Author

Janie Valentine

Janie Valentine is a staff writer at Ballotpedia. Contact us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Protasiewicz, Kelly advance to April general election for Wisconsin Supreme Court

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Janet Protasiewicz and former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly advanced from the nonpartisan primary for Wisconsin Supreme Court on Feb. 21, 2023, defeating Waukesha County Circuit Judge Jennifer Dorow and Dane County Circuit Judge Everett Mitchell. With 99% of votes counted, Protasiewicz had received 46.4% of the vote, and Kelly had received 24.2%. Dorow and Mitchell received 21.9% and 7.5%, respectively.

The April 4 general election will determine who will succeed Justice Patience Roggensack, whose term will expire in July 2023, and who did not run for re-election.

While supreme court elections are officially nonpartisan, Protasiewicz and Mitchell ran as liberal candidates in the primary, while Kelly and Dorow ran as conservatives. The current court is considered to have a 4-3 conservative majority. With Roggensack—a member of the court’s conservative majority—retiring, the general election will determine the ideological control of the court.

Protasiewicz was first elected to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2014. Protasiewicz said when she announced her campaign, “We must restore confidence that judges aren’t just trying to reach their favored outcomes, but actually applying the law and the constitution. I’m running to restore integrity to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and get politics out of the courtroom.” Justice Rebecca Dallet endorsed Protasiewicz in May 2022, and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley endorsed Protasiewicz in February 2023. Justice Jill Karofsky endorsed Protasiewicz on the evening of the primary.

Kelly previously served on the supreme court from 2016—when Gov. Scott Walker (R) appointed him to fill a vacancy—to 2020. Kelly said, “If an activist were to win next April, Wisconsin’s public policy would be imposed by four lawyers sitting in Madison instead of being adopted through our constitutional processes. I won’t let that happen on my watch.” Justice Rebecca Bradley endorsed Kelly in November 2022.

Dorow joined the Waukesha County Circuit Court in 2012 after being appointed by Walker. Dorow said, “We must replace Justice Roggensack with a judicial conservative who will fairly and faithfully apply the law as written to the facts of the cases that come before the court.” Roggensack endorsed Dorow in January 2023.

Mitchell, who was first elected to the Dane County Circuit Court in 2016, said, “[P]reserving the integrity and independence of the court has never been more important. … Wisconsinites deserve a justice who has the highest respect for the Wisconsin Constitution and is committed to ensuring that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is an instrument of balance and justice rather than partisan divide.” Former Justice Louis Butler endorsed Mitchell in June 2022.

Wisconsin reporters and political commentators have identified abortion policy, election administration, and legislative redistricting as some of the legal issues the court could address following the election. The Wisconsin State Journal‘s Alexander Shur wrote in January 2023, “With the court’s ideological balance up for grabs, the candidate elected in April will play a decisive role in upcoming cases that may include the legality of Wisconsin’s near-complete 1849 abortion ban, fights over legislative redistricting and the power of the executive branch in administering laws.” Wisconsin has a divided government where neither party holds a trifecta. The governor is Democrat Tony Evers, while the Republican Party controls both chambers of the state legislature.

According to AdImpact Politics, candidates and satellite groups spent more than $9 million on campaign ads during the primary.

Heading into the 2020 election, the court had a 5-2 conservative majority. In that election, Karofsky defeated Kelly 55.2% to 44.7%.



Wisconsin Supreme Court primary less than three weeks away

The top two vote-getters in the Feb. 21 nonpartisan primary for Wisconsin Supreme Court will advance to a general election on April 4. Waukesha County Circuit Judge Jennifer Dorow, former Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly, Dane County Circuit Judge Everett Mitchell, and Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Janet Protasiewicz are running.

Justice Patience Roggensack, whose term will expire in July, is not running for re-election.

While supreme court elections are officially nonpartisan, the court is considered to have a 4-3 conservative majority. With Roggensack—a member of the court’s conservative majority—retiring, this election will determine the ideological control of the court. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel‘s Corrinne Hess, “[Mitchell and Protasiewicz] are running as liberal candidates. Kelly and Dorow are running as conservative candidates.”

Dorow joined the Waukesha County Circuit Court in 2012 after being appointed by Gov. Scott Walker (R). In her campaign announcement, Dorow said, “We must replace Justice Roggensack with a judicial conservative who will fairly and faithfully apply the law as written to the facts of the cases that come before the court.” Roggensack endorsed Dorow in January 2023.

Kelly previously served on the supreme court from 2016—when Walker appointed him to fill a vacancy—to 2020. Kelly said, “If an activist were to win next April, Wisconsin’s public policy would be imposed by four lawyers sitting in Madison instead of being adopted through our constitutional processes. I won’t let that happen on my watch.” Justice Rebecca Bradley endorsed Kelly in November 2022.

Mitchell, who was first elected to the Dane County Circuit Court in 2016, said, “[P]reserving the integrity and independence of the court has never been more important. … Wisconsinites deserve a justice who has the highest respect for the Wisconsin Constitution and is committed to ensuring that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is an instrument of balance and justice rather than partisan divide.” Former Justice Louis Butler endorsed Mitchell in June 2022.

Protasiewicz was first elected to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2014. Protasiewicz said, “We must restore confidence that judges aren’t just trying to reach their favored outcomes, but actually applying the law and the constitution. I’m running to restore integrity to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and get politics out of the courtroom.” Justice Rebecca Dallet endorsed Protasiewicz in May 2022.

Wisconsin reporters and political commentators have identified abortion policy, election administration, and legislative redistricting as some of the legal issues the court could address following the election. According to the Wisconsin State Journal‘s Alexander Shur, “With the court’s ideological balance up for grabs, the candidate elected in April will play a decisive role in upcoming cases that may include the legality of Wisconsin’s near-complete 1849 abortion ban, fights over legislative redistricting and the power of the executive branch in administering laws.” Wisconsin has a divided government where neither party holds a trifecta. The governor is Democrat Tony Evers, while the Republican Party controls both chambers of the state legislature.

University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse political analyst Anthony Chergosky said in November 2022 that the entrance of a fourth candidate “injected [the race] with a lot of unpredictability,” noting the possibility of two conservative or two liberal candidates advancing to the general election. WKOW TV Capitol Bureau Chief A.J. Bayatpour and Cap Times Capitol Bureau Chief Jessie Opoien each said in January 2023 that they did not think it was likely that two conservative or two liberal candidates would advance.

Heading into the 2020 election, the court had a 5-2 conservative majority. In that election, liberal Jill Karofsky defeated Kelly 55.2% to 44.7%.

Wisconsin is one of two states holding elections for state supreme court in 2023.



Union Station: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) says he favors legislation prohibiting paycheck deductions for teachers union dues

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is bs-rp6MLFjqO8mt4iGn-WA5JPVpi4m3V7LkIeycnbynJzxZaPxnJMGE23ln-3ELE3MFJn9_8jLEEarmzbZ-oUdUje7-pFxZ0w57_zk1BdYxZ2GP_n_bDHxN8H1J_7qorQMjoA1IQ1MNK8UZhGA

Note: The next edition of Union Station will be on Jan. 6, 2023. Until then, happy holidays!

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) says he favors legislation prohibiting paycheck deductions for teachers union dues

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) spoke in favor of legislation that would prohibit paycheck deductions for teachers union dues in a speech in Orlando on Dec. 19. 

DeSantis’ statements 

The Friends of Ron DeSantis political committee sponsored an event titled “The Freedom Blueprint: DeSantis Education Agenda School Board Retreat” in Orlando on Dec. 19. While addressing retreat participants—including school board members and potential candidates—DeSantis discussed a proposal to prohibit paycheck deductions for teachers union dues. 

DeSantis said, “[S]o what we want to do … is do a paycheck protection legislation which says …  you do not have to join [a] teachers union, but if you do … the government [doesn’t] want to play a role in deducting anybody’s money. So you write a check … every month for the dues and you do it that way. And that maximizes freedom to choose, and I think it’ll be a more accurate reflection of who actually wants to be a part of this.” He also said this legislation would create “more of a guarantee that that money is going to actually go to those teachers” and not be “frittered away by interest groups who get involved into the school system.” He said, “I think those will be really really positive reforms[.] … I think we’re going to get big, big support in the legislature.”

According to the News Service of Florida, “The Legislature has considered similar proposals since at least 2011, but they have not passed. … The proposals have drawn fierce opposition from unions and Democrats, as such changes could make it harder for unions to get funded.”

Florida’s next legislative session begins in March 2023. A union dues bill has not yet been filed.

Prior legislation

One previous version of the proposal, Republican-sponsored HB 1197, passed the Florida House of Representatives in March 2022 but died in the Senate Rules Committee later that month. 

The bill included the following language: “Except as authorized in subsection (2), an employee organization that has been certified as a bargaining agent may not have its dues and uniform assessments deducted and collected by the employer from the salaries of those employees in the unit. Public employees may pay their dues and uniform assessments directly to the employee organization that has been certified as their bargaining agent.” 

The bill, which was not specific to teachers unions, made exceptions for unions representing law enforcement officers, correctional officers, and firefighters. It also would have required public employees intending to join a union to sign an authorization form with language specified in the legislation. 

To read more about the bill in an earlier edition of Union Station, click here

Perspectives

Support

  • Building Education for Students Together executive director Laura Zorc said, “If teachers had to write the check directly to the union they will be more likely to question every month if it’s really worth the money. … Once forced with this decision many will realize it’s a waste of money and pocket their own hard earned cash.”
  • Americans for Fair Treatment interim CEO Elisabeth Messenger said, “Automatic dues deduction uses government resources to make it easier for unions to recruit and retain members and creates confusion for workers who may think their workplace union is endorsed by their employer or that membership is required by their employer. … In signing this legislation, Governor DeSantis would be taking a huge step in protecting teachers’ private information and ensuring the Florida state government is not a middleman in funding partisan politics.”

Opposition

  • The Florida Education Association said, “The past few weeks, FEA has been asking educators to fill out a wishlist with what they’re hopeful for in 2023. Common themes have been less testing, more resources and support, more stability — all things that would help us better serve our students and alleviate the teacher and staff shortage. Gov. DeSantis, however, appears to prioritize politics. Only a Grinch would attack teachers’ freedom to join in [sic] union to advocate for our students and schools.”
  • First-grade teacher Shari Gewanter said, “This is a ridiculous diversion away from what really needs to happen, which is to properly fund our public schools to attract and retain teachers into this profession.”
  • Middle school teacher and local union treasurer Sandra Meador said, “I’m more concerned with keeping the teachers that I mentor that are so good and deserve a future and education. … Teaching is a wonderful profession. And it doesn’t need to turn into a political battle.” 

What we’re reading

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 150 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

We’ll be back in January with 2023 legislation.

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s) 

Recent legislative actions

No public-sector union bills saw activity this week.


Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations.



Former justice, three circuit court judges vying for open seat on Wisconsin Supreme Court

Jennifer Dorow, Daniel Kelly, Everett Mitchell, and Janet Protasiewicz are running in the nonpartisan primary for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Feb. 21, 2023. The filing deadline is Jan. 3. A nonpartisan general election will be held on April 4.

Justice Patience Roggensack’s term will expire on July 31, 2023. Roggensack is not running for re-election.

While supreme court elections are officially nonpartisan, the court is considered to have a 4-3 conservative majority. With Roggensack—a member of the court’s conservative majority—retiring, this election will determine the ideological control of the court. In 2020, liberals gained a seat when Jill Karofsky defeated then-Justice Daniel Kelly—who Gov. Scott Walker (R) appointed to the court—55.2% to 44.7%.

Dorow joined the Waukesha County Circuit Court in 2012 after being appointed by Walker. In her campaign announcement, Dorow said, “We must replace Justice Roggensack with a judicial conservative who will fairly and faithfully apply the law as written to the facts of the cases that come before the court.”

Kelly, who previously served on the supreme court from 2016 to 2020, said, “If an activist were to win next April, Wisconsin’s public policy would be imposed by four lawyers sitting in Madison instead of being adopted through our constitutional processes. I won’t let that happen on my watch.”

Mitchell, who was first elected to the Dane County Circuit Court in 2016, said, “[P]reserving the integrity and independence of the court has never been more important. … Wisconsinites deserve a justice who has the highest respect for the Wisconsin Constitution and is committed to ensuring that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is an instrument of balance and justice rather than partisan divide.”

Protasiewicz was first elected to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2014. Protasiewicz said, “We must restore confidence that judges aren’t just trying to reach their favored outcomes, but actually applying the law and the constitution. I’m running to restore integrity to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and get politics out of the courtroom.”

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel‘s Corrinne Hess, “[Mitchell and Protasiewicz] are running as liberal candidates. Kelly and Dorow are running as conservative candidates.”

University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse political analyst Anthony Chergosky said after Dorow entered the race, “We could have a primary election where two liberal justices emerge as the top two. We could have a primary election where two conservative justices emerge as the top two. … We are experiencing a campaign that just got injected with a lot of unpredictability.”

Reporters have identified abortion policy, election administration, and legislative redistricting as some of the contentious issues the court could address following the election.

Wisconsin has a divided government where neither party holds a trifecta. The governor is Democrat Tony Evers, while the Republican Party controls both chambers of the state legislature.

Wisconsin is one of two states holding elections for state supreme court in 2023.



Four top-100 mayoral offices changed party control in 2022

Twenty-four of the 100 largest U.S. cities by population held mayoral elections in 2022. Mayoral offices changed partisan control in four of those races, resulting in no net change in the number of offices held by Republicans and Democrats. Once all mayors elected in 2022 are sworn in, Democrats will hold 62 top-100 mayoral offices, Republicans will hold 26, independents will hold three, and nonpartisan mayors will hold seven. One current mayor and one mayor-elect have not responded to Ballotpedia’s inquiries about their partisan affiliation.

Mayoral offices in the following cities flipped as a result of the 2022 elections:

  • In Anaheim, California, Ashleigh Aitken (D) defeated Acting Mayor Trevor O’Neil (R) and two other candidates on Nov. 8. Former mayor Harry Sidhu (R) resigned in May 2022.
  • In Chula Vista, California, City Councilman John McCann (R) defeated Ammar Campa-Najjar (D) in the election to succeed term-limited mayor Mary Salas (D) on Nov. 8.
  • In Henderson, Nevada, Michelle Romero (R) was elected to succeed incumbent Debra March (D), who ran for lieutenant governor of Nevada. Romero won the June 14 primary outright with 76% of the vote.
  • In North Las Vegas, Nevada, City Councilwoman Pamela Goynes-Brown (D) defeated state Sen. Patricia Spearman (D) in the election to succeed outgoing mayor John J. Lee (R) on Nov. 8. Lee was first elected mayor in 2013 as a Democrat and switched parties in 2021.

In Laredo, Texas, Victor Treviño defeated Mercurio Martinez III in the Dec. 17 runoff to succeed outgoing mayor Pete Saenz (I). Ballotpedia has not been able to determine Treviño’s partisan affiliation.

In cities where mayoral elections are nonpartisan, Ballotpedia uses one or more of the following sources to identify each officeholder’s partisan affiliation: (1) direct communication from the officeholder, (2) current or previous candidacy for partisan office, or (3) identification of partisan affiliation by multiple media outlets.



Union Station: Federal lawsuits related to public-sector unions: 2022 roundup

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is bs-rp6MLFjqO8mt4iGn-WA5JPVpi4m3V7LkIeycnbynJzxZaPxnJMGE23ln-3ELE3MFJn9_8jLEEarmzbZ-oUdUje7-pFxZ0w57_zk1BdYxZ2GP_n_bDHxN8H1J_7qorQMjoA1IQ1MNK8UZhGA

Federal lawsuits related to public-sector unions: 2022 roundup

Since late 2019, Ballotpedia has tracked close to 200 federal lawsuits related to public-sector unions. Today, we’ll take a look at the state of litigation at the end of 2022 and highlight a selection of cases with recent activity in the district and circuit courts.

Background 

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME that public-sector unions may not require non-member employees to pay agency fees covering the costs of non-political union activities, overturning precedent established in 1977. Most of the lawsuits we’ve tracked since Janus have asked one or more of the following questions: 

  • Whether public-sector unions can be held liable for refunding agency fees paid before Janus
  • Whether public-sector unions may continue to collect union dues from an employee who leaves the union if there is a pre-existing agreement that membership or dues authorization may only be revoked during a certain window; 
  • Whether exclusive bargaining representation laws violate non-union members’ First Amendment rights; 
  • Whether mandatory bar association dues should be reconsidered in light of Janus.

We’re also tracking lawsuits in which public-sector unions challenge state or federal laws and policies. 

What we’ve seen

The map below shows the cases we’re tracking by the U.S. district court in which they originated. The three districts with the highest number of cases are the Middle District of Pennsylvania (18 cases), the Central District of California (16 cases), and the District of Oregon (15 cases). 

Here’s the breakdown by circuit and case status (pending cases are divided by court level, and cases that have been dismissed, settled, or otherwise resolved are counted together):

Finally, this chart shows the cases we’ve tracked since 2019 by the year each case was originally filed:

Case highlights

Wilson v. Lucas County Department of Job and Family Services

  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
    • Filed: Dec. 8, 2022 (Case number: 3:22-cv-02221)

Three employees of the Lucas County, Ohio, Department of Job and Family Services sued their employer and the union representing department employees, AFSCME Council 8. The plaintiffs asked the court to “[i]ssue a declaratory judgment that Defendants violate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to free speech and association, as secured against state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by seizing union payments from them without their consent and by maintaining [an indemnity clause in the collective bargaining agreement].” Attorneys from The Buckeye Institute and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation represent the plaintiffs. 

Kumpf v. New York State United Teachers 

  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
    • Filed: April 29, 2022 (Case number: 1:22-cv-00402)
    • Judgment: Nov. 22, 2022

Plaintiff Jennifer Kumpf, a second-grade teacher, sued the Buffalo City School District, Buffalo Teachers Federation, and New York State United Teachers, asking the court to declare that “Defendants’ actions in forcing Plaintiff, as a nonmember, to provide past and ongoing financial support to Defendant Unions  … violated and violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution,” and that “any taking and/or retention of union dues or fees from Plaintiff after her resignation of membership in Defendant Unions and without proper constitutional notice and waiver violates her rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.” Attorneys from The Fairness Center represented Kumpf. 

On Nov. 22, 2022, U.S. District Judge Brenda K. Sannes ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing Kumpf’s lawsuit. Sannes wrote that “[Kumpf’s] argument that Defendants’ failure to obtain a constitutional waiver once she resigned her union membership before they could continue to deduct dues fails to state a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment” and that “[Kumpf failed] to plausibly allege that Defendant District, in adhering to the signed authorization’s terms deprived [Kumpf] of a protected liberty or property interest in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Ramon Baro v. Lake County Federation of Teachers Local 504

  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
    • Filed: April 3, 2020 (Case number: 1:20-cv-02126)
    • Judgment: March 28, 2022
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    • Appealed: April 28, 2022 (Case number: 22-1722)
    • Oral argument: Dec. 6, 2022

Plaintiff Ariadna Ramon Baro, an employee of the Waukegan Community Unit School District #60, sued the school district and Lake County Federation of Teachers Local 504, the exclusive representative for district employees. Ramon Baro asked the court to “[d]eclare that her signing of a union card cannot provide a basis for her affirmative consent to waive her First Amendment rights upheld in Janus because such authorization was given without knowing and intelligent waiver of her First Amendment rights” and to “[d]eclare that the Union and the District may not withhold union dues or fees from public workers unless those workers have been informed, and thus have knowledge of their right not to pay dues or fees to a union.” Attorneys from the Liberty Justice Center represent Ramon Baro. 

On March 28, 2022, Judge John F. Kness ruled in favor of the defendants. Kness wrote, “Plaintiff may now regret her earlier decision to join the Union, but that does not render her knowing and voluntary choice nonconsensual. Unlike the proscribed conduct by Janus’ employer, the District’s deductions of dues from Plaintiff’s earnings were made in compliance with Plaintiff’s explicit written instructions. … In the light of Plaintiff’s voluntary agreement to pay union dues, and in the absence of any legitimate claim of compulsion, Plaintiff has failed to state a First Amendment claim against Defendants.” 

Ramon Baro appealed to the Seventh Circuit on April 28, 2022. The oral argument for this case was held on Dec. 6, 2022. Click here for audio. 

What we’re reading

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 150 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s) 

Recent legislative actions

No public-sector union bills saw activity this week.


Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations.



Union Station: Missouri Court of Appeals upholds trial court ruling ordering state to resume payroll deductions for Department of Corrections employees

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is bs-rp6MLFjqO8mt4iGn-WA5JPVpi4m3V7LkIeycnbynJzxZaPxnJMGE23ln-3ELE3MFJn9_8jLEEarmzbZ-oUdUje7-pFxZ0w57_zk1BdYxZ2GP_n_bDHxN8H1J_7qorQMjoA1IQ1MNK8UZhGA

Missouri Court of Appeals upholds trial court ruling ordering state to resume payroll deductions for Department of Corrections employees

On Dec. 6, 2022, a three-judge panel of the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals upheld a September 2021 ruling by Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon Edward Beetem in which Beetem ordered the Missouri Office of Administration to resume payroll deductions for Department of Corrections employees. The Office of Administration issued rules in 2019 and 2020 suspending and denying, respectively, payroll deductions for the Missouri Corrections Officers Association.

Background

The Missouri Corrections Officers Association (MOCOA) and two corrections officers filed a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Missouri Office of Administration in the Cole County Circuit Court on March 24, 2020. 

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Kurt Erickson, “The state said it wouldn’t collect dues because the workers were no longer in a union since the contract had expired. The state also argued it was not recognizing the organization because it allowed about 100 retirees to be members.” 

On Sept. 27, 2021, Judge Jon Edward Beetem ordered the Office of Administration to “[resume] payroll deductions for any current employees who were having MOCOA dues deducted from their pay right before December 9, 2019, pursuant to the authorizations they had signed …” and to “accept new MOCOA dues deduction authorizations signed by employees in the future, and begin and continue deductions for those employees, pursuant to their authorizations.” 

The Office of Administration defendants appealed to the Western District Court of Appeals on Oct. 28, 2021. The Western District is the largest of three court of appeals districts. The court of appeals, Missouri’s intermediate appellate court, hears appeals from the state’s circuit courts. 

The oral argument for this case was held on Nov. 2, 2022. 

About the ruling

Chief Judge Gary D. Witt, Judge Mark D. Pfeiffer, and Judge Thomas N. Chapman affirmed Beetem’s ruling on Dec. 6, 2022. Witt wrote:

“The trial court … [found] that the Emergency Rule and Final Rule (collectively, “Rules”) issued by [the Missouri Office of Administration (“OA”)] were unconstitutional because they infringed on [Missouri Corrections Officers Association, Inc. (“MOCOA”)]’s constitutional rights to organize and to bargain collectively, freedoms of speech and association, and equal protection. The trial court also found that OA’s decisions in December 2019 to suspend payroll deduction and in March 2020 to deny payroll deductions for MOCOA were unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. … We affirm the judgment of the trial court. …

“The record shows that OA’s interpretation of the regulations and its stated reasons for amending the regulations was a moving target, supporting the trial court’s determination that its rationale was pretextual and its decision to suspend MOCOA’s payroll dues deductions applied the regulation in an arbitrary and capricious manner. …

“The practical result of the Rule is to give OA an unfair advantage in the negotiations by starving the labor union for dues funding during the contract negotiations process. OA has failed to meet its burden of showing that its action was narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. 

“The Rules allowed employee associations that do not collectively bargain to benefit from payroll deduction, but prohibits employee associations that do collectively bargain from receiving the benefits of payroll deduction. And because the right to organize and to bargain collectively is a fundamental right protected by the Missouri constitution, laws that discriminate on the basis of the exercise of that right are subject to strict scrutiny.”

According to the Missouri Independent’s Rudi Keller, “The union did not seek, nor was it awarded, any tax money to replace the funds lost while dues have not been withheld.” 

A spokesman for the Missouri attorney general’s office said the state was “evaluating the decision and determining next steps.” Cases decided by the Western District Court of Appeals may be appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. 

Gov. Jay Nixon (D) appointed Witt and Pfeiffer to the court. Gov. Mike Parson (R) appointed Chapman. Court of appeals judges are selected through the Missouri Nonpartisan Selection of Judges Court Plan.

What we’re reading

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 150 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s) 

Recent legislative actions

No public-sector union bills saw activity this week.


Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations.



Union Station: Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission issues decision on collective bargaining for UW Health nurses

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is bs-rp6MLFjqO8mt4iGn-WA5JPVpi4m3V7LkIeycnbynJzxZaPxnJMGE23ln-3ELE3MFJn9_8jLEEarmzbZ-oUdUje7-pFxZ0w57_zk1BdYxZ2GP_n_bDHxN8H1J_7qorQMjoA1IQ1MNK8UZhGA

Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission issues decision on collective bargaining for UW Health nurses 

The Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) ruled on Nov. 25 that the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority (UW Health) is not legally required to collectively bargain with UW Nurses United, a chapter of SEIU Healthcare Wisconsin.  

Background

SEIU Healthcare Wisconsin and UW Health filed a joint petition on Sept. 20, 2022, asking the commission for a declaratory ruling on whether Wisconsin Statutes chapter 111, subchapter 1—called the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act—applied to UW Health and its employees.

The Peace Act says, “Employees shall have the right of self-organization and the right to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in lawful, concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” 

According to the Wisconsin Examiner’s Erik Gunn, SEIU lawyers “[contended] that UW Health is covered by the Peace Act and as such its employees have full collective bargaining rights,” while UW Health attorneys argued the Peace Act no longer applied to UW Health after former Gov. Scott Walker (R) signed 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 into law. Act 10 limited collective bargaining rights for public sector workers.

The joint petition was part of an agreement between the parties to call off a planned nurses’ strike. To read more about the agreement in an earlier edition of Union Station, click here

WERC ruling 

WERC issued its decision on Nov. 25, finding that the Peace Act does not apply to UW Health employees. The commission’s decision said:

“The parties disagree as to whether statutory history is always to be considered when seeking the ‘plain meaning’ of a statute. SEIU asserts that it is only appropriate to look at statutory history if it confirms the ‘plain meaning’ derived from an analysis of the statutory language itself. UWHCA argues that statutory history is always to be considered. The Commission concludes that UWHCA is correct. …

“While the current version of Wis. Stat. § 111.02(7)1 is certainly susceptible to the interpretation given it by SEIU, the statutory history summarized in Findings of Fact 3 – 6 provides clear determinative evidence of the Wisconsin Legislature’s intent. Act 10’s specific deletion of all statutory references related to the UWHCA as a Peace Act ‘employer’ clearly establishes that the UWHCA is not an ‘employer’ within the plain meaning of Wis. Stat. §111.02(7). Contrary to the argument of SEIU, there are no plausible alternative explanations for the legislative deletions reflected in Act 10. 

“Given the foregoing, the Commission declares that the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act, Wis. Stat. ch. 111, subch. 1 (WEPA) does not apply to the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority and its employees and their chosen representatives, if any.”

The Cap Times’ Jessie Opoien reported that it “remains unresolved … whether UW Health can voluntarily recognize the union.”

What comes next

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Jessica Van Egeren, “Since a ruling by the commission is not the same as a ruling by the courts, neither side ever viewed a decision by WERC as the final answer.” Representatives for both parties have said that they plan to appeal the commission’s decision.

UW Health says it will appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Press secretary Emily Kumlien said, “WERC’s decision is an important first step toward obtaining definitive answers from the Wisconsin legal system on both the question WERC addressed and whether UW Health could voluntarily recognize a union and bargain collectively. … We believe that an expedited decision on these important legal issues will best allow us to move forward.” 

UW Health nurses Mary Jorgensen, Colin Gillis, and Sarah Langland said, “We will be appealing WERC’s decision through the courts and petitioning for an election with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). … This is the first round in a multi-step process for nurses achieving collective bargaining rights, either through the courts, the NLRB, or through voluntary recognition by UW Health.” 

Jorgensen, Gillis and Langland also said, “Hundreds of us have already signed up to become union members and we are meeting directly with the administration to raise critical issues and create real solutions. … The opinion by the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) does not impact our union membership or the Meet and Discuss process at UW Health.”

What we’re reading

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 150 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s) 

Recent legislative actions

No public-sector union bills saw activity this week.


Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations.



Incumbent Doug La Follette (D) elected to 12th term as Wisconsin secretary of state

Incumbent Doug La Follette (D) defeated Amy Loudenbeck (R), Neil Harmon (L), and Sharyl McFarland (G) in the election for Wisconsin secretary of state on Nov. 8, 2022. County canvass results published by the Wisconsin Elections Commission on Nov. 21 showed that La Follette had received 7,442 votes more than Loudenbeck, a 0.3 percentage point margin. Loudenbeck did not request a recount—an option due to the close margin—and conceded on Nov. 21.

La Follette’s new term beginning in 2023 will be his 12th term in office.

Duties of the Wisconsin secretary of state include recording the official acts of the governor and the executive department, compiling and keeping laws and resolutions adopted by the legislature, having custody of the state’s records, and authenticating certain documents. According to Wisconsin Public Radio’s Shawn Johnson, “[M]ost of the office’s responsibilities have been outsourced to other state agencies that answer to the governor.”

The responsibilities of the office were a central issue in this race, particularly concerning election administration. Wisconsin is one of five states where the secretary of state has no election-related duties. The legislature transferred election administration responsibilities from the secretary of state to a nonpartisan elections board in 1974. Since 2016, the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission has overseen the state’s election administration. La Follette and Loudenbeck disagreed about whether the secretary of state should have a role in the state’s election system.

La Follette was first elected secretary of state in 1974 and served one term before an unsuccessful run for lieutenant governor in 1978. He was elected secretary of state a second time in 1982 and has since served 10 consecutive terms. La Follette said that maintaining the state’s independent election system was “[t]he critical issue in this campaign for Secretary of State.” He said, “The state of Wisconsin has been a pivotal battleground in several of the past presidential elections. … For this reason, it’s more important than ever that we elect a Secretary of State that will defend our democracy over party. As America’s longest-serving incumbent Secretary of State, I have the track record and deep well of experience to do it.” La Follette also said he wanted the secretary of state’s office to again have responsibility for business-related functions.

Loudenbeck was first elected to represent District 31 in the Wisconsin State Assembly in 2010. Her campaign website stated, “The Secretary of State’s office has fallen into disrepair and disfavor thanks to the neglect of Democrat Doug La Follette who has been in that office for forty-four years.” Loudenbeck said, “[M]y goal would be to modernize the office, to be responsive to requests for authentication of documents, to be a billion dollar board member for the Board of Commissioners of Public Lands and actively engage in the role that currently exists for the secretary of state that I see as being neglected right now.” Loudenbeck said she would advocate for abolishing the Wisconsin Elections Commission and moving election administration duties such as training, guidance, voter roll maintenance, and voter outreach to the secretary of state’s office.

In 2018, Democrats gained a state government triplex in Wisconsin when Democratic candidates defeated Republican incumbents in the elections for governor and attorney general, and La Follette was re-elected. All three offices were up for election again in 2022, and each Democratic incumbent was re-elected.

This was one of 27 secretary of state elections held in 2022.



Union Station: Checking in on public-sector union cases appealed to the Supreme Court

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is bs-rp6MLFjqO8mt4iGn-WA5JPVpi4m3V7LkIeycnbynJzxZaPxnJMGE23ln-3ELE3MFJn9_8jLEEarmzbZ-oUdUje7-pFxZ0w57_zk1BdYxZ2GP_n_bDHxN8H1J_7qorQMjoA1IQ1MNK8UZhGA

Checking in on public-sector union cases appealed to the Supreme Court 

Note: In observance of the Thanksgiving holiday, we will not be publishing Union Station on Nov. 25. The next edition of Union Station will arrive on Dec. 2.

So far this month, the Supreme Court has rejected three petitions in public-sector union cases we’ve been tracking and requested responses in three other cases. We’ll outline the details of both sets of cases below. 

But first, an update on our last edition. Illinois voters approved Amendment 1 on Nov. 8, establishing the right to collective bargaining in the state constitution and making Illinois the first state to ban right-to-work laws in its constitution. The measure passed 58.4% to 41.6%. 

Now, back to the Supreme Court: 

Denied petitions

The Supreme Court receives 7,000 to 8,000 petitions every year. In order for a petition to be granted, at least four of the nine justices must vote to hear the case. Between 2007 and 2021, the court issued opinions in an average of 75 cases per year. 

Since the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, Ballotpedia has tracked close to 200 public-sector union lawsuits in federal and state courts, over 60 of which have been appealed to the Supreme Court since the 2018-2019 term. Earlier this term, the court agreed to hear a case challenging the Federal Labor Relations Authority’s jurisdiction to regulate a collective bargaining dispute between the Ohio National Guard and the American Federation of Government Employees. Aside from that case, none of the petitions we’ve tracked since Janus have been granted. 

The Supreme Court denied the following petitions in public-sector union cases on Nov. 7 and Nov. 14: 

Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
  • Appealed from the Ninth Circuit. 
  • Appeal docketed Sept. 9, 2022. Respondents waived the right to respond. Distributed for conference on Nov. 4, 2022.
  • Question presented in the petition: “Does the Constitution allow a public-sector union to enter into a contract with a state employer that restricts a public employee’s constitutional right to resign his union membership?”
  • Petition denied Nov. 7. 
Polk v. Yee (And Quirarte v. United Domestic Workers AFSCME Local 3930, consolidated in the appellate court)
  • Appealed from the Ninth Circuit. 
  • Appeal docketed Sept. 8, 2022. Respondents waived the right to respond. Distributed for conference on Nov. 4, 2022. 
  • Questions presented in the petition
    • “Do states and unions need clear and compelling evidence that nonmembers of a union waived their First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing union speech in order to constitutionally seize payments for union speech from those individuals?” 
    • “When a union acts jointly with a state to seize union payments from nonmembers’ wages, is that union a state actor participating in a state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?”
  • Petition denied Nov. 7. 
Schaszberger v. AFSCME Council 13
  • Appealed from the Third Circuit. 
  • Appeal docketed Oct. 20, 2022. Respondents waived the right to respond. Distributed for conference on Nov. 10, 2022. 
  • Question presented in the petition: “Is there a ‘good faith’ defense under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that shields a defendant from damages liability for depriving citizens of their constitutional rights if the defendant acted under color of a state law before this Court held the law was unconstitutional?” 
  • Petition denied Nov. 14. 

Response requested

According to the clerk of the Supreme Court’s office, “The Court will sometimes schedule a case for conference, but then request a response from the respondent(s) before the petition is actually considered at conference. Such a request will be noted on the docket, and will generally give the respondent 30 days to submit the response. Once the response is received, the Clerk’s Office will place the case on the next relevant conference list that is at least 14 days after the date that the last response is filed.”

The court requested responses in the following cases: 

File v. Hickey (formerly File v. Brost)
O’Callaghan v. Drake
  • Appealed from the Ninth Circuit. 
  • Appeal docketed Sept. 9, 2022. Respondents waived the right to respond. Distributed for conference on Nov. 4, 2022. 
  • Question presented in the petition: “Whether a union can trap a government worker into paying dues for longer than a year under Janus[.]” 
  • The court requested a response on Nov. 2 and granted the respondents’ request to extend the deadline to Jan. 3, 2023. 
Savas v. California State Law Enforcement Agency
  • Appealed from the Ninth Circuit. 
  • Appeal docketed Sept. 8, 2022. Respondents waived the right to respond. Distributed for conference on Nov. 4, 2022. 
  • Questions presented in the petition
    • “Does it violate the First Amendment for a state and union to compel objecting employees to remain union members and to subsidize the union and its speech?”
    • “To constitutionally compel objecting employees to remain union members and to subsidize the union and its speech, do states and unions need clear and compelling evidence the objecting employees waived their First Amendment rights?” 
    • Amici curiae: Goldwater Institute, Americans for Fair Treatment, Alaska, et al.
  • The court requested a response on Nov. 2 and granted the respondents’ requests to extend the deadline to Jan. 3, 2023. 

What we’re reading

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 150 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s) 

Recent legislative actions

No public-sector union bills saw activity this week.


Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations.