Opinion ID: 2165692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: introduction

Text: On October 31, 2006, the Court issued an order indicating that, after having considered a petition for leave to commence an original action on behalf of Mark Green and the Green for Wisconsin committee, together with various other submissions of the parties, it was unable to ascertain whether the facts were in dispute, and, as a result, was unable to fully evaluate whether it was an appropriate case for original jurisdiction-a proceeding described by the Court as designed to resolve important legal questions but not to referee factual disputes. Accordingly, the Court directed Petitioners to file an amended petition setting forth the precise facts and legal theories upon which they rely, and instructed Respondents to reply. The Court also directed both parties to submit a detailed list of the issues of law which [they intend] to brief and which [they believe] the court must decide . . . The October 31 Order also indicated that the Court would appoint a reserve judge, to whom the documents would be transmitted, and who would then . . . 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. On November 8, 2006, I was appointed to undertake that task. The submissions required by the October 31st order were transmitted to me on or about November 28, 2006, and I was directed by the Court to submit . . . findings on disputed relevant facts, if any, by January 15, 2007. Pursuant to the court's directives, I convened a conference with all counsel for the purpose of determining the factual and legal issues in the proceeding, and, if necessary, to chart future courses of action consistent with court's orders. The meeting was held on December 6, 2006, with the following appearances: For Petitioners, Attys. Scott W. Hansen and Don M. Millis, Reinhart, Boerner, Van Dueren, S.C., Milwaukee. For Respondents, Christopher J. Blythe and Jennifer Sloan Lattis, Assistant Attorneys General, Wisconsin Department of Justice. For the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, amicus curiae, Atty. Tamara Beth Packard, Cullen, Weston, Pines & Bach, Madison. Based on the court's orders and the proceedings outlined above, I make the following report to court.