Wisconsin Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Governor's 400-Year Veto

The case stems from a 2023 budget bill where Evers increased the revenue limit for K-12 public schools by $325 per student annually until 2425, effectively removing the intended two-year limit set by the legislature. The Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Litigation Center, supported by the Republican-controlled state legislature, argues that this veto exceeds the bounds of the state’s constitutional amendments that restrict the governor’s ability to manipulate budget language. Legal experts and justices have expressed concerns about the implications of such a veto, suggesting it could grant the governor excessive power to unilaterally alter legislative intent. As the court deliberates, there is a growing consensus that clearer limitations on partial vetoes may be necessary to prevent future controversies.

Background on Partial Veto Power

Wisconsin’s partial veto power was established in 1930 but has been modified over the years, particularly through amendments in 1990 and 2008 that sought to curb the governor’s authority to manipulate legislation creatively. The amendments specifically banned the “Vanna White” veto, which allowed governors to strike individual letters to form new words, and the “Frankenstein” veto, which enabled the creation of new sentences from existing legislative text. Evers’ recent veto has reignited debates about the scope and limitations of this power, a contentious issue that has seen both Republican and Democratic governors utilize vetoes for strategic legislative purposes.

Legal Arguments

During the court proceedings, attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that Evers’ actions violate the 1990 amendment by effectively creating a new revenue stream that was not approved by the legislature. They contend that allowing such manipulation of digits in budget language would set a dangerous precedent, granting future governors unchecked authority over state budgeting processes. Conversely, Evers’ legal team defends the veto as a legitimate exercise of his authority, asserting that the constitutional amendment does not explicitly prohibit the alteration of digits to extend funding timelines.

Judicial Perspectives

Justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court have expressed mixed views on the matter. Some have labeled Evers’ veto as “extreme” or “crazy,” reflecting concerns about the potential for an expansive interpretation of gubernatorial powers. Others, however, acknowledge the need for a more structured framework regarding partial vetoes to ensure that future actions remain within the bounds of legislative intent. As the court prepares to issue a ruling in the coming months, the outcome could significantly impact the balance of power between the governor and the legislature in Wisconsin.