Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's office just released this absurd statement and becoming the latest GOP lemming to ratationalizing the unrationable:
The LRB has the mandatory ministerial duty to publish laws within ten working days of approval of the governor. This duty to publish exists independent of any duty the Secretary of the State has with respect with the publication of the laws.
Ummm... no. Actually, the state law clearly says in 35.095(3)(b) that the SOS and the SOS alone sets the date of publication:
(b) The secretary of state shall designate a date of publication for each act and every portion of an act which is enacted by the legislature over the governor's partial veto. The date of publication may not be more than 10 working days after the date of enactment.
The "date of publication" is the key, here. And the "date of publication" is defined in the definitions as:
"Date of publication" means the date designated by the secretary of state under sub. (3)
As the words would have you believe, "date of publication" is the date of publicaition. Then, and only then, is the LRB allowed to publish the publication.
The larger issue, however, that the Attorney General, the brothers Fitz, and Walker don't appreciate is that in the decision from Judge Sumi they were specifically told (as the defendents) not to proceed further:
I do, therefore, restrain and enjoin the further implentation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10.
That is pretty unambigous and pretty dang clear.
The next line, she specifically mentions La Follette and publication:
The next step in implementation of that law would be publication of that law by the Secretary of State. He is restrained and enjoined from such pubication until further order of this court.
But, just because she gave a specific order to La Follette, doesn't mean everyone else is off the hook from following her broader order to "restrain and and enjoin the further implentation" directed at all the defendents.