Opinion ID: 551133
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion To Reinstate Defendant Vocke

Text: 74 In its Decision and Order dated May 18, 1987, the Court held that defendant Vocke was protected by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity in his issuing of various orders that were the subject of plaintiffs' complaint. In their motion to reinstate, plaintiffs argue that defendant Vocke was not officially a judge when he issued the writ since he had failed to file an oath of office. In response, the Wisconsin Attorney General, on behalf of Vocke, argues that no oath of office needed to be filed when Vocke was serving as reserve judge, and, further, Vocke's oath as a circuit judge carried over to his time as a reserve judge. 75 Chapter 757.02, Wis.Stats., requires every person elected or appointed judge of the circuit court shall take, subscribe and file the oath given in that chapter. An oath also is required by section 28 of article IV of the Wisconsin Constitution. An affidavit of defendant Vocke, submitted with the state's brief, avers that he took an oath as a circuit judge on January 2, 1979. He also states that as a circuit judge, he executed and filed an Oath of Office. 76 Vocke became a reserve judge in January of 1983. According to documents filed with the state's brief, it was the policy of Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan S. Heffernan at that time not to require reserve judges to execute and file a new oath of office. That policy was changed by the Chief Justice, through the Director of the State Courts Office, to require reserve judges to execute an oath as a precondition of office. The change became effective January 1, 1985. The Chief Justice's authority over reserve judges is given by Article VII, section 3(1) and section 24(3) of the Wisconsin Constitution and by Supreme Court Rule 70.01. 77 Thus the issues become (1) whether Vocke's circuit court oath was sufficient for his duties as a reserve judge prior to 1985; and (2) assuming no valid oath, whether Vocke loses his absolute immunity as a result. 78 The oath required by Ch. 757.02 reads as follows: STATE OF WISCONSIN County of ______________ 79 I, the undersigned, who have been elected (or appointed) to the office of ____, but have not yet entered upon the duties thereof, do solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Wisconsin; that I will administer justice without respect to persons and will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of said office to the best of my ability. So help me God. 80 ______________ (Signature) 81 Subscribed and sworn to before me this ___ day of ____, 19___ 82 ______________ (Signature) 83 Chapter 753.075, Wis.Stats., contains the eligibility provisions for reserve judges. They read: 84 (2) Eligibility. The following persons may serve temporarily on appointment by the chief justice of the supreme court as a reserve judge of the court of appeals or the circuit court for any county: 85 (a) Any person who, as of August 1, 1978, has served a total of 8 or more years as a supreme court justice or circuit judge; or 86 (b) Any person who has served 4 or more years as a judge or justice of any court or courts of record and who was not defeated at the most recent time he or she sought reelection to judicial office. 87 Nowhere do the provisions refer to the oath requirements of Ch. 757.02. They do, however, require a reserve judge to have served as a judge or justice for at least four years. Thus the provisions would seem to assume that eligible judges have already taken and filed an oath of office at least once. On the other hand, the eligibility requirements also would seem to contemplate that eligible reserve judges are not currently serving as circuit judges or in another official capacity. At best, the statutes provide an ambiguity that the Chief Justice wisely corrected in 1985. At worst, this Court is faced with a number of serious questions not addressed by the parties: Does the constitutional authority of the Chief Justice over reserve judges supercede the statutory requirement of the filing of the oath? If no oaths were filed by all reserve judges prior to 1985, do all the rulings of those judges become void? Should public policy dictate otherwise? 88 The Court declines at this time to address these questions simply because it feels the answers would not affect defendant Vocke's absolute immunity. Absolute immunity is based on public policy, not constitutional or statutory provisions. See May 18, 1987 Decision and Order at 8-9. The Court finds that even assuming that reserve judges should have been required to take and file new oaths prior to 1985, defendant Vocke does not lose his absolute immunity. He clearly was following the dictates of the Chief Justice in failing to do so. In all other respects, Vocke was performing a judicial function. Furthermore, in the Decision and Order dated May 18, 1987, the Court specifically held that declaring null and void court orders that had already been acted upon or executed would involve adjudicating moot issues. The Court then dismissed plaintiffs' claim for a declaratory judgment that would have voided, among other things, defendant Vocke's writ of assistance. Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES the motion to reinstate him as a defendant.