I don't even have any analysis to provide.