Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Wisconsin Marriage Decision

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held today that a voter and taxpayer has standing to challenge an amendment that provides that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The court set out the facts:

In November 2006, the people of Wisconsin approved the adoption of the following amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.  A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

In July 2007, William McConkey, a voter and taxpayer, filed suit alleging, among other things, that this amendment (the "marriage amendment") was submitted to the people in violation of the constitution's requirement that voters must be allowed to vote separately on separate amendments (the "separate amendment rule").  In other words, McConkey claimed that the two sentences of the marriage amendment constituted two amendments, not one, and that because voters were not able to vote for or against each sentence, the marriage amendment was not validly adopted.  The Attorney General countered that McConkey did not have standing to bring this claim because he suffered no actual injury, and maintained that the amendment was adopted in conformity with the separate amendment rule.

The court held:

...the two propositions contained in the marriage amendment plainly relate to the subject of marriage.  And as the text of the amendment and context of its adoption make clear, the general purpose of the marriage amendment is to preserve the legal status of marriage in Wisconsin as between only one man and one woman.  Both propositions in the marriage amendment relate to and are connected with this purpose.  Therefore, the marriage amendment does not violate the separate amendment rule of Article XII, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution.  Rather, the marriage amendment was adopted by the people of Wisconsin using the process prescribed by the constitution, and is properly now part of our constitution...

In summary, though the precise nature of McConkey's alleged injury is difficult to define, we conclude that the policy considerations underlying our standing doctrine support addressing the merits of McConkey's claim, which we therefore choose to do.

We hold that Article XIII, Section 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution——the marriage amendment——was adopted in conformity with the separate amendment rule in Article XII, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which mandates that voters must be able to vote separately on separate amendments.  Both sentences of the marriage amendment relate to marriage and tend to effect or carry out the same general purpose of preserving the legal status of marriage in Wisconsin as between only one man and one woman.

(Mike Frisch)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2010/06/the-wisconsin-supreme-courtheld-today-that-a-voter-and-taxpayer-has-standing-to-challenge-an-amendment-that-provides-that-mar.html

Law & Society | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0134851cb827970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wisconsin Marriage Decision:

Comments

Post a comment