Supreme Weekly: Budgets and pensions hit the courts
This article may not adhere to Ballotpedia’s current neutrality policies.
June 16, 2011
by: Katy Farrell
Budgets, pensions, money. It's been a rough year for states trying to balance a budget, especially while the state Supreme Courts keep a watchful eye. This week we're going to look at fiscal rulings in the courts. We'll also check back in with Virginia, to try and find out why the court's vacancies still haven't been filled, over four months later.
Wisconsin
On Tuesday the Wisconsin Supreme Court ended the debate over the legality of Governor Scott Walker's collective bargaining plan. The high court struck down a ruling by Maryann Sumi, stating that a committee of lawmakers is not subject to Wisconsin's open meetings law. In addition, the ruling accused Sumi of invading the Legislature's constitutional powers.[1] The majority ruling was supported by Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler. The other three justices concurred and dissented with part of the decision, meaning that no justice fully disagreed with the result.[1]
The collective bargaining law will soon go into effect, once the Secretary of State officially publishes the bill. In addition to the changes to bargaining, public employees in Wisconsin will soon start paying more for their healthcare and pensions, effective around August.[1]
Nevada
In this column on June 2nd, we discussed the potential ramifications of a court's ruling for the governor and legislature in the state. With only twelve days left before the state budget had to be approved, the Nevada Supreme Court in Clean Water Coalition v. The M. Resort v. State of Nevada found that the state could not allocate local funds to balance the state budget. Though the decision only specifically addressed $62 million of funds, Governor Sandoval recognized the farther reaching implications of the ruling, since the proposed budget was comprised of ten times that amount in a patchwork of local funds. Ultimately, the surprising ruling from the high court forced the governor and to renege on his campaign promise of not extending taxes.[2]
| Remember the case? |
|---|
|
Throughout the process of recreating a state budget, one has to respect the tone of the debate. The governor understood and respected the authority of the Supreme Court and worked quickly to interpret the decision broadly in order to comply with it. The Nevada State Legislature, though not free from argument over the new landscape, is now happy with the results.[2]
In other states around the nation recently, decisions unpopular with lawmakers have prompted threats of impeachment. In a year of almost unprecedented importance regarding major rulings, the Nevada Supreme Court has been relied upon as an co-equal branch of government. In addition to the budget ruling, it is determining the procedure for a special legislative election and is soon to be pulled into Nevada's redistricting debate. These hot button issues are a departure from the sessions in year's past, when court decisions didn't necessarily captivate the interest of the public.[4]
California
Onto the balancing of another state budget, yesterday the California State Legislature passed a budget with huge cuts to the courts. The new deal agreed on a $150 million reduction in court spending, which comes on top of the $200 million cut that occurred in March. Earlier in the week, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said the passage of that budget would be "devastating and crippling to the judicial branch."[5]
Though direct implications of the new budget have not been addressed, the State Finance Department predicts that state courts will need to close twice a month to meet its expenditures. That echoes the reality of the budget in Alabama, where Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb authorized weekly court closures in April.[6]
UPDATE: After the legislature passed a state budget, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed it. As of June 20th, California is operating past the June 15th deadline for a state budget. The effect of this on the courts is still to be determined.[7]
| New Hampshire violates separation of powers |
|---|
|
Michigan
In Michigan, the governor requested that the court determine whether his proposed tax on state pensions is constitutional. In asking for the review, Governor Rick Snyder hopes to prevent years of legal wrangling from public employee groups. Though court review of legislation isn't a new concept, it certainly seems novel this year.
For their part, the Michigan Supreme Court will decide whether personal income tax on pension income can work within the bounds of the prohibition "against impairing or diminishing a public pension benefit."[9] Since the plan also intends to put recipients of the pension in different tax brackets, the court will also rule on whether it violates the equal protection clause of the Michigan Constitution and the United States Constitution. The case of both sides will be brought on September 7, and other parties are encouraged to petition the court in the next fifty-six days.[9]
Virginia
Political gridlock has gripped the Virginia House and Senate, allowing vacancies on the Virginia Supreme Court to linger for months. Details of the situation have been more forthcoming in recent weeks, providing the public with a glimpse of the legislative debate. It's clear that both the Republican-dominated House and the Democratic-controlled Senate have selected their choices to fill seats on the high court. The House supports Elizabeth A. McClanahan, while the Senate wants Cleo E. Powell. The debate now is who would be appointed to fill those vacancies on the Virginia Court of Appeals. There, the House is supporting Steven R. McCullough and Glen Huff and the Senate wants Kenneth R. Melvin on the appellate court.[10]
Meanwhile, the court has patched together a group of senior judges to serve in the interim. Currently four senior judges are helping with the caseload. Ironically, one of them is Lawrence Koontz, who created one of the vacancies with his mandatory February retirement. As dictated by law, he retired when he reached the age of 70.[10]
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Supreme Court reinstates collective bargaining law," June 14, 2011
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Las Vegas Review Journal, "High court ruling removed roadblock to budget," June 12, 2011
- ↑ Billings Gazette, "Gazette opinion: Supreme Court upholds law in climate debate," June 16, 2011
- ↑ RGJ.com, "Nevada Supreme Court has huge role this year," June 12, 2011
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Chief justice: 'Crippling' California court cuts would be 'a blow against justice'," June 14, 2011
- ↑ The San Bernardino Sun, "Jurist says massive budget cuts will damage court system," June 15, 2011
- ↑ Stateline, "Will California legislators continue getting paychecks?" June 20, 2011
- ↑ Concord Monitor, "High court: House can't demand suit," June 16, 2011
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 MLive.com, "Michigan Supreme Court agrees to consider legality of taxing public pensions," June 15, 2011
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 The Washington Post, "Disagreement over nominees leaves Virginia Supreme Court shorthanded," June 11, 2011
| |||||
