Dane County’s district attorney further argued his position on the temporary publishing hold of Gov. Scott Walker’s collective bargaining bill Tuesday through a response to the attorney general’s appeals case.

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne said in his response to state Attorney General J.B Van Hollen that the district court did in fact have the legal authority to prevent publication of a bill that passed through a Legislative process that allegedly violated Wisconsin’s open meetings law.

“Nothing in the open meetings law limits the authority of a court, in the appropriate case, to enjoin publication of legislation that results from a violation of the open meetings law, so long as the balancing of public interests supports that outcome,” Ozanne said in his response.

The appeal filed by Van Hollen on Monday alleged the court that issued the restraining order had no authority over the legislators while they were in session and could not void a law based on the Legislature’s failure to adhere to Wisconsin procedural statutes, according to a statement from the Department of Justice. 

Ozanne said Van Hollen’s argument would hold a court powerless to overturn a law even where it is undisputed that both houses of the Legislature violated every requirement of the open meetings law, which would prevent a court from voiding governmental action that violated an open meetings law despite Wisconsin statutes granting them this power.

While creating the open meetings law in 1975, the Legislature discussed the use of the courts to nullify a law passed without 24-hour notice, and would have explicitly exempted itself from that possibility if they did not value the relief the district attorney sought, Ozanne said.

If the bill is found to have violated the open meetings law after lawmakers hastily convened a special committee to take the fiscal components out of the budget repair bill in order to pass it without the Democratic senators present, Ozanne said subsequent actions by the Senate, Assembly and Walker would be voided as well.

However, Ozanne did acknowledge that the Legislature could remedy the situation by taking up the bill again in a special committee, but this time provide 24-hour notification as required by the open meetings law. They could then pass the bill without legal ramifications.