FOLKS....NEO-LIBERAL MARYLAND HAS NOT ONLY SYSTEMIC ELECTION FRAUD IN THE CASE OF THE ELECTION FOR GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND BUT A NEW LAW THAT PLACES ONLY ANNE ARUNDEL COURTS AS JURISDICTION FOR ELECTION LAWSUITS SHOULD HAVE EVERYONE UP IN ARMS.....THIS IS A REAL POWER-GRAB THAT THREATENS CIVIL RIGHTS AND ELECTION FREEDOM. THESE CONDITIONS ARE WHAT HAS EXCLUDED LABOR AND JUSTICE AND SEEK TO MAKE THAT PERMANENT! Subject Jurisdiction always allows courts in each county/city to handle that subject----for example----disability court/family court. Law that limits a subject (election) to just one county looks to be unconstitutional.
CINDY WALSH IS STILL EXPECTING TO BE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION FOR GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND!
I want to use today to talk election issues by looking at my lawsuit claiming widespread election irregularities in the Democratic Primary race for Governor of Maryland should invalidate the election results. As neo-liberals pretend to protect election rights they are consolidating the power of these incumbents with legislation threatening the public's ability to hold the elections process accountable.
Below you see the next step of my court case in Maryland. I have filed the complaint, served the defendants, written an amended complaint, and the 30 day response period for defendants just passed. We now need the court to set the trial date and verify it will accept jurisdiction. In other words----if the court is going to dismiss this case it needs to do it now. Routine cases can see a wait of 4 months just for jurisdiction and trial date....my case is expedited because Maryland law requires a speedy process for contests to elections for Governor. I'm not a lawyer so all that I do is not correct or the best approach----but it should get to the end result.
I want to note some of the concerns I have while doing this. First, the Maryland Assembly moved the cost of funding for Legal Aid---a Federal/Maryland Constitutional right from the state budget to people who file complaints in court nearly doubling the cost to the public to go to court. The average person will feel the expense of $135 filing fee. Then Maryland has the plaintiff bare the costs of serving the defendants. In many cases courts include this serving with the filing fee. Not too bad with one defendant---but it becomes pretty expensive if you have multiple defendants. Maryland also has the laws that place the burden of trial costs on plaintiff if case is not won. I know this cuts on frivolous lawsuits but in an atmosphere of fraud and corruption one doesn't have to have a bad case to not win. Remember, my case should have been handled by the Maryland Attorney General protecting my rights as a candidate so I should not even be self-representing or taking this to court. All the costs of multiple copies of trial evidence and motions----all the costs of mailing to all defendants should be falling on Maryland Attorney General's office. They do not have a public justice section or funding allotted to it. So costs can easily grow to thousands of dollars by the trial's end.
August 26, 2014
Cindy Walsh files motion to Baltimore City Circuit Court regarding date of trial and jurisdiction
Civil Action # 24-C-14-004156
Plaintiff notice to court and defendants of prospective trial dates
Plaintiff's Notice Requirement
It is the responsibility of the plaintiff's counsel to give notice of trial and settlement conference dates, times and departments. Only dates set by the court will be noticed by the court.
Your Full Name: Cindy Walsh - Plaintiff
Phone Number (with area code):
Case Number: 24-C-14-004156
Case Title: Cindy Walsh vs Bobbie Mack et al
Name of Party Representing: Self-representing----Cindy Walsh
Cindy Walsh vs Bobbie Mack is an expedited case due to the case being a contest of the election for Governor. The plaintiff requests the trial dates of September 8, 10, or 12, 2014 to meet the expedited requirement set by Maryland law and to give the defendant Linda Lamone added with an amended complaint a two week preparatory period. The original complaint filing and affidavit of process serving of summons was July 21, 2014 with August 21 meeting the original 30 day period for defendant response. The plaintiff has received no response from any defendant as of August 21 so the court should not have pending responses. Due to the expedited nature of this case the plaintiff calls for the court to shorten these scheduling proceedings to include the court's moving forward with setting the trial dates as listed above.
Cindy Walsh is self-representing
2522 N Calvert St
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
The plaintiff filed this complaint in the Circuit Court of Baltimore and not Anne Arundel County because this case is not protesting actions at the polls, actions regarding ballot presentation or presentation of election material by Maryland Board of Elections. This is not an official capacity lawsuit; it is an individual capacity lawsuit claiming willful and deliberate violation of Federal and State law and Civil Rights. The plaintiff also seeks to challenged the Maryland Assembly's right to legislate which court is given jurisdiction in contests to elections. It has been the right of a plaintiff to file suit in any court qualifying for jurisdiction and the election process effects all citizens of the state. This case and elections do not qualify for special jurisdiction. Special jurisdiction such as family court has a presence in all counties/cities and is not particular to any one county. It without a doubt creates an environment of conflict of interest, bias, and/or undue power to have one court system handling all cases especially of a subject having strong civil rights implications like elections.
Many of the election irregularities included in this case occurred in Baltimore City, the plaintiff lives in Baltimore City, and the Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, a defendant has his office in Baltimore City. This motion not only seeks to bring to the attention of the court that this case contesting the election for Governor of Maryland is by law directed to be handled in an expedited manner, but seeks to avoid dismissal on the grounds of jurisdiction. This is an ongoing election with the General Election for Governor of Maryland officially beginning after Labor Day so the Baltimore Circuit Court has the power to rule on jurisdiction without regard to the constitutional challenge and must set the trial date or dismiss sooner rather than later due to the expedited rules of the case.
The plaintiff concerns regarding delays in setting a court trial include:
- The 30 day period after serving of summons with no response from defendants should provide the court with rights to set a trial date earlier than normal cases. The plaintiff includes in this motion the request for trial dates with the dates desired listed.
- The plaintiff filed an amended complaint and does not receive summons for two weeks and only by making two calls. The rule of summons has a three-day turn-around from time complaint is filed to issuing summons. The plaintiff loses two weeks in setting trial date because of this delay. Second, the summons for the new defendant in this amended complaint is given 30days for response rather than falling into the time line of the original complaint. If the summons had been sent to the plaintiff in three days this window of two weeks remaining in the original time line would have given the new defendant time to respond to the court. As it is the court looks to add another month and a half to setting a trial date which fails to meet the expedited nature of this case and denies justice for the plaintiff. The new defendant, Linda Lamone needs to be made aware by the court she does not have 30 days to respond in this case and will instead have two weeks (14 days). The 30 day period for the original defendants to respond was over August 22, 2014 ----Lamone will be served by August 25 so we need the trial date set two weeks after this service date. Resolving this court case the first week in September falls into the ongoing election cycle. If the Baltimore Circuit Court decides to dismiss on grounds of jurisdiction the 5 day Appeal requirement of this Maryland election law will have the case resolved with expediency.
- The plaintiff was told on August 22, 2014 by the court clerks handling filings that the court has not even reviewed defendant responses for this case and will take time to do that before setting a trial date. This sounds like more delay. Since the plaintiff has received no communication from any of the defendants, and the defendants are required by law to include the plaintiff in any communication with the court, it is safe to say the court had no response issues to consider. We need to set the trial date in two weeks to meet the expedited nature of this case.
- The plaintiff provided proof of process to all defendants in this case by certified mail with restricted delivery. Signatures were obtained at the addresses attached to each defendant. On August 4, 2014, the envelope with all of the court documents and summons delivered to Heather Mizeur was returned to Cindy Walsh at her address unopened and stripped of all identifying delivery indicators such as the certified mail and restricted delivery paperwork attached the said envelope as if never delivered. Plaintiff does not want this used as reason to delay trial date.
The plaintiff asks this court to set this trial date with the original filing date in mind and notify the new defendant Linda Lamone that the 30 day period to respond is actually 14 days. Plaintiff will not receive justice in this case if a decision on trial date does not occur soon after Labor Day.
2522 N Calvert St
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
MARYLAND ELECTION LAW:
Title 12 Subtitle 2. Judicial Review of Elections
12-202. Judicial challenges
a) In general--- If no other timely and adequate remedy is provided by this article, a registered voter may seek judicial relief from any act or omission relating to an election, whether or not the election has been held, on the grounds that the act or omission:
1) is inconsistent with this article or other law applicable to the elections process; and
2) may change or has changed the outcome of the election.
b) Place and time of filing.---- A registered voter may seek judicial relief under this section in the appropriate circuit court within the earlier of:
1) 10 days after the act or omission or the date the act or omission became known to the petitioner; or
2) 7 days after the election results are certified, unless the election was a gubernatorial primary or special primary election, in which case 3 days after the election results are certified. (An Code 1957, art. 33, 12-202; 2002, ch.291, 2, 4)
a) In general. ------- The court may provide a remedy as provided in subsection (b) or (c) if this section if the court determines that the alleged act or omission materially affected the rights of interested parties or the purity of the elections process and:
1) may have changed the outcome of an election already held; or
2) may change the outcome of a pending election.
b) Act or omission that changed election outcome. ----If the court makes an affirmative determination that an act or omission was committed that changed the outcome of an election already held, the court shall:
1) declare void the election for the office or question involved and order that the election be held again at a date set by the court; or
2) order any other relief that will provide an adequate remedy.
c) Act or omission that may change outcome of pending election. ----- If the court makes an affirmative determination that an act or omission has been committed that may change the outcome of a pending election, the court may:
1) order any relief it considers appropriate under the circumstances; and
2) if the court determines that it is the only relief that will provide a remedy,, direct that the elections for the office or question involved be postponed and rescheduled on a date set by the court.
d) Clear and convincing evidence. ----- A determination of the court under subsection (a) of this section shall be based on clear and convincing evidence. (An Code 1957, art. 33, 12-204; 2002, ch. 291, 2, 4)
The motion below addresses what I feel is a real threat to the public's ability for impartial judicial action. Maryland just passed a law that requires contests of elections be given to the courts in Anne Arundel. Special jurisdiction for elections. This mirrors having jurisdiction for Wall Street banks in the states having a strong banking presence. It gives the defendant the immediate advantage with the plaintiff having no control of jurisdiction. This is why if we sue banks we are taken to New York or North Carolina because that is where Wall Street and Wall Street South is located. Having special jurisdiction for something as general as elections taken to one county takes the plaintiff out of his/her district and into what we all know is a very crony Annapolis system.....which is what this lawsuit is about. A plaintiff has always had the right to file where he/she wants if the jurisdiction rules are met.....I live/work in Baltimore/many of the crimes were committed here.....for example. I ate lunch one day in Annapolis and asked where to go to share my views on issues and the restaurant owner told me----they don't want you there----they do as they like. Is there bias against this kind of lawsuit in Anne Arundel courts? Let's stay with the historical precedent of plaintiffs filing in any court they want and even special jurisdiction courts are available in every county/city.
So, I am challenging the law setting Anne Arundel with special jurisdiction for elections. Now, I filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court rather than Anne Arundel because I want this court to decide whether to take jurisdiction or dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. The contest of constitutionality will still go to Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler as he is a defendant in this lawsuit. As a plaintiff I can take this to the Maryland AG and then the US AG if necessary to fight this special status.
The law states that the Baltimore City Court does not have to wait for the resolution of constitutionality to set a date of trial or dismiss so none of this should delay this court case. If Baltimore moves to dismiss----I will head to the Appeals Court with this case. What is most important is getting the court to keep the spirit of the Maryland law calling for expedited trial for contests of Maryland election for Governor.
Contesting the 2013 Maryland Statute assigning Anne Arundel County as the only court to hear election contests.
The Plaintiff asserts that the law setting Anne Arundel County as the only jurisdiction for a plaintiff to file election lawsuits is not valid, or do not constitutionally exist as they do not conform to certain constitutional prerequisites, and thus are no laws at all, which prevents subject matter jurisdiction to the above-named court. A state statute cannot undermine Federal law. This is not an official capacity lawsuit.
Special jurisdiction such as family court has a presence in all counties/cities and is not particular to any one county. It without a doubt creates an environment of conflict of interest, bias, and/or undue power to have one court system handling all cases especially of a subject having strong civil rights implications like elections.
Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear particular types of cases. In state court systems, statutes that create different courts generally set boundaries on their subject matter jurisdiction. One state court or another has subject matter jurisdiction of any controversy that can be heard in courts of that state.
The plaintiff filed this election lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Baltimore because that is where the plaintiff lives, that is where much of the election irregularities occurred, and the Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, a defendant in this case has his office in Baltimore. The plaintiff has legal history as the one deciding jurisdiction. I am sending this contest to constitutionality to the Maryland Attorney General as part of this lawsuit. The Circuit Court of Baltimore must rule on jurisdiction in this particular case in an expedited manner as Maryland law places urgency on any contest of election for Maryland Governor. This is an ongoing election and a ruling of jurisdiction cannot wait. The case was filed and summons served to the original defendants over 30 days ago giving defendants time to petition the court. As yet no trial date has been set damaging the plaintiff's right to due process and expedited trial. This court can rule on jurisdiction before the Maryland Attorney General makes a ruling on constitutionality. If the Baltimore Court finds it does not have jurisdiction it will dismiss the case as such allowing the plaintiff to appeal.
Jurisdiction may refer to the origin of a court's authority. A court may be designated either as a court of general jurisdiction or as a court of special jurisdiction. A court of general jurisdiction is a trial court that is empowered to hear all cases that are not specifically reserved for courts of special jurisdiction. A court of special jurisdiction is empowered to hear only certain kinds of cases.
ARTICLE IV Part III - Circuit Courts.
SEC. 20. (a) There shall be a Circuit Court for each County and for Baltimore City. The Circuit Courts shall have and exercise, in the respective counties, and Baltimore City, all the power, authority and jurisdiction, original and appellate, which the Circuit Courts of the counties exercised on the effective date of these amendments, and the greater or lesser jurisdiction hereafter prescribed by law.
By rule, each of the Circuit Courts is required to have a differentiated case management plan “for the prompt and efficient scheduling and disposition of actions[.]” Such plans vary by jurisdiction, but include the classification of cases by complexity and priority, to be assigned to particular scheduling “tracks” based on that classification. Consistent with applicable court rule, the Circuit Courts have endeavored to make their differentiated case management plans as similar as possible; in practice, however, the plans do vary somewhat among the Circuit Courts.
In a federal and state civil law suit, the plaintiff decides where a case is going to be heard by filing the complaint at whatever court she chooses. An individual or a company may file a claim in any jurisdiction for any reason. The historical precedence is long-standing.
Rule 5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute
(a) Notice by a Party. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly:
(1) file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper that raises it, if:
(A) a federal statute is questioned and the parties do not include the United States, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; or
(B) a state statute is questioned and the parties do not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; and
(2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned—or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned—either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.
(b) Certification by the Court. The court must, under 28 U.S.C. §2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned.
(c) Intervention; Final Decision on the Merits. Unless the court sets a later time, the attorney general may intervene within 60 days after the notice is filed or after the court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. Before the time to intervene expires, the court may reject the constitutional challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional.
(d) No Forfeiture. A party's failure to file and serve the notice, or the court's failure to certify, does not forfeit a constitutional claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted.
Notes (As added Apr. 12, 2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2006; amended Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007.)
Committee Notes on Rules—2006
Rule 5.1 implements 28 U.S.C. §2403, replacing the final three sentences of Rule 24(c). New Rule 5.1 requires a party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing in question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute to file a notice of constitutional question and serve it on the United States Attorney General or state attorney general. The party must promptly file and serve the notice of constitutional question. This notice requirement supplements the court's duty to certify a constitutional challenge to the United States Attorney General or state attorney general. The notice of constitutional question will ensure that the attorney general is notified of constitutional challenges and has an opportunity to exercise the statutory right to intervene at the earliest possible point in the litigation. The court's certification obligation remains, and is the only notice when the constitutionality of a federal or state statute is drawn in question by means other than a party's pleading, written motion, or other paper.
Moving the notice and certification provisions from Rule 24(c) to a new rule is designed to attract the parties’ attention to these provisions by locating them in the vicinity of the rules that require notice by service and pleading.
Rule 5.1 goes beyond the requirements of §2403 and the former Rule 24(c) provisions by requiring notice and certification of a constitutional challenge to any federal or state statute, not only those “affecting the public interest.” It is better to assure, through notice, that the attorney general is able to determine whether to seek intervention on the ground that the act or statute affects a public interest. Rule 5.1 refers to a “federal statute,” rather than the §2403 reference to an “Act of Congress,” to maintain consistency in the Civil Rules vocabulary. In Rule 5.1 “statute” means any congressional enactment that would qualify as an “Act of Congress.”
Unless the court sets a later time, the 60-day period for intervention runs from the time a party files a notice of constitutional question or from the time the court certifies a constitutional challenge, whichever is earlier. Rule 5.1(a) directs that a party promptly serve the notice of constitutional question. The court may extend the 60-[day] period on its own or on motion. One occasion for extension may arise if the court certifies a challenge under §2403 after a party files a notice of constitutional question. Pretrial activities may continue without interruption during the intervention period, and the court retains authority to grant interlocutory relief. The court may reject a constitutional challenge to a statute at any time. But the court may not enter a final judgment holding a statute unconstitutional before the attorney general has responded or the intervention period has expired without response. This rule does not displace any of the statutory or rule procedures that permit dismissal of all or part of an action—including a constitutional challenge—at any time, even before service of process.
Changes Made After Publication and Comment. Rule 5.1 as proposed for adoption incorporates several changes from the published draft. The changes were made in response to public comments and Advisory Committee discussion.
The Advisory Committee debated at length the question whether the party who files a notice of constitutional question should be required to serve the notice on the appropriate attorney general. The service requirement was retained, but the time for intervention was set to run from the earlier of the notice filing or the court's certification. The definition of the time to intervene was changed in tandem with this change. The published rule directed the court to set an intervention time not less than 60 days from the court's certification. This was changed to set a 60-day period in the rule “[u]nless the court sets a later time.” The Committee Note points out that the court may extend the 60-day period on its own or on motion, and recognizes that an occasion for extension may arise if the 60-day period begins with the filing of the notice of constitutional question.
The method of serving the notice of constitutional question set by the published rule called for serving the United States Attorney General under Civil Rule 4, and for serving a state attorney general by certified or registered mail. This proposal has been changed to provide service in all cases either by certified or registered mail or by sending the Notice to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.
The rule proposed for adoption brings into subdivision (c) matters that were stated in the published Committee Note but not in the rule text. The court may reject a constitutional challenge at any time, but may not enter a final judgment holding a statute unconstitutional before the time set to intervene expires.
The published rule would have required notice and certification when an officer of the United States or a state brings suit in an official capacity. There is no need for notice in such circumstances. The words “is sued” were deleted to correct this oversight.
Several style changes were made at the Style Subcommittee's suggestion. One change that straddles the line between substance and style appears in Rule 5.1(d). The published version adopted the language of present Rule 24(c): failure to comply with the Notice or certification requirements does not forfeit a constitutional “right.” This expression is changed to “claim or defense” from concern that reference to a “right” may invite confusion of the no-forfeiture provision with the merits of the claim or defense that is not forfeited.
Committee Notes on Rules—2007 Amendment
The language of Rule 5.1 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.
Determining the Constitutionality of Laws By John DiMotto
Today, I want to examine the Rules of Statutory Construction that are considered by the courts when a constitutional challenge to legislation is raised.
When a party claims that a law is unconstitutional, that party is claiming that the law is at odds with a provision in either the US or the Wisconsin Constitution or both and, as such, the law cannot stand or be enforced. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition defines "Constitution" as:
"The organic and fundamental law of a nation or a state...establishing the character and conception of its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing, and limiting the functions of its different departments, and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers. A charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed. The written instrument agreed upon by the people ... of a particular state, as the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments (ie. branches) and officers of the government in respect to all the points covered by it, which must control until is shall be changed by the authority which established it (ie. by amendment), and in opposition to which any act or ordinance of any such department or officer is null and void."
It is a fundamental bedrock of our government, by virtue of the "separation of powers," that:
1) The Legislature enacts the law.
2) The Executive enforces the law.
3) The Judiciary interprets the law.
Thus, when a law is challenged as being unconstitutional -- an affront to the constitution -- it is the judiciary which makes the final decision.
A party has standing to challenge a statute's constitutionality if that party has a sufficient interest in the outcome of a justiciable controversy to obtain a judicial resolution of that controversy. Standing involves a two step analysis. The court must determine whether the plaintiff has suffered threatened or actual injury and the interest asserted must be recognized by law. see State v. Oak Creek, 232 Wis.2d 612 (2000).
The Rules of Statutory Construction as they pertain to constitutionality provide that:
1) Statutes enjoy a presumption of constitutionality, and,
2) All doubts are resolved in favor of constitutionality.
3) Therefore, a party challenging a statute's constitutionality bears a heavy burden and must demonstrate the statute is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.
see Ferdon v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 284 Wis.2d 573 (2005).
The only exception to the challenger bearing the burden of proof is when a statute infringes on a First Amendment Right. In this instance, the State has the burden of proving constitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. see State v. Trochinski, 253 Wis.2d 38 (2002).
A constitutional challenge to a law can be:
1) A "facial" challenge; that is, on its face, the law is unconstitutional in every context, or
2) An "as applied" challenge; that is, the law is unconstitutional as to the challenger alone.
see State v. Smith, 323 Wis.2d 377 (2010).
A constitutional challenge to a law can be based on:
1) Overbreadth -- a statute is overbroad when its language is so sweeping that its sanctions may be applied to constitutionally protected conduct which the State is not permitted to regulate. see County of Kenosha v. C & S Management Inc., 223 Wis.2d 373 (1999). In order to assert a claim of overbreadth, it is not necessary that a person's own conduct be constitutionally protected. The overbreadth analysis reflects the conclusion that possible harm to society from allowing unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech will be muted. Thus, if a statute included in its prohibition conduct which is constitutionally protected, it is void even if the person's own conduct is unprotected and may be prohibited by a more narrowly drawn law. see State v. Johnson, 108 Wis.2d 703 (Ct. App. 1982). The danger in overbroad statutes is that they provide practically unbridled administrative and prosecutorial discretion that may result in selected prosecution based on certain views deem objectionable law enforcement. However, overbreadth must be real and substantial. Marginal infringement or fanciful hypotheticals of inhibition which are unlikely to occur will not render a statute unconstitutional on overbreadth grounds. see State v. Stevenson, 236 Wis.2d 86 (2000).
2) Vagueness -- a statute is vague if it fails to afford proper notice of the conduct it seeks to proscribe. The test for vagueness is whether a statute is so obscure that men of ordinary intelligence must guess as to its meaning and differ as to its applicability. To withstand a vagueness challenge it must be sufficiently definite so that potential offenders are able to discern boundaries of proscribed conduct. see Johnson, supra. Procedural due process is at issue. see County of Kenosha, supra.
3) Procedural Due Process -- requires that a person who has life, liberty or property at stake must be afforded the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Failure of a statute to so provide renders a statute unconstitutional. see Estate of Makos v. Masons Health Care Fund, 211 Wis.2d 41 (1997).
4) Substantive Due Process -- the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause is a guarantee of "more than a fair process." It contains a substantive sphere as well barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them. The threshold inquiry when analyzing an alleged violation of substantive due process is whether the challenger has established a deprivation of a liberty or property interest protected by the constitution. see Dowhower v. West Bend Mutual Ins. Co., 236 Wis.2d 113 (2000).
5) Equal Protection -- a statute which treats members of similarly situated classes differently violates the Fourteenth Amendment. If the challenge implicates a fundamental right or suspect classification the statute is subject to a strict scrutiny test. It must be shown by the State that the regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn. see State v. Baron, 318 Wis.2d 60 (2009). If the challenge does not implicate a fundamental right or suspect classification then the statute is subject to a rational basis test. It must be shown by the challenger that the regulation is not rational. All doubts are resolved in favor of constitutionality. see Nankin v. Village of Shorewood, 245 Wis.2d 86 (2001).
Whenever there is a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute, notice must be given to the Wisconsin Attorney General under 806.04(11) so he/she can decide whether the State wishes to be heard above and beyond the parties to the lawsuit.