• 
• CLASS
• JOBS
• AUTO
• HOMES

Court dismisses case over Wis. lawmakers' secrecy

MADISON, Wis. (AP) An appeals court on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit that challenged Wisconsin lawmakers' practice of sharing drafts of bills with lobbyists while withholding them from the public.

Former Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager does not have legal standing to continue the case since she left office after losing re-election in 2006, the District 1 Court of Appeals ruled.

Lautenschlager filed suit in 2005 seeking a court order declaring that drafts of bills are public records when lawmakers share them with selected lobbyists and experts. She claimed that practice was a violation of the open records law and gave special interests greater influence than average citizens.

She sued two Republicans — Rep. Scott Gunderson and former Sen. Dave Zien — after they refused to release drafts of a bill to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons they had shared with National Rifle Association lobbyists.

A Dane County judge dismissed the lawsuit last year, ruling that drafts of bills are not public records until they are formally introduced no matter who they are shared with. He also said it was questionable that courts could tell lawmakers how to conduct a core legislative function such as writing bills.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, a Republican who succeeded Lautenschlager, chose not to appeal the case. But Lautenschlager hired her own attorneys to appeal in her personal capacity.

The appeals court ruled that private citizens such as Lautenschlager do not have the right to appeal cases when the attorney general gets involved on their behalf to enforce the open records law.

"If the attorney general brings suit, it is to further the interests of the public in enforcing the open records law, not to represent an individual," the court wrote. "Thus ... Lautenschlager does not now have control over a case that was brought to further the state's interest in enforcing the open records law."

Lautenschlager said she was studying the ruling and couldn't say whether she would ask the Supreme Court to review it. She called the ruling discouraging since it did not address the merits of the practice, which she said can allow lobbyists to spend months drafting legislation before it is quickly passed with little scrutiny.

"Once a bill draft is shared in the public domain, shouldn't all of the public have access to it?" Lautenschlager said. "Is it the legislators' right to pick and choose who they want to show their hands to? That's the real issue here."

Most lawmakers — but not all — say they need the ability to consult with outside experts as they draft bills without having to share every idea with the public. Senate and Assembly leaders agreed to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money on legal fees defending the practice.

In a statement, Gunderson said he was pleased with the ruling and hoped it would "finally bring an end to this partisan lawsuit." The Waterford Republican said lawmakers fought the suit in order to protect the legislature's bill-writing powers.