The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear a challenge to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers' partial veto locking in a school funding increase for the next 400 years.

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.

  • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
    19·
    6 months ago

    I don’t know. Connecticut Wisconsin 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 Connecticut Wisconsin 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.

    • homura1650@lemm.ee
      111·
      6 months ago

      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

      • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
        5·
        6 months ago

        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?

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          6 months ago

          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.