Winnig, Joel v. Alexander, James et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 22 Motion for Reconsideration. The August 9, 2010, deadline for defendants response to plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction (dkt. #9) is stricken and defendants response is now due July 26, 2010. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 7/9/2010. (vob)

W i n n i g , Joel v. Sellen, Keith L.

D o c . 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOEL WINNIG, Candidate for Supreme Court Justice, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. 10-cv-362-slc1 KEITH L. SELLEN, in his official capacity as the Director of the Office of Lawyer Regulation, an operating subsidiary of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Defendant. P lain tiff Joel Winnig wants to solicit and accept personally campaign contributions f r o m potential voters in hopes of qualifying to receive the public financing benefit in his cam paign for a position as a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the upcoming April 20 11 election. Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 60.06(4) forbids such actions. Winnig sough t a temporary restraining order (dkt. #10) preventing SCR 60.06(4) from applying to him , which the court denied (dkt. #21). Winnig has filed a motion asking the court to recon sider its denial of his TRO. Dkt. #22. For the reasons below, the motion to reconsider w ill be denied. "A motion that merely republishes the reasons that had failed to convince the tribunal in the first place gives the tribunal no reason to change its mind." Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 ORDER

Because the parties' decisions on whether to consent to Magistrate Judge Crocker's jurisdiction have not yet been filed, District Judge Conley will preside over this case until those decisions are filed.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004). Here, Winnig provides no new facts or arguments that w ou ld persuade the court to change its mind and grant his TRO. In particular, he advances n o new, meaningful distinctions between Siefert v. Alexander, No. 09-1713, 2010 WL 23 46 65 9, at *14 (7th Cir. June 14, 2010) and his case. Winnig, again, focuses on the fact that he plans to conduct a publicly-funded campaign involving limited financial con tribution s from the public generally and any single person specifically. As explained in the court's previous order, however, this distinction does not change the application of Siefert to Winnig's claim for relief. See Order Den. TRO, dkt. #21, at 3-4 ("While the solicitation or giving of very large contributions may escalate the impropriety, it is the personal solicitation by the judicial candidate that creates the appearance of corruption and partiality. Id . at *14 (`the personal solicitation itself presents the greatest danger to impartiality and its a p p e a r a n c e ' )" . ). W innig argues that an additional distinction is his freedom of association claim, w h ich the plaintiff in Seifert did not raise. Winnig, however, fails to explain how SCR 60.06(4) prohibits him from associating with people who want to donate or even who have do nated to his campaign. The rule prohibits him from directly soliciting money from people o r taking an unsolicited contribution from them without the money going through some third party, such as a campaign manager. Winnig need not engage in either prohibited action to associate with anyone. As explained in the court's earlier decision, some of the facts in Seifert are different than those in Winnig's case, but not materially so. In addition to requesting reconsideration of the denial of his TRO, Winnig requests

2

that the briefing schedule for his preliminary injunction motion be amended so that defendan t's response is due July 26, 2010, as opposed to August 9, 2010. The court notes tha t although Winnig did not file a brief or findings of fact with his initial or amended m otio ns for a preliminary injunction, he has since filed both documents, see dkts. ##16 and 17. The court also notes that Winnig has indicated his intent not to submit any additional m aterials beyond what is already in the record. Because Winnig's complete submissions have been filed with the court and served on defendant, defendant's response deadline will b e moved up to July 26 t h .

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that (1) Pla in ti ff Joel Winnig's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his em po rary restraining order (dkt. #22) is DENIED; T h e August 9, 2010, deadline for defendant's response to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (dkt. #9) is stricken and defendant's response is n o w due July 26, 2010.

(2 )

E n tered this 9t h day of July, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ W IL L IA M M. CONLEY D istrict Judge

3