Last week, as the California Supreme Court was making national headlines for overturning California's gay marriage ban, local attorney Tamara Packard was putting the final touches on the final legal brief on behalf of her client, William McConkey, who is challenging Wisconsin's gay marriage ban.
Packard and lead counsel Lester Pines filed the brief Monday, a little less then two weeks before they are due to appear before Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess for oral arguments. Lawyers for the state Department of Justice also are scheduled to appear on May 30.
Packard and Pines, of Cullen, Weston, Pines & Bach, say they would not be surprised if Niess issues his ruling that day.
"The newer judges, because of the way they are trained these days, do tend to rule from the bench," said Packard. That's great for litigants, she added, "because we then keep things moving, we know what's going on and we don't have to sit around waiting."
If Niess does not rule from the bench, he would likely have about 90 days from the hearing date -- or any subsequent legal action concerning the case -- to issue a decision.
While the California Supreme Court ruled that the California ban did not pass constitutional muster, the issue before Judge Niess is much more narrow. McConkey also had originally claimed that Wisconsin's constitutional amendment violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, but Niess ruled in September that McConkey did not have standing to sue on that issue.
Niess did, however, allow McConkey to proceed on the question of whether the referendum on the fall 2006 ballot asked two questions rather than one -- whether to ban gay marriage and whether to prohibit anything "substantially similar" to marriage. Significantly, a provision in the Wisconsin Constitution, known as the single subject rule, prohibits referendum questions from asking multiple questions.
The Department of Justice argues in its brief that the marriage amendment is constitutional because its parts relate to the same subject matter and are designed to accomplish the same thing.
But if the judge agrees with McConkey that the referendum did pose two questions to voters, the state's constitutional amendment, which was approved by 59 percent of voters, would be overturned.
Packard and lead counsel Lester Pines filed the brief Monday, a little less then two weeks before they are due to appear before Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess for oral arguments. Lawyers for the state Department of Justice also are scheduled to appear on May 30.
Packard and Pines, of Cullen, Weston, Pines & Bach, say they would not be surprised if Niess issues his ruling that day.
"The newer judges, because of the way they are trained these days, do tend to rule from the bench," said Packard. That's great for litigants, she added, "because we then keep things moving, we know what's going on and we don't have to sit around waiting."
If Niess does not rule from the bench, he would likely have about 90 days from the hearing date -- or any subsequent legal action concerning the case -- to issue a decision.
While the California Supreme Court ruled that the California ban did not pass constitutional muster, the issue before Judge Niess is much more narrow. McConkey also had originally claimed that Wisconsin's constitutional amendment violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, but Niess ruled in September that McConkey did not have standing to sue on that issue.
Niess did, however, allow McConkey to proceed on the question of whether the referendum on the fall 2006 ballot asked two questions rather than one -- whether to ban gay marriage and whether to prohibit anything "substantially similar" to marriage. Significantly, a provision in the Wisconsin Constitution, known as the single subject rule, prohibits referendum questions from asking multiple questions.
The Department of Justice argues in its brief that the marriage amendment is constitutional because its parts relate to the same subject matter and are designed to accomplish the same thing.
But if the judge agrees with McConkey that the referendum did pose two questions to voters, the state's constitutional amendment, which was approved by 59 percent of voters, would be overturned.
No comments:
Post a Comment