The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear a challenge to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ partial veto that locked in a school funding increase for the next 400 years, the justices announced Monday.
The Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Litigation Center filed a lawsuit in April arguing the governor exceeded his authority. The group asked the high court to strike down the veto without waiting for the case to go through lower courts.
The court issued an order Monday afternoon saying it would take the case. The justices didn’t elaborate beyond setting a briefing schedule.
At issue is a partial veto Evers made in the state budget in July 2023 that increased revenue public schools can raise per student by $325 annually until 2425. Evers took language that originally applied the $325 increase for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years and vetoed the “20” and the hyphen to make the end date 2425, more than four centuries from now.
At first, I was like “How the fuck is the court gettinginvolved in a veto?” but then I read the rest and it makes perfect sense. That’s not how vetoes work. Otherwise, you’d have governors being like “This bill prov
idesfunding for some boring ass normal shitthateveryone agrees, includingthedumbassGovernorpreserveshistoricalsites,also is in thebestinterest of thegoverned, andrepresents the will of all citizens.”I’m not sure why the rush, though. They have several hundred years to go through the courts in normal fashion.
I don’t know.
ConnecticutWisconsin might have a different form of the veto that permits something other than “reject an entire bill or accept”.The federal government only lets the President veto the whole thing or not.
But it looks like most state governments give some form of partial veto, which gives the governor a lot more power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_States
Forty-four of the 50 U.S. states give their governors some form of line-item veto power; Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont are the exceptions.
While
ConnecticutWisconsin probably didn’t intend to permit this particular use, maybe there’s some loophole in the constitution that permits for it.EDIT: deleted, had somehow read the thing as “Connecticut”. Connecticut’s state constitution is explicit that partial vetoes must be of distinct items
EDIT2:
Apparently Wisconsin’s constitution doesn’t explicitly say that the vetoed part has to be a distinct item, the way that Connecticut’s does.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi/000231/000025
Chief executive officer to approve or veto resolutions or ordinances; proceedings on veto. Section 23a. [As created Nov. 1962 and amended April 1969] Every resolution or ordinance passed by the county board in any county shall, before it becomes effective, be presented to the chief executive officer. If he approves, he shall sign it; if not, he shall return it with his objections, which objections shall be entered at large upon the journal and the board shall proceed to reconsider the matter. Appropriations may be approved in whole or in part by the chief executive officer and the part approved shall become law, and the part objected to shall be returned in the same manner as provided for in other resolutions or ordinances. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of the members-elect of the county board agree to pass the resolution or ordinance or the part of the resolution or ordinance objected to, it shall become effective on the date prescribed but not earlier than the date of passage following reconsideration. In all such cases, the votes of the members of the county board shall be determined by ayes and noes and the names of the members voting for or against the resolution or ordinance or the part thereof objected to shall be entered on the journal. If any resolution or ordinance is not returned by the chief executive officer to the county board at its first meeting occurring not less than 6 days, Sundays excepted, after it has been presented to him, it shall become effective unless the county board has recessed or adjourned for a period in excess of 60 days, in which case it shall not be effective without his approval. [1959 J.R. 68, 1961 J.R. 64, vote Nov. 1962; 1967 J.R. 49, 1969 J.R. 2, vote April 1969]
So…I dunno. Maybe the Wisconsin Supreme Court will buy it, say that maybe it was a mistake in writing the constitution, but as-written, he can do that. Or maybe they’re gonna say that it’s an invalid interpretation of the constitution.
If they say that it’s valid, I kind of suspect that Wisconsin’s gonna amend their constitution so that governors can’t pull that stunt any more.
EDIT3: Apparently the governor in question had been a teacher prior to being a governor.
Line item vetoes are one thing (which I oppose, but can understand).
The veto in question turns “2024-25” into “2425”
Looking the the Wisconsin constitution, there seems to be 2 relevant sections:
The first is the authority for partial vetoes.
Appropriations may be approved in whole or in part by the chief executive officer.
In my opinion, this already does not authorize, the type of creative vetoing the governor tried.
However, the constitution goes on to clarify:
In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill, and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences of the enrolled bill.
It would take an obtusely literal reading of these provisions to allow for striking individual digits and puncuation marks to create new numbers.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi_unannotated
Do we have a original textualist group in Wisconsin? Otherwise I have trouble thinking a governor would expect this to actually fly. Is this a contrived case to get this potential loophole to court to close it? Or am I too optimistic about governer thought processes?
iirc it was a “fuck you” to the other party because of their reluctance to provide school funding. I doubt the governor expected it to stay for the next few hundred years.
Didn’t John Oliver do an episode about this exact kind of veto?
At issue is a partial veto Evers made in the state budget in July 2023 that increased revenue public schools can raise per student by $325 annually until 2425. Evers took language that originally applied the $325 increase for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years and vetoed the “20” and the hyphen to make the end date 2425, more than four centuries from now.
For those wondering. he basically decided to change the term. Which, might sound like a really good idea, but any one wanna take a guess what the inflation is going to look like 400 years from now? This strikes me as being unnecessarily stupid.
It’s a law, it can be changed by another vote. Even if it was in the constitution, they could just amend it.
It was an interesting workaround, and just changes the conversation for the next bill.
I’m at a loss to understand why it’s an “interesting workaround because it changes the conversation for next time”. I mean that’s a pretty low bar, meaning you could lump Trump’s Project 2025 under that same umbrella, even though they are not even close in their strength or ability to utterly kill the conversation.
It is literally wasting time on dumb shit when there’s a lot of important stuff that could be done instead.
That is an absolutely absurd line-out veto. It’s the kind of “malicious compliance” I would like to do as my last act in office before retiring.
Removed by mod
This is longstanding precedent in their location and is technically allowed by law. Still dumb though, even if I do like this particular governor.
What’s stopping from vetoing any bill and making it say what you want?
Ab
solutely no cartsninopeaisles while-gallopingAbortion is legal
(Fucked up a few letters but point remains)
You can’t strike letters to make new words, or parts of sentences to combine sentences. But striking digits and punctuation within one sentence to turn two numbers into a different number is technically neither of those. Your example would not be allowed.
Sometimes a Governor can get a little silly, as a treat.
Lots of states have allowed this. I think most legislators probably got angry at some point and changed it.
In the year twenty-four twenty-five…
