AG’s opinion gives grounds for senator to stay in office

There will be plenty of changes in the legislature as a result of new district boundaries being drawn and incumbents forced to run in new districts to retain their seats.

One of the more peculiar situations is in the redrawn 23rd senate district which includes all of Taylor, Clark, Price, Rusk and Barron Counties as well as portions of Chippewa and Dunn Counties and the northwest portion of Marathon County including Colby, Abbotsford and Athens.

The 23rd Senate District is currently represented by Jesse James who was elected to represent the district in November 2022. However, as part of the redistricting process, James no longer lives in the 23rd district.

According to a 37-year-old attorney general’s opinion, which itself was based on an even older opinion, James is allowed to continue to represent a district he doesn’t live in until his term is up in 2025.

According to John Johnson a research fellow at Marquette University Law School, who has studied and written papers on the redistricting process and impacts of the various options, there is a 1987 Attorney General’s opinion regarding vacancies of county board seats that have be redistricted allowing incumbents to retain their seats until the expiration of their terms.

According to Johnson, the premise is that the supervisors vacate their seats when they move, but does not vacate when the seat moves away from them.

That attorney general’s opinion was based on one from the early 1980s regarding state senators saying that a vacancy does not occur in that situation and the senator is entitled to serve the remainder of their term even without living in the district they represent.

Johnson is quick to point out that attorney general opinions provide guidance in the absence of laws or actual court rulings.

“They are not law, but they are highly persuasive,” Johnson said.

However, he noted that in this type of situation, there is a question that could be raised if someone wished to have it decided by the courts.

“There is some possible legal uncertainty,” Johnson said.