Case 2019CV000084

Document 132

Filed 03-14-2019

Page 1 of 3
FILED
03-14-2019
CIRCUIT COURT
DANE COUNTY, WI
2019CV000084

 Case 2019CV000084 Document 132 Filed 03-14-2019 Page 2 of 3

defendants? argument that a declaratory judgment action could not be maintained, the court found
that the claim ?was not an action against the state,? but rather ?an action against the enforcing
of?cer to prevent him from doing that which it is claimed he has no legal right to 252 Wis.
at 64.

This case is the opposite of Berlowitz, as it involves the constitutionality of state statutes,
as to which the Elections Commission defendants take no position. Their authority is not in
question, nor is there any suggestion that they will not abide by a decision of this court. They are
not proper parties to this action.1

As to it was cited in the initial brief of these defendants solely as an example of
the limitations imposed on the Commission?s authority to act. While the statute itself provides a
time frame for the issuance of guidance following the ?publication? of a binding decision, it by no
means implies that the Commission need only abide by published judicial decisions or that any
decision impacting its statutory duties is effectively stayed for two months.

Finally, Sections 91-95 of Act 369 primarily concern the issuance of state identification
cards. The Elections Commission does not issue such cards. The provisions of Act 369 that relate
to the administration of elections, Sections lk and 92, are not enforceable until and unless Judge
Peterson?s injunction is overturned. As to those provisions, there is no controversy ripe for judicial

determination.

 

1 It is noteworthy that the plaintiffs have not brought suit against all parties impacted by the challenged laws, including
the 82 individuals whose appointments were con?rmed. Must those individuals be joined as defendants lest they not
be bound by any injunctive relief ordered by the court, including any among those 82 who were appointed to the
bench?

Case 20190V000084 Document 132 Filed 03-14-2019 Page 3 of 3

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated in their brief in chief and herein, it is respectfully requested that the

Election Commission defendants be dismissed from this action.

Dated: 3/14/19 LAWTON CATES, S.C.
Attorneys for Defendants Dean Knudsen, Jodi
Jensen, Julie M. Glancey, Beverly Gill, Ann S.
Jacobs, Mark L. Thomsen, and Meagan Wolfe

Dixor/R. 24367
Daniel P. Bach, 0 5751
Terrence M. Polich, 1031375

  

345 W. Washington Ave, Suite 201
PO Box 2965

Madison, WI 53701-2965

PH: 608-282-6200

Fax: 608-282-6252

lnwtonutteacom
dbach??lawtoncatescom