Case Title: Green for Wisconsin v. State of Wisconsin Elections Board

Citation: 2006 WI 120

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2006-10-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
2006 WI 120
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  2006AP2452-OA 
 
 
 
Green for Wisconsin and Mark Green, 
          Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
State of Wisconsin Elections Board  
and Kevin J. Kennedy, in his official  
capacity as Executive Director of the  
State of Wisconsin Elections Board, 
 
          Respondents. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 31, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
The court having considered a petition for leave to 
commence an original action filed on behalf of petitioners, 
Green for Wisconsin and Mark Green, a response filed on behalf 
of respondent, State of Wisconsin Elections Board, and further 
responses filed by the parties in response to the court’s orders 
of October 11, 2006 and October 18, 2006. 
 
The court has worked diligently to assess and determine the 
legal and factual issues presented by the parties and to reach a 
consensus on how to proceed; we have explored the difficult 
substantive and procedural issues in an attempt to bring order 
out of complex and confusing filings, all to no avail.   
 
The court also having considered a motion filed by the 
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign for leave to file a brief amicus 
curiae concerning the petition for leave to commence an original 
action by Green for Wisconsin and Mark Green;  
 
IT IS ORDERED the motion of the Wisconsin Democracy 
Campaign is granted.  The amicus brief is accepted for filing. 
No.  2006AP2452-OA 
 
2 
2 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, consistent with the procedure 
followed by this court in prior cases, including Panzer v. 
Doyle, 2004 WI 52, 271 Wis. 2d 295, 680 N.W.2d 666, and Employe 
Trust Funds Board, et al., v. Lightbourn, et al., 2001 WI  59, 
243 Wis. 2d 512, 627 N.W.2d 807, that within 10 days of the date 
of this order the petitioners shall file an amended petition in 
the form of a complaint which, in numbered paragraph form, 
specifies the precise facts and legal theories upon which they 
rely.  Within 10 days thereafter, the respondents shall file an 
answer to the amended petition/complaint.  The court will then 
submit these documents to a reserve judge, to be named later, 
who will function under the continued jurisdiction of this 
court.  The judge shall conduct such proceedings as he/she may 
deem necessary within the exercise of his/her discretion, 
including of an evidentiary nature, to determine what factual 
issues are in dispute and whether they relate to the identified 
legal issues.  
 
These further proceedings will be conducted in accordance 
with directives from the judge to the parties that will be 
forthcoming.  The judge’s findings on disputed, relevant facts, 
if any, shall be submitted to the court no later than November 
30, 2006.     
 
Because this court is not a fact-finding tribunal, it 
generally will not exercise its original jurisdiction in matters 
involving contested issues of fact. In re Exercise of Original 
Jurisdiction, 201 Wis. 123, 128, 229 N.W. 643 (1930) ("This 
court will with the greatest reluctance grant leave for the 
exercise of its original jurisdiction . . . where questions of 
fact are involved."); Wisconsin Supreme Court Internal Operating 
Procedures II.B3.  
 
This court has on two occasions issued orders asking the 
parties to clarify the facts upon which the court would have to 
resolve the matter and to identify disputed facts, if any.  It 
appears from the parties' submissions in response to those 
orders that there are truly contested issues of fact. 
 
 
The parties do not appear to agree on what facts are 
relevant, nor do they agree on the characterization of many 
facts. The parties' stipulation of facts was for the circuit 
court proceeding and it does not cover all of the facts at issue 
here.  The respondent says the only relevant facts are the 
Elections Board's record in creating the emergency rule and 
issuing the September 6, 2006 order. Petitioners say that the 
No.  2006AP2452-OA 
 
3 
3 
court must also consider the history of the Elections Board's 
actions regarding previous "conversions" of federal campaign 
accounts to state campaign accounts. Petitioners' "record" for 
purposes of an original action would apparently consist of the 
"record" transmitted by the Dane County Circuit Court from the 
earlier 
circuit 
court 
case, 
the 
Elections 
Board 
record, 
documents regarding the complaint filed with the Federal 
Election Commission, and "factual assertions offered by the 
parties." In response, although the respondent's filings have 
cited certain paragraphs in the petitioners' filings to which it 
takes exception, it has failed to identify clearly the specific 
factual allegations that it allegedly disputes.  The parties' 
seemingly inconsistent statements on the existence of disputed 
factual issues impinges upon this court's ability to evaluate at 
this point in time whether the case is of the type that should 
be resolved through the court’s original jurisdiction, which is 
designed to resolve important legal questions but not to referee 
factual disputes.   
  
The court recognizes that this case may implicate important 
and complex issues such as due process, freedom of speech, 
potentially 
retroactive 
rule-making, 
the 
federal 
campaign 
statutes, and administrative procedure/review.  Nonetheless, the 
current posture of the proceedings does not provide the 
appropriate posture for this court to undertake an original 
action for final determination of the validity of the merits of 
the Board’s interpretation and application of chapter 11 of the 
Wisconsin 
Statutes 
and 
the 
Emergency 
Rule 
to 
Green 
for 
Wisconsin/Green.   
 
Even with respect to the legal issues, the parties' 
submissions follow different paths. For example, the parties 
disagree as to whether the court must decide an issue of federal 
law in order to resolve this matter, and they disagree as to 
whether this court must follow the procedure for judicial review 
of administrative agency decisions in reviewing the Elections 
Board's actions.  The legal issues identified will require 
additional extensive briefing by the parties.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 10 days of the date of 
this order, each party  shall provide the court with a detailed 
list of the issues of law which it intends to brief and which it 
believes the court must decide in order to resolve this matter. 
In framing the issues the parties should bear in mind the issues 
identified in this court's orders of October 11, 2006 and 
October 
18, 
2006, 
including 
original, 
appellate 
or 
administrative review jurisdiction.   
No.  2006AP2452-OA 
 
4 
4 
 
The parties are advised that in the event that all factual 
disputes are settled, the legal issues presented are adequately 
set forth, and the jurisdictional issues resolved, the case may 
then be in an appropriate posture for this court to grant the 
petition for leave to commence an original action. 
 
The parties shall be subsequently notified whether the 
court will assume original jurisdiction over this action and, if 
the court decides to grant the petition for leave to commence an 
original action, the parties shall be notified of the briefing 
schedule.  
 
No.  2006AP2452-OA.jpw 
 
1 
1 
 
¶1 
JON P. WILCOX, J.   (dissenting).  I respectfully 
dissent from the above order requiring further pleadings to 
address whether or not disputed factual issues exist.   
 
¶2 
Our October 18, 2006 order asked the parties about 
disputes of fact.  Both parties responded that disputes of fact 
did not exist.  Further pleadings and factual development will 
not shed any more light on whether this court should decide to 
exercise its original jurisdiction.   
 
¶3 
The petition for original jurisdiction raises serious 
allegations.  It raises questions about retroactive rulemaking 
by a governmental agency, the right of free speech, and the 
right to due process.  In the context of a pending gubernatorial 
election, these allegations are all the more troubling.   
 
¶4 
Further pleadings are unnecessary.  Accordingly, I 
respectfully dissent from the order.   
 
¶5 
I am authorized to state that Justices DAVID T. 
PROSSER and PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK join this dissent.   
 
No.  2006AP2452-OA.dtp 
 
1 
1 
 
¶6 
DAVID T. PROSSER, J.   (dissenting).  Petitioners 
Green for Wisconsin and Mark Green ask this court to grant an 
original action to challenge an emergency rule, an "order" based 
on that rule, and public accusations by the State Elections 
Board that have damaged Green's campaign for governor.  The 
petitioners indicate that time is of the essence.  The court's 
order delays an answer to the request and thus denies the 
petitioners every scintilla of timely relief. 
 
¶7 
When the court received the petition for an original 
action, my first preference was to grant it, hear argument, and 
decide the case before the election.  This is what our court is 
supposed to do when it is faced with an urgent matter of 
critical importance to the people of Wisconsin. 
 
¶8 
My second preference was to grant the petition without 
comment and decide the case after the election.  This course 
would have allowed the petitioners to claim that this court had 
acknowledged the seriousness of the issues they presented but 
would not have allowed them to claim victory.  It would have 
stopped the bleeding even though it did not heal the wound. 
 
¶9 
My third preference was to deny the petition with a 
frank explanation that the court recognized the serious issues 
presented but did not see the case as quite ready for decision 
because the Elections Board's "order" had no legal effect 
without a subsequent circuit court judgment.  Our order could 
have stated that the court might not be able to do justice to a 
multitude of important questions in a short time frame and did 
not want to issue a decision that could affect the election.  
This candor would probably have deterred the Elections Board 
from proceeding with any enforcement action in court. 
 
¶10 The majority rejects these options in favor of 
obfuscation and delay, forcing me to file a dissent. 
 
¶11 Congressman Green is a candidate for governor.  On 
January 25, 2005, Green's federal campaign committee——Mark Green 
for Congress——converted or transferred more than $1.2 million in 
campaign funds to his newly created state campaign committee——
Green for Wisconsin. 
 
¶12 Some states have acted timely to prevent or limit this 
kind of conversion.  The Elections Board itself unanimously 
voted to propose a permanent rule to proscribe such conversions 
prospectively at a meeting on January 26, 2005.  This permanent 
No.  2006AP2452-OA.dtp 
 
2 
2 
rule became effective in December 2005.  Had this rule been in 
effect at an earlier time, Green's federal committee would not 
have been able to "convert" $1.2 million but it would have been 
able to use the money in less direct ways to benefit Green's 
campaign for governor. 
 
¶13 The Green petitioners contend that on January 25, 
2005——the day of the conversion——federal law clearly authorized 
Green's federal campaign committee to convert funds to Green's 
state campaign committee and that, on that date, nothing in 
state statute or rule prohibited or limited such a conversion.  
They point to similar conversions in Wisconsin in the past.  
They point to an existing Elections Board rule permitting such 
conversions.  They point to written analysis from the Elections 
Board's legal counsel, George Dunst, carefully explaining the 
law.  Petitioners further contend that an "emergency rule" 
approved by a divided Elections Board on January 26, 2005, was 
not 
adopted 
in 
conformity 
with 
Wisconsin 
statutes, 
was 
subsequently suspended by the legislature, and, in any event, 
could not be applied retroactively to divest Green for Wisconsin 
of hundreds of thousands of dollars it had lawfully received.  
Green's contentions implicate serious and obvious questions of 
due process (notice and retroactivity), equal protection, and 
freedom of speech. 
 
¶14 As Green sees it, the Elections Board unlawfully used 
its power to disrupt and discredit his campaign.  As a result, 
Green for Wisconsin and Green filed suit in Dane County Circuit 
Court 
for 
a 
declaratory 
judgment 
and 
injunctive 
relief.  
Injunctive relief was denied after Department of Justice 
attorneys opened a second front, claiming that virtually the 
entire transfer of funds from the federal committee to the state 
committee was unlawful.  This unexpected claim was well beyond 
anything endorsed by the Elections Board and contradicted the 
Board's official position. 
 
¶15 The Green petitioners then filed a petition for an 
original action in this court seeking relief and vindication.  
In asking this court for a favorable ruling, they knowingly 
exposed themselves to the possibility of an adverse decision on 
the merits before the election.  Believing in their position, 
petitioners bet on the fairness and integrity of this court. 
 
¶16 The court has responded with nothing but delay.  Its 
deliberate foot-dragging has prevented a timely ruling on 
Green's complaint, and its present order assures that if Green's 
position is ever vindicated, it will come too late to do him any 
No.  2006AP2452-OA.dtp 
 
3 
3 
good.  The court is not willing to indicate that it will ever 
take the case because that might imply that Green's position has 
merit. In short, a majority of the court determines that Green's 
bleeding should not stop. 
 
¶17 So much for impartiality. 
 
¶18 In evaluating this court's failure to act, the 
following observations are worth consideration: 
 
 
a. 
At least six members of Congress are currently 
running for governor in their respective states.1  The finance 
reports of the federal committees of these candidates are 
available at the website of the Federal Election Commission, 
http://www.fec.gov.  These reports indicate that the federal 
committees have "distributed" most of their money in the period 
beginning in January 2005.  They have "distributed" or expended 
far more than they have taken in.  It is hard to imagine that 
Green's federal committee did not consider various options for 
distributing its money and check on the legality of a conversion 
under federal law before it converted the entire amount to the 
state committee.  To accept the Department of Justice's position 
on federal law, one has to believe that Green's fully reported 
action was not only illegal, but also mindless or reckless. 
 
 
b. 
Contributions to and distributions from Green's 
federal committee are available for public examination at the 
website of the Federal Election Commission.  In the many months 
since Green's federal committee converted the $1.2 million, the 
Federal Election Commission has had this information at its 
fingertips.  The Commission has audited the committee's reports.  
There is no evidence that the Commission has ever disputed the 
legality of the conversion under federal law. 
 
 
c. 
The 
emergency 
rule 
approved 
by 
the 
State 
Elections Board cites the legality of conversions as the basis 
                                                 
1 In addition to Congressman Green, Representative Robert L. 
Beauprez is the Republican candidate for governor of Colorado; 
Representative James O. Davis is the Democratic candidate for 
governor of Florida; Representative Jim Nussle is the Republican 
candidate for governor of Iowa; Representative C.L. Butch Otter 
is 
the 
Republican 
candidate 
for 
governor 
of 
Idaho; 
and 
Representative Ted Strickland is the Democratic candidate for 
governor of Ohio. 
No.  2006AP2452-OA.dtp 
 
4 
4 
for the "emergency."  The Board's explanation of the emergency 
rule reads in part: 
The Elections Board finds that an emergency 
exists in the recent change in federal law that 
permits the transfer of the funds in a federal 
candidate 
campaign 
committee's 
account 
to 
the 
candidate's state campaign committee account . . . . 
In November, 
2004, Congress amended the Federal 
Election Campaign Act . . . to permit the transfer of 
a federal candidate's campaign committee's funds to 
the candidate's state campaign committee, if state law 
permitted, and subject to the state law's requirements 
and restrictions. 
 
Because of Congress' action in November, 2004, 
money which had not been available to a state 
committee under BICRA, and which might not have 
qualified for use for political purposes in a state 
campaign because of its source or because of other 
noncompliance with state law, could now be transferred 
to 
a 
state 
committee, 
if 
state 
law 
permitted.  
Wisconsin law, under the Board's current rule, E1Bd 
1.39 Wis. Adm. Code, allows for conversion of federal 
campaign committees, and their funds, to a state 
campaign committee without regard to the source of 
those 
funds 
and 
without 
regard 
to 
contribution 
limitations.  (Emphasis added.) 
 
 
d. 
The Elections Board references a general statute—
—Wis. Stat. § 5.05——as authority to adopt an emergency rule, and 
it relies primarily on its emergency rule, approved after the 
Green conversion was completed, to justify its "order."  The 
Board cites the entirety of chapter 11, not specific sections, 
to supplement the emergency rule.  If pre-2005 statutes had 
precluded the Green conversion, then the emergency rule would 
not have been necessary and the rule existing on January 25, 
2005——upon which Green depended——would have been invalid. 
 
 
e. 
The Elections Board adopted its so-called "order" 
on August 30, 2006.  It has never attempted to enforce this 
"order" by filing a court action against Green for Wisconsin.  
In short, the Board has never had the courage to test the 
validity of its "order" in court.  This suggests an intentional 
use of government power to injure a candidate rather than 
enforce the law. 
No.  2006AP2452-OA.dtp 
 
5 
5 
 
 
f. 
Because this court's order fails to grant the 
petition, it may permit a spiteful Elections Board to seek 
enforcement of its "order" in the last few days before the 
election, compounding Green's injury.  More important, it allows 
the Elections Board to drop everything it is doing after the 
election in order to make the case moot. 
 
¶19 Among the most important elements to be considered by 
this court in exercising its original jurisdiction are the 
absence of any other adequate remedy and the fact that unless 
the Supreme Court intervenes, petitioners will suffer great and 
irreparable hardship.  See Application of Sherper's, Inc., 253 
Wis. 224, 33 N.W.2d 178 (1948).  In my view, these elements are 
present in this case. 
 
¶20 Because the majority does not share this view, I 
respectfully dissent. 
 
No.  2006AP2452-OA.pdr 
 
1 
1 
 
¶21 ROGGENSACK, J. (dissenting).   I respectfully dissent 
from the above order requiring Green for Wisconsin and Mark 
Green (GFW/Green) and the Wisconsin Elections Board (Board) to 
file yet another round of pleadings and to further address 
whether there are disputed factual issues.  I would grant the 
petition and exercise original jurisdiction, just as we did in 
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Nader v. Circuit Court for Dane 
County, 04-2559-W (2004).  I would do so because the allegations 
made in the petition for original jurisdiction allege violations 
of the right of free speech, the right to due process of law and 
retroactive rulemaking by a governmental agency.   
 
¶22 These are serious allegations.  If they have no 
support in the law, the people of Wisconsin deserve to know it.  
However, if these allegations are supported by the law, the 
people of Wisconsin have a right to know that as well.   
 
¶23 Neither 
further 
factual 
development 
nor 
further 
pleading is necessary for this court to decide whether to 
exercise its original jurisdiction.  GFW/Green and the Board 
agree that the stipulation of facts that was filed with the 
circuit court is factually accurate.  (GFW/Green October 19, 
2006 Response, p. 17; Board October 19, 2006 Response, p. 11)  
They also agree that the stipulation of facts provides a factual 
framework for the dispute before us.2  The legal issue to be 
decided in the exercise of our original jurisdiction is whether 
GFW/Green's January 25, 2005 transfer of funds held by his 
federal campaign fund to GFW was lawful on the date the transfer 
was made.     
 
¶24 The above order unnecessarily delays making a decision 
on this issue until after the November 7, 2006 election, even 
though GFW/Green filed its petition for original jurisdiction on 
October 9, 2006.  The people of Wisconsin have a right to know 
whether the GFW/Green or the Board acted lawfully before 
November 
7, 
2006. 
 
This 
order 
makes 
that 
impossible.  
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the order. 
 
                                                 
2 As the Board explained in its last submission to this 
court, "the Elections Board would stipulate to all facts to 
which the parties stipulated in the circuit court, which the 
Elections Board believes provides an accurate picture of the 
procedural history of the issues in dispute."  Board October 19, 
2006 Response, p. 11. 
No.  2006AP2452-OA.pdr 
 
2 
2 
¶25 I am authorized to state that Justice DAVID T. PROSSER 
joins this dissent. 
 
 
 
No.  2006AP2452-OA.pdr 
 
3 
3