Lautenschlager's impartiality questioned

Not exactly impartiality, but rather a question of whether or not Wisconsin's Attorney General has a conflict of interest. According to this story in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,

Lautenschlager's presence at the July 17 [gay and lesbian pride] rally in Madison comes at the same time a lawsuit over domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples is pending against the State of Wisconsin. As attorney general, Lautenschlager is defending the state in that case.

Her position,

"What my point of view is on those cases - my personal point of view or political point of view - is often diametrically opposed to the position we take as a department," Lautenschlager said. "That's what lawyers do."

A legislator's concern,

"She is so far conflicted on this, especially with what she did at this rally," said Rep. Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin). "You see clearly why the Legislature and local units of government feel there needs to be other legal representation in this lawsuit."

The ACLU of Wisconsin is involved in the case on the plaintiffs' side. The Alliance Defense Fund has filed a motion for the legislature seeking to intervene in the case. The article describes these organizations thus,

... the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, which advocates for individual freedoms.

... The Alliance Defense Fund, a non-profit legal firm in Scottsdale, Ariz., that is linked to evangelical Christians ...

Update: A July 27, 2005 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial makes this distinction.

She [Lautenschlager] says she knew that a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, which is assisting the complainants, would speak, but not that two of the complainants themselves would do so, too. Once she learned, however, she should have backed out.

(The editorial goes on to say the AG "committed no mortal sin" and decry the involvement of the "...Alliance Defense Fund, a law firm in Arizona linked to evangelical Christians. ...")

Update 2: Judith Davidoff reports in The Capital Times of July 28, 2005 that the AG has moved for what sounds like summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit.

"We're asking for a judgment in the state's favor since there are no factual disputes and, thus, it's a matter of law," [Kelly Kennedy, spokesman for Lautenschlager] Kennedy said.

Kennedy said the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in 1992 issued a binding decision that found the state's law on domestic partnership benefits did not discriminate against homosexuals, but rather made a distinction between married and unmarried individuals.

"We believe the court can make its decision based on that precedent," he said.

The headline and subhead
"AG seeks to nix partner lawsuit
Despite gay pride rally appearance"
seem to indicate the headline writer saw a conflict.