Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers is facing scrutiny over his recent use of expansive veto powers concerning school funding, which has led to a pivotal case before the state Supreme Court. The controversy centers around Evers’ 2023 partial veto that modified the school revenue limit, allowing a $325 increase per student annually until the year 2425. By removing a few digits and a hyphen from the original language that confined the increase to the 2023-25 school years, Evers effectively extended the funding increase for over 400 years. This move has ignited a legal battle, as conservative lawmakers contend that such a veto exceeds the reasonable limits of gubernatorial authority and disrupts legislative intent.
The lawsuit, which is backed by the Republican-controlled Legislature, raises crucial constitutional questions about the boundaries of veto power that have been contentious for decades in Wisconsin. The broad powers granted to governors through a 1930 constitutional amendment have been at the center of political tug-of-wars between parties, leading both Republicans and Democrats to seek restrictions on these powers at various points in history. The case reflects a broader concern regarding how state law interprets the governor’s ability to alter budget proposals, specifically whether the act of striking out numbers or digits is permissible under current legal frameworks.
Proponents of the lawsuit, including the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Litigation Center, argue that Evers’ actions infringe upon constitutional limitations pertaining to veto usage. They contend that the ability to simply strike digits to create new numbers poses a risk of granting governors limitless power in modifying budgetary bills, which could lead to unpredictable and potentially absurd legislative outcomes. Legal scholar Richard Briffault has argued that the nature of Evers’ veto exceeds the reasonable bounds of both legislative intent and voter expectations, underscoring the need for clarity on the limitations of veto authority.
In contrast, Evers and his legal team assert that the partial veto is a traditional part of Wisconsin’s legislative process, intended to preserve important funding increases beyond the initially proposed timeframe. They believe their interpretation of the veto is within the established legal practices of the state and argue that the constitutional limits established by amendments—such as those eliminating the so-called “Vanna White” and “Frankenstein” vetoes—do not apply in this context of creating a new numeric limit. The “Vanna White” veto, in particular, is framed around the ability to modify individual letters to create new words, while the current case involves the numerical extension of an existing law.
The history of veto usage in Wisconsin is characterized by notable instances where governors have employed their veto power creatively, such as former Republican Governor Scott Walker’s infamous “thousand-year veto” in 2017. Moreover, former Governor Tommy Thompson holds the record for the maximum partial vetoes executed in a single year. This historical context illustrates the ongoing strategic maneuvering between the legislative and executive branches, highlighting tensions around the interpretation of constitutional powers. Evers’ recent vetoes, totaling 51 in the 2023 budget, are part of this ongoing battle for control over the state’s fiscal direction, though clarity on what constitutes an acceptable partial veto remains elusive.
Despite prior rulings by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that have invalidated some of Evers’ past vetoes, the absence of unequivocal guidance from the court leaves open questions about what veto actions are permissible. Although two justices expressed the viewpoint that governors should not be able to initiate new policy through vetoes, the lack of a comprehensive court standard complicates the current legal landscape. As the case unfolds, all eyes will be on the court to provide clarity that not only impacts this specific situation but also sets a precedent for future gubernatorial veto actions and their interpretation within the context of legislative intent.
Ultimately, the outcome of the lawsuit could redefine the limits of executive power in Wisconsin, shaping the future of school funding and other budgetary concerns for years to come. As the state navigates through this latest chapter of a long-standing political argument, it underscores the precarious balance of power between the governor’s office and the legislature—an equilibrium that is central to Wisconsin’s governance and legislative process. This case presents a significant moment in state politics, with implications that may ripple through future administrative actions and legislative negotiations, maintaining Wisconsin’s legacy of vigorous political engagement and debate.