So Act 10 was a 50 page long bill that changed multiple different parts of the Wisconsin statutes. And the challenge that I raised back in the 2011, 2012 period was focused on a particular provision that it challenged. My understanding of the new case that's now moving through the courts is that it involves a different provision. So, so you know, you saw that Justice Hagedorn decided to recuse from that case because he not only was involved in drafting Act 10, but was involved in a defense to the exact same provision that is now at stake. (29:36–29:43)
CLAIM
Asserts that the current legal case regarding Act 10 involves a different provision than the one she challenged.
This is an excerpt from a raw transcript. The assertions have not been audited or verified. Tap the video to view the source footage and understand the context.
