By of the

Madison — In a stunning twist, Gov. Scott Walker's legislation limiting collective bargaining for public workers was published Friday despite a judge's hold on the measure, prompting a dispute over whether it takes effect Saturday.

The measure was published to the Legislature's website with a footnote that acknowledges the restraining order by a Dane County judge. But the posting says state law "requires the Legislative Reference Bureau to publish every act within 10 working days after its date of enactment."

The measure sparked protests at the Capitol and lawsuits by opponents because it would eliminate the ability of most public workers to bargain over anything but wages.

The restraining order was issued against Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette. But the bill was published by the reference bureau, which was not named in the restraining order.

Laws normally take effect a day after they are published, and a top GOP lawmaker said that meant it will become law Saturday. But nonpartisan legislative officials from two agencies, including the one who published the bill, disagreed.

"I think this is a ministerial act that forwards it to the secretary of state," said Stephen Miller, director of the Legislative Reference Bureau. "I don't think this act makes it become effective. My understanding is that the secretary of state has to publish it in the (official state) newspaper for it to become effective."

Walker signed the bill March 11. Under state law, it must be published within 10 working days, which was Friday.

It hasn't been printed in the Wisconsin State Journal, the official state newspaper, as other laws are. Late Friday, State Journal publisher Bill Johnston said in an e-mail that the notice for the law had been scheduled to run but had been canceled. He did not elaborate.

La Follette urged caution Friday, saying the measure has not been published yet by his office. He said he believes the law cannot go into effect until he directs the State Journal to publish it, which he has not done.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said it didn't matter that it hasn't appeared in the paper.

"It's published," Fitzgerald said. "It's law. That's what I contend."

Fitzgerald and Miller met Friday. Miller said Fitzgerald asked him to publish the law and, after reading the statutes, Miller agreed that he could do so. He said he had never published a law without being given a date by the secretary of state during his 12 years of running the reference bureau.

After the restraining order was issued March 18, La Follette sent a letter that same day to the reference bureau rescinding earlier instructions to publish the bill Friday. "I further instruct you to remove all reference to March 25, 2011, as the publication date and not to proceed with publication until I contact you with a new publication date," his letter said.

Walker's top cabinet official, Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch, gave only a brief statement reacting to Friday's news.

"Today the administration was notified that the LRB published the budget-repair bill as required by law," he said. "The administration will carry out the law as required."

Effect questioned

In a memo to Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha), an attorney for the nonpartisan Legislative Council said that the legislation would not become law based on Friday's action. That's because although state law provides for a separate role for both the reference bureau and the secretary of state in publishing laws, the section in state law on when legislation takes effect refers only to action by the secretary of state, the memo said.

Barca pointed to the memo in sharply criticizing Republican statements.

"This bill has been under a cloud of suspicion since day one," Barca said. "Today's actions and statements are only perpetuating the problem."

Last week, Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat, filed a complaint to block the law, saying a committee of lawmakers violated the open meetings law when they approved it. Republicans say they didn't violate the meetings law.

In her March 18 decision, Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued the restraining order to prevent La Follette from publishing the law. But she also made a blanket statement that she was blocking the further implementation of the law.

"I do, therefore, restrain and enjoin the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10. The next step in implementation of that law would be the publication of that law by the secretary of state. He is restrained and enjoined from such publication until further order of this court," she said.

The Department of Justice appealed the restraining order, and on Thursday an appeals panel - without weighing in on the merits of the case - said the state Supreme Court should take up the matter. The high court has not decided what to do.

Bill Cosh, a spokesman for Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, said in a statement that no action of the secretary of state is needed for the reference bureau to publish the measure. Cosh noted that La Follette is not in violation of the restraining order because he did not direct the reference bureau to publish the bill.

"The Wisconsin Department of Justice will evaluate how the lawful publication of Act 10 affects pending litigation. We have no further comment at this time," Cosh said.

Late Friday, Ozanne sought a new temporary restraining order in the case, but Duty Judge Sarah O'Brien declined to set a hearing, noting one was already scheduled for Tuesday.

Ozanne issued a statement saying that he had been surprised by the publication and by the fact that it was sought by a "named defendant in the lawsuit," a reference to Fitzgerald.

Ozanne said the action by the reference bureau had no significance and "should be resolved in a court of law."

Howard Schweber, a professor of political science and legal studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said Friday's actions amounted to "entirely uncharted waters."

He said that the action Friday didn't remove the possibility that the Supreme Court could take up the question of the restraining order against La Follette. He questioned how the justices would react to a publication step being taken before they had made any decision.

"No matter what happens next, it's going to be one heck of a show," he said.

New suit filed

Also Friday, another suit was filed over the law, bringing to three the total number of cases now pending.

Madison firefighters and public works employees filed suit in Dane County Circuit Court against Walker and the state seeking to block the law from taking effect, saying it had been passed in violation of the state constitution.

The Madison workers allege that the law treats some union workers unfairly compared with other workers. The law also violates constitutional provisions requiring that three-fifths of lawmakers be present to vote on certain financial bills, the lawsuit alleged.

The named plaintiff in the lawsuit is Jamie O'Brien, a public works employee who lives in Madison.

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the lawsuit. It followed actions by Ozanne, acting Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and other county officials.

The budget-repair measure was meant to shore up the state's finances through June 30 but drew massive protests because of the collective bargaining changes. It stalled when Senate Democrats left the state Feb. 17 to block action on the measure. The state constitution requires 20 of 33 senators - three-fifths of the body - to be present to vote on bills with certain fiscal elements, and Republicans hold just 19 seats.

After three weeks, Republicans quickly convened a conference committee March 9 to strip appropriations out of the bill. They said the changes meant they no longer needed 20 senators to be present.

Other provisions with financial effects for the state, such as requirements that state employees pay more for their health and pension benefits, remained in the bill. Those provisions should have also required a vote by 20 senators, the lawsuit filed Friday argues. Republicans have also disputed that claim.

Lee Bergquist of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report.