MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A judge on Thursday temporarily blocked Wisconsin Republicans’ contentious lame-duck laws limiting the powers of new Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, who immediately used his restored authority to pull the state out of a multistate challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess brushed aside GOP concerns that striking down the lame-duck laws would leave thousands of other statutes passed in so-called extraordinary sessions susceptible to challenge. Republican legislative leaders vowed to appeal and predicted the ruling would ultimately be overturned. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, which would have the final say, is controlled 4-3 by conservatives. “It truly is March Madness…disappointed, but not surprised that yet another Dane County judge has issued a partisan political ruling that will inevitably be overturned by a higher court,” Republican Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke tweeted. Evers called the ruling a victory, saying Republicans went too far with the lame-duck laws. Lawmakers passed the lame-duck laws during a December extraordinary session, which is a previously unscheduled floor period initiated by majority party leaders. A coalition of groups headlined by the League of Women Voters sued in January, arguing the Legislature can’t meet that way. The groups contend the Wisconsin Constitution allows lawmakers to convene only at times laid out in a law they pass at the beginning of each two-year session or at the governor’s call. Attorneys for the Legislature said that argument is absurd. They warned the judge that invalidating the concept of extraordinary sessions could expose more than 3,000 pages of laws passed during such sessions to legal challenges. The Legislature’s attorney, Misha Tseytlin, said during a hearing this week that such a scenario would be a “rolling disaster.” Niess wrote in his order that he can’t uphold the lame-duck session and remain true to the state constitution. The judge denied Tseytlin’s request for a stay and called the lawyer’s warning that an injunction would create legal chaos an “alarmist domino-theory.”
