A recent case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court highlights the ongoing debate over the extent of the governor’s partial veto powers. Governor Tony Evers used his veto power in 2023 to extend a school funding increase for K-12 public schools until 2425, a span of over four centuries. This move, supported by the Republican-controlled Legislature, has sparked controversy and led to questions about the limits of the governor’s authority to alter legislation through vetoes. Justices on the court described the veto as “extreme” and “crazy,” raising concerns about the potential impact on legislative and voter intent.
Legal scholars and attorneys representing various parties in the case argued that Evers’ veto was unjustified and exceeded the limits of the partial veto power granted to governors. The court was urged to declare that the governor cannot alter numbers in a budget bill to create a new timeline or extend the duration beyond what was approved by the Legislature. The debate raised concerns about the potential for governors to wield unlimited power through creative interpretations of the partial veto process. Justices grappled with the need for limitations on such actions while acknowledging the complexity of drawing the line on acceptable vetoes.
The case highlighted the historical context of Wisconsin’s partial veto power, which was established through a 1930 constitutional amendment but has since been modified in response to controversial vetoes by past governors. Amendments in 1990 and 2008 restricted the ability to make specific types of partial vetoes, such as striking individual letters to create new words or eliminating words and numbers to form new sentences. The current lawsuit focuses on whether Evers’ veto falls within the boundaries set by previous constitutional amendments, particularly the ban on the “Vanna White” veto technique. Evers’ attorneys argued that the veto in question did not violate the restrictions on the “Vanna White” veto.
The ongoing power struggle between the governor and the Legislature in Wisconsin has resulted in a game of legislative chess, with each side trying to anticipate and counteract potential creative vetoes. Previous rulings by the Wisconsin Supreme Court have overturned some of Evers’ partial vetoes, leading to uncertainty about the boundaries of gubernatorial authority in the veto process. The court’s upcoming ruling in this case, controlled by a liberal majority, will likely have significant implications for future budget negotiations and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. The decision will influence how governors exercise their veto powers and the extent to which they can shape state budgets.
