An appeals court in Madison kicked Milwaukee’s paid sick days ordinance up to the state Supreme Court so it can decide whether the referendum and ordinance were constitutional. The court is being asked to decide if the ballot question was specific enoughwhether voters were informed of the contents of the referendum and subsequent ordinance. Almost 70% of city voters approved the referendum in the November 2008 election.
The parties in this case dispute whether a direct legislation ballot question put before the voters of the City of Milwaukee complied with the statutory requirement that it contain “a concise statement of [the ordinance’s] nature,” under WIS. STAT. %uFFFD 9.20(6) (2007-08)
Last summer, Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Thomas Cooper ruled that a small portion of the referendum/ordinance was invalidthe portion that allowed survivors of sexual assault, stalking or domestic abuse to use paid time off to resolve their legal issues. Cooper ruled that assault/stalking/abuse doesn’t fit into the traditional definition of paid sick days, so therefore the whole measure is unconstitutional. Cooper also questioned whether voters were adequately educated about the inclusion of assault, stalking and abuse in the paid sick days ordinance. That’s what the Supreme Court is being asked to decide now.
|
|
With respect to MMAC’s challenge to the ballot question, the court concluded that the ballot question did not meet the “concise statement” requirement of WIS. STAT. %uFFFD 9.20(6) because it did not contain enough information about the ordinance. In particular, the ballot question failed to state that the ordinance required paid sick leave for reasons outside the traditional notion of sick leave: to seek relocation due to domestic or sexual violence or stalking and to prepare for or participate in a civil or criminal legal proceeding related to domestic or sexual violence.[4] The court reasoned that absences for these reasons were separate matters that had to be detailed in the concise statement. The court also concluded that these provisions were beyond the police powers of the City and rendered the ordinance unconstitutional. The court rejected the request of the City and 9to5 to sever these portions from the rest of the ordinance. There were a number of other challenges by MMAC to the validity of the ordinance on which the court ruled against MMAC.
9to5, which organized the referendum, argues that voters were informed and that the referendum question was valid.
MMAC, which brought the suit, crowed last summer that Cooper’s decision was a huge victory, even though Cooper only agreed with them on one point of many. I guess it is a big victory, for them.
So now it goes to the Supreme Court. I have no idea what will happen next.
But I wonder if the justices were faced with a choice--give a woman a few paid days off to stop the cycle of abuse, or leave her in an abusive situation with few options--what would they choose? That’s not a constitutional question, but in this case paid sick days is the right thing to do. It gives the woman a sense of financial independence, which may be a deciding factor in her willingness to leave an abusive relationship. I understand that businesses are struggling right now, but I can’t imagine that a woman dealing with ongoing abuse or the aftermath of sexual assault is a productive employee anyway. If we want abuse and assault to end then we’ve all got a shared responsibility to make that happen.
